ArticlePsicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS2025
Performance-based metacognitive tests versus self-report: what does prediction tell us?
Article in Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe measurements of metacognition through performance-based tasks are better predictors of academic performance than those based on self-report tests, but evidence on the prediction of academic performance by standardized performance-based metacognition tests is scarce. The reason is that there are few tests of this nature with psychometric evidence of validity and reliability. Only a single study with Honduran university students compared the prediction of academic performance by a standardized performance-based test, and a self-report test in which both measure cognition regulation, a metacognitive construct. The results indicated that only the standardized performance-based test predicts academic performance, and the measures of these tests are not correlated.
objectiveTwo hypotheses are investigated in this article: (1) performance-based metacognitive tests predict academic performance better than self-report metacognitive tests; (2) there is a null correlation between measures of cognition regulation from performance-based standardized tests and self-report tests.
methodA sample of 264 university students and graduates from Brazil, with an average age of 21.1 years, is used in the study. The majority are female, from private institutions, and enrolled in humanities and social sciences courses. The Meta-Text was used as the standardized performance-based test, and the self-report test was the Metacognitive Self-Regulation Scale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The predictors were cognition regulation, measured by both tests, and judgment, measured by the Meta-Text. The outcome was the overall score on the National High School Exam, a large-scale educational assessment for university admission.
resultsOnly the regulation of cognition measured by Meta-Text predicts academic performance (β = 0.47, CI 95% [0.36, 0.58]). The correlations between the test measures were null (r = .002, p = .974).
conclusionThe evidence corroborated both hypotheses and raises doubts about the quality of self-report tests for measuring cognition regulation. It also indicates that standardized performance-based tests have a similar predictive capacity to tasks that require performance. This result is promising because standardized tests are easy to apply and correct, allowing studies to be carried out on large samples, while performance-based tasks require a complex process, only feasible in studies on small samples.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.