ArticleJournal of Intelligence2026
Explaining Individual Differences in Metacognitive Monitoring: A Multilevel Analysis of Person-Level Predictors Across Academic Assessments.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metacognitive monitoring, students' evaluations of their own performance, is central to self-regulated learning but often misaligns with actual performance. While situational factors have been studied extensively, less is known about how learning-related beliefs and motivational dispositions-hereafter termed learning-related attributes-relate to individual differences in metacognitive monitoring. This study examined how these learning attributes, alongside cognitive and demographic variables, were associated with students' general confidence and resolution. Data were drawn from 3946 Chinese sixth-grade students who completed academic assessments in the verbal and mathematical domains, provided post-test performance estimates, and completed questionnaires measuring their learning attributes and demographic characteristics. We conducted multilevel analyses with a random-intercept-random-slope specification and identified several learning attributes as significant predictors of metacognitive monitoring, primarily in terms of general confidence. Adding learning-related attributes after the cognitive and demographic blocks increased marginal R
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.