Metacomprehension Monitoring Accuracy: Effects of Judgment Frames, Cues and Criteria

• Published in: Journal of psycholinguistic research Vol. 51; no. 3; pp. 485 - 500
• Main Author: Chen, Qishan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.06.2022; Springer; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Accuracy; Behavioral Science and Psychology; Between-subjects design; Cognitive Psychology; Comparative Analysis; Comprehension; Correlation; Cues; Decision Making; Evaluation Criteria; Humans; Inferences; Judgment; Memory; Metalinguistics; Prediction; Psycholinguistics; Psychology; Questions; Reading; Reading Comprehension; Reading Tests; Self Evaluation (Individuals); Cues; Metacomprehension monitoring; Frames; Accuracy; Criteria
• ISSN: 0090-6905; 1573-6555; 1573-6555
• DOI: 10.1007/s10936-022-09837-z

This study aimed to investigate the effects of judgment frames, cues, and test criteria on the accuracy of metacomprehension monitoring. The design was a 2 (rating comprehension vs. predicting performance) × 2 (memory cues vs. comprehension cues) × 2 (detailed questions test vs. inferential questions test) mixed design with judgment frames and cues as the between-subjects factors and test criteria as the within-subjects factor. The results showed that the influence of judgment frames on accuracy was moderated by the test criteria. The readers’ monitoring was more accurate in rating comprehension than predicting performance when inferential questions were used as the criteria; when detailed questions were used as the criteria, this situation was reversed. The interaction effect of judgment cues and criteria on metacomprehension monitoring accuracy was significant. When readers predicted their performances on a test, those who received memory cues were more accurate than those who received comprehension cues. However, when readers rated their comprehension, those who received comprehension cues were more accurate than those who received memory cues.