Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: What are we measuring?

139 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Revising the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance (2018, background): “As Cromley and Azevedo (2006), MacNamara (2011), as well as Veenman and colleagues (Veenman, 2011; Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, & Afflerbach, 2006) have noted, self-report data have inherent limitations.”
A review of research on metacognition in science education: current and future directions (2013, unknown): “For example, many studies employed self-report measures of MS as a single source of data, although these retrospective measures have been shown to be poorly correlated to concurrent measures of MS (Cromley & Azevedo, 2006; Veenman, 2005, 2011).”
Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams (2010, methodology): “…the think-aloud protocols was adapted from the Self-Regulated Learning coding scheme developed by Azevedo and colleagues (Azevedo & Cromley, 2004; Cromley & Azevedo, 2006), and modified based on previous think-aloud reading studies (Fehrenbach, 1991; Laing & Kamhi, 2002; McNamara, 2001; Neuman,…”
Evaluating the metacognitive awareness inventory using empirical factor-structure evidence (2018, background): “Many scholars (Boekaerts and Corno 2005; Cromley and Azevedo 2006; Jacobse and Harskamp 2012; Tobias and Everson 2000) argue against their use for a variety of reasons pertaining to the validity of score interpretations.”