A Monte Carlo Comparison of Measures of Relative and Absolute Monitoring Accuracy

52 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.

Metacognitive calibration—an extended conceptualization and potential applications (2009, background): “Nelson (1984, 1996), for example, argued adamantly for the use of G (Gamma correlation; Goodman and Kruskal 1954) as best measure to capture relative calibration (also see Lin and Zabrucky 1998; Maki and McGuire 2002; Nelson 1996; Nietfeld et al. 2006; Pressley and Ghatala 1988; Schraw 1995; Schra”
Metacognition in education: A focus on calibration. (2008, background): “Therefore, in Nietfeld et al. (2006), two sections of an undergraduate educational psychology course were randomly assigned to the monitoring and comparison groups.”
The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy (2006, background): “The choice of either a relative or absolute measure of monitoring accuracy should be based upon the context and primary goals of the study ( Nietfeld, Enders, & Schraw, 2006 ).”
A conceptual analysis of five measures of metacognitive monitoring (2009, methodology): “These studies tended to report low inter-correlations, inconsistent patterns of results, or dissociations between scores(Allwood et al. 2005; Connor et al. 1997; Dougherty and Sprenger 2006; Keleman Frost and Weaver 2000; Maki et al. 2005; Nietfeld et al. 2006: Souchay et al. 2004).”