Two studies were conducted to examine and compare the construct validity of scores on the Junior Metacognition Awareness Inventory (JMAI) and problem-solving interview protocols. Participants consisted of 183 middle and high school students attending a university summer program for academically talented youth. Study 1 results indicated that JMAI scores were internally consistent and yielded an interpretable two-factor structure after the elimination of several items; however, the scores were not significantly or meaningfully related to GPA or current and future mathematics achievement. In Study 2 (n = 30), JMAI scores did not predict students’ metacognitive behaviors during mathematics problem-solving tasks. In contrast, students’ metacognitive behaviors observed during problem solving were meaningfully related to mathematics achievement with medium to high effect sizes. Findings support the predictive validity of metacognition with regard to academic achievement when operationalized with problem-solving interviews, but call into question the criterion-related validity of JMAI scores.

中文翻译：

---

比较学术天才学生的数学元认知评估

进行了两项研究来检查和比较初级元认知意识量表 (JMAI) 和解决问题的访谈协议分数的结构有效性。参与者包括 183 名参加大学暑期课程的中学生和高中生，该课程为有学识的年轻人提供。研究 1 的结果表明，JMAI 分数是内部一致的，并在消除几个项目后产生了一个可解释的双因素结构；然而，这些分数与 GPA 或当前和未来的数学成绩没有显着或有意义的关系。在研究 2 (n = 30) 中，JMAI 分数不能预测学生在解决数学问题任务中的元认知行为。相比之下，学生在解决问题过程中观察到的元认知行为与数学成绩显着相​​关，具有中到高的影响大小。研究结果支持元认知在解决问题的面试中对学业成绩的预测效度，但对 JMAI 分数的标准相关效度提出质疑。