ABSTRACT

Accurate measurement of metacognitive knowledge in reading is important. Different instruments and scoring methods have been proposed but not systematically compared for their measurement comparability across cultures and validity. Given student data from 34 OECD countries in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2009, we compared two scoring methods for metacognitive knowledge in reading based on pair-wise comparisons of strategies and with conventional Likert-scale responses of selected items. Metacognitive knowledge scored with conventional Likert-scale responses demonstrated higher cross-cultural comparability than the pair-wise comparison method. Linked with reading competence, motivation and control strategy in reading, scores from the two scoring methods showed differential criterion validity, possibly related to the types of tasks (understanding and remembering versus summarising), item content (complexity and discrimination between preferred strategies in reading) and common method variance (e.g., individuals’ stable response style in rating scales). Theoretical and methodological implications are discussed..

摘要

阅读中对元认知知识的准确测量很重要。已经提出了不同的工具和评分方法，但由于跨文化和有效性的测量可比性，尚未对其进行系统地比较。根据2009年国际学生评估计划（PISA）中来自34个经合组织国家的学生数据，我们比较了基于策略的成对比较以及所选项目的常规李克特量表回答的两种元认知知识评分方法。与传统的李克特量表评分相比，元认知知识的跨文化可比性高于成对比较法。结合阅读能力，阅读动机和控制策略，两种评分方法的得分显示出不同的标准效度，可能与任务的类型（理解和记忆与总结），项目内容（阅读中偏好的策略之间的复杂性和区别）和常用方法的差异（例如，个人在评分量表中的稳定反应风格）有关。讨论了理论和方法论的含义。