Cited by 11,282Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsMemory Processes and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry

Flavell, John H.·1979·American Psychologist

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0003-066x.34.10.906

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 9,901–10,000 of 10,404

Metadata

Authors
Flavell, J. H.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Flavell, John H.
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
1979-10
Volume
34
Issue
10
Pages
906-911
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W2093950336
Cited by
11,282
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1118 · 2025: 902 · 2024: 768 · 2023: 751 · 2022: 680 · 2021: 687 · 2020: 666 · 2019: 603 · 2018: 518 · 2017: 449 · 2016: 415 · 2015: 410 · 2014: 451 · 2013: 363 · 2012: 336
FWCI
19.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
metacognition, cognitive monitoring, cognitive development, self-monitoring, metacognitive awareness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review