CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 289Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesEducational Outcomes and Influences

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 121 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contributions of study skills to academic competence.

Gettinger, Maribeth, Seibert, Jill K.·2002·School Psychology Review
DOI 10.1080/02796015.2002.12086160
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Study skills are fundamental to academic competence. Effective study skills are associated with positive outcomes across multiple academic content areas and for diverse learners. The purpose of this article is to describe an information-processing perspective on the contribution of study skills to academic competence, and to identify evidence-based strategies that are effective in helping students to improve their study skills. Using an information-processing framework, study skills are grouped into four clusters: repetition-based skills, procedural study skills, cognitive-based study skills, and metacognitive skills. Key elements of effective study-strategy training are delineated.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02796015.2002.12086160

Cites

121 of 121 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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 124 references

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Archambeault B., 1992, Journal of Reading, 35, 468
  2. Bulgren J. A., 1995, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 22
  3. Bulgren J. A., 1994, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 2
  4. Bulgren J. A., 1997, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 198
  5. Collins C., 1991, Journal of Reading, 34, 510
  6. Davey B., 1986, Journal of ducational Psychology, 22, 2
  7. Deshler D. D., 1996, Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and methods.
  8. Deshler D. D., 1988, Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for students, 391
  9. Dreher M. J., 1985, Reading Improvement, 22, 2
  10. Fulk B. J. M., 1992, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 2
  11. Gersten R., 1998, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 162
  12. Hoover J. J., 1995, Teaching students with learning problems to use study skills: A teacher's guide.
  13. Jones C. H., 1992, High School Journal, 76, 24
  14. 10.3102/00028312031002338 · DOI
  15. Lucangeli D., 1998, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12, 219
  16. Lucangeli D., 1995, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 11
  17. Meltzer L. S., 1993, Strategy assessment and instruction for students with learning disabilities.
  18. National Center for Education Statistics., 1990, National Assessment of Educational Progress Report.
  19. National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities., 1997, Learning strategies for students with learning disabilities.
  20. Pogrow S., 1992, Teaching thinking: An agenda for the 21st century, 87
  21. Pressley M., 1995, Verbal reports of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading.
  22. Pressley M., 1995, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 215
  23. Pressley M., 1996, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 138
  24. Pressley M., 1995, Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children's academic performance
  25. Scanlon D. J., 1996, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 41
  26. Scanlon D. J., 1991, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 142
  27. Scheid K., 1993, Helping students become strategic learners: Guidelines for teaching.
  28. Scruggs T. E., 1992, Exceptional Children, 13, 271
  29. Strichart S. S., 1998, Teaching study skills to students with learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, or special needs
  30. Waldron N. L., 2000, Preventing school problem—Promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work, 171
  31. Zimmerman B. J., 1994, Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications, 181

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–289 of 289

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Gettinger, Maribeth
Venue
School Psychology Review
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2002-09-01
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
350-365
ISSN
  • 0279-6015 (ISSN-L)
  • 2372-966X
DOI
10.1080/02796015.2002.12086160
OpenAlex
W1661578264
Cited by
289
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 20
FWCI
9.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
School Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Outcomes and Influences
Keywords
study skills, academic competence, information processing perspective, study habits, metacognitive skills, evidence-based strategies

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