Cited by 43Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

Reliability and Validity Analyses of a Newly Developed Test to Assess Learning Strategy Knowledge

Maag Merki, Katharina, Ramseier, Erich, Karlen, Yves·2013·Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology

Abstract

This study presents a newly developed test to assess students’ knowledge of learning strategies that they use when completing complex assignments at the upper secondary baccalaureate school (Gymnasium) level. The sample included N = 2,300 students at 23 baccalaureate schools in Switzerland and also a small sample of university students (N = 58). We tested hypotheses regarding cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational dimensions of learning. In addition, students’ self-reported grades in German were used as an achievement criterion. The analyses included estimation of Cronbach’s alpha and distribution of the test scores on the individual and class level. Furthermore, structural equation modeling was carried out. The findings support the reliability and validity of the new test. We found significant differences in terms of gender and school attendance. Learning strategy knowledge showed a positive relationship with student achievement, students’ learning motivation, and students’self-reported use of habitual learning strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1891/1945-8959.12.3.391

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Previous scenario-based measures aiming to capture predominantly metacognitive knowledge have provided good reasons for investing effort in developing and using these tools.

    “Previous scenario-based measures aiming to capture predominantly metacognitive knowledge have provided good reasons for investing effort in developing and using these tools (e.g., Händel et al. 2014;Maag Merki et al. 2013;Neuenhaus et al. 2011).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maag Merki, K., Ramseier, E., & Karlen, Y.
Affiliations
  • Pädagogische Hochschule Bern (CH)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology
Published
2013
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
391-408
ISSN
  • 1810-7621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-8959
OpenAlex
W2319245719
Cited by
43
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
7.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
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 › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
learning strategies, test development, test reliability, test validity, metacognition, student motivation, academic performance, upper secondary school, German language achievement, gender differences, school attendance

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