Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comprehensive reanalysis of the metacognitive self-regulation scale from the MSLQ

  • Published:
Metacognition and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The metacognitive self-regulation (MSR) scale is among the most widely used measures of metacognition in educational research. However, the psychometric properties and validity of the scale have not been well established. A series of analyses on a college sample were performed to address this issue. In Study 1, a split-sample exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to test the one-factor specification of the MSR scale. Time and study environment (TSE), total study time, and cumulative grade performance average (cGPA) were introduced as outcome variables in a structural equation model (SEM) to examine the factors suggested by the EFA. The results of Study 1 indicated poor one-factor model fit and suggested two and three-factor models provided improved fits of the sample data. Results from the SEM indicated the novel factors from the two and three-factor models had different relationships with the outcome variables than the originally specified one-factor model. In Study 2, a modified one-factor model was introduced that consisted of nine items and was named metacognitive self-regulation revised (MSR-R). Five additional samples were included to replicate the model fit for the revised model specification. Finally, a path analysis was performed to examine the relationship of the MSR-R to variables from Study 1. The results of Study 2 revealed improved psychometric properties and reliability for the MSR-R. An indirect relationship emerged between MSR-R and cGPA through TSE. In conclusion, convincing evidence for replacing the MSR was found and implications of the revised scale for future studies was discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. GFI is a measure similar to the χ2 statistic in that it provides a comparison of the implied covariance matrix for the specified model to the covariance matrix of the sample (Shevlin and Miles 1998). Values of GFI > .90 and > .95 (Shevlin and Miles 1998) have been suggested as minimum levels to indicate acceptable model fit.

  2. CFI values > .95 and RMSEA values < .06 are typically used to indicate acceptable fit (Hu and Bentler 1999).

  3. Muis et al. (2007) removed two unidentified items from the MSR prior to examining the correlations and it is difficult to know what effect this had on the size of the correlations.

References

  • Al-Harthy, I. S., Was, C. A., & Isaacson, R. M. (2010). Goals, efficacy and metacognitive self-regulation: A path analysis. International Journal of Education, 2(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amelink, C. T., Scales, G., & Tront, J. G. (2012). Student use of the Tablet PC: Impact on student learning behaviors. Advances in Engineering. Education, 3(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. C. (2008). Why is externally regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnette, J. J. (2000). Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey internal consistency: if you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(3), 361–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual differences, 42(5), 815–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, J. M., & Magun-Jackson, S. (2009). Approach–avoidance motivation and metacognitive self-regulation: The role of need for achievement and fear of failure. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(4), 459–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedford, A. (1997). On Clark–Watson’s tripartite model of anxiety and depression. Psychological Reports, 80, 125–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bembenutty, H. (2007). Self-regulation of learing and academic delay of gratification: gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(4), 586–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, J. (1998). Motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. In J. C. Conoley & J. J. Impara (Eds.), The Supplement to the 12th measurements yearbook (pp. 236–238). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, S. R., Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1980). An analysis of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 679–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 77–166). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, M. H., & Summers, J. (2012). Factor validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) in asynchronous online learning environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(1), 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J. (2011). Emergence of self-regulated learning microanalysis: Historical overview, essential features, and implications for research and practice. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance (pp. 329–345). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., & Chen, P. P. (2009). Self-regulation, motivation, and math achievement in middle school: Variations across grade level and math context. Journal of School Psychology, 47(5), 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., Callan, G. L., Malatesta, J., & Adams, T. (2015). Examining the level of convergence among self-regulated learning microanalytic processes, achievement, and a self-report questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(5), 439–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 425–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Credé, M., & Phillips, L. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 337–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinsmore, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Loughlin, S. M. (2008). Focusing the conceptual lens on metacognition, self- regulation, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 391–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drennan, J. (2003). Cognitive interviewing: verbal data in the design and pretesting of questionnaires. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 42(1), 57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 117–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, K. E., Lo, W. J., Mulvenon, S. W., & Sutcliffe, R. (2012). Revisiting the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire: A theoretical and statistical reevaluation of the metacognitive self-regulation and effort regulation subscales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(2), 312–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M. C., Ericsson, K. A., & Best, R. (2011). Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 316–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks, D. D., & Marolla, J. (1976). Efficacious action and social approval as interacting dimensions of self-esteem: A tentative formulation through construct validation. Sociometry, 324–341.

  • Gaythwaite, E. S. (2006). Metacognitive self-regulation, self-efficacy for learning and performance, and critical thinking as predictors of academic success and course retention among community college students enrolled in online, telecourse, and traditional public speaking courses (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Central Florida, Orlando.

  • Greene, J. A., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Adolescents’ use of self-regulatory processes and their relation to qualitative mental model shifts while using hypermedia. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. A., Robertson, J., & Costa, L. C. (2011). Assessing self-regulated learning using think-aloud methods. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 313–328).

  • Greene, J. A., Bolick, C. M., Jackson, W. P., Caprino, A. M., Oswald, C., & McVea, M. (2015). Domain-specificity of self-regulated learning processing in science and history. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42, 111–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Crude, S. duToit, & D. Sorbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Sceintific Software International, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilpert, J. C., Stempien, J., van der Hoeven Kraft, K. J., & Husman, J. (2013). Evidence for the latent factor structure of the MSLQ. A new conceptualization of an established questionnaire. SAGE Open, 3(4), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitsantas, A., Winsler, A., & Huie, F. (2008). Self-regulation and ability predictors of academic success during college: A predictive validity study. Journal of Advanced Academics, 20(1), 42–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. M., Krawchuk, L. L., & Rajani, S. (2008). Academic procrastination of undergraduates: Low self-efficacy to self-regulate predicts higher levels of procrastination. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 915–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, K. C. (1969). Principles of path analysis. Sociological methodology, 1(6), 3–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W. C., Wang, C. K. J., Kee, Y. H., Koh, C., Lim, B. S. C., & Chua, L. (2014). College students’ motivation and learning strategies profiles and academic achievement: A self-determination theory approach. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 338–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Los, R. E. (2014). The effects of self-regulation and self-efficacy on academic outcome (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of South Dakota. South Dakota: Vermillion.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markland, D. (2007). The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: a commentary on Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 851–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, J. (2011). Metacognitive awareness of learning strategies in undergraduates. Memory & Cognition, 39(3), 462–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, J. A., Osha, K. L., Roche, J. A., & Susser, J. A. (2013). Psychology students’ knowledge and use of mnemonics. Teaching of Psychology, 40(3), 183–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. A. (1986). Teaching and learning in the college classroom. In A review of the research literature (Grant OERI-86-0010). Washington D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motl, R. W., & DiStefano, C. (2002). Longitudinal invariance of self-esteem and method effects associated with negatively worded items. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 562–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2007). Using a multitrait-multimethod analysis to examine conceptual similarities of three self-regulated learning inventories. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1988). Psychological testing: Principles, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2008). Mplus (Version 5.1). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, H., Nevgi, A., & Virtanen, P. I. (2003). Towards self-regulation in web-based learning. Journal of Educational Media, 28(1), 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. Impara (Eds.), Issues in the measurement of metacognition (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohlmann, J. T. (2004). Use and interpretation of factor analysis in The Journal of Educational Research: 1992–2002. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(1), 14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Computing power and minimum sample size for RMSEA [Computer software]. Unpublished instrument. Retreived from .http://quantpsy.org/

  • Puzziferro, M. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. The American Journal. of. Distance Education, 22(2), 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, M. C., & Maeda, Y. (2006). Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha. Psychological Methods, 11(3), 306–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellings, G. L., van Hout-Wolters, B. H., Veenman, M. V., & Meijer, J. (2013). Assessing metacognitive activities: The in-depth comparison of a task-specific questionnaire with think-aloud protocols. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 963–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary educational psychology, 19(4), 460–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shevlin, M., & Miles, J. N. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research & Evaluation, 10(2), 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegers-Jager, K. M., Cohen-Schotanus, J., & Themmen, A. P. (2012). Motivation, learning strategies, participation and medical school performance. Medical Education, 46(7), 678–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, A. A., Greenberg, M. A., Kennedy-Moore, E., & Newman, M. G. (1991). Self-report, situation-specific coping questionnaires: What are they measuring? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4), 648–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streiner, D. L. (2005). Finding our way: an introduction to path analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(2), 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2006). Effects of problem-based learning and traditional instruction on self-regulated learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(5), 307–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susser, J. A., & McCabe, J. (2013). From the lab to the dorm room: Metacognitive awareness and use of spaced study. Instructional Science, 41(2), 345–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Osterlind, S. J. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tock, J. L. (2013). Studying from the expert performance perspective: Reassessing how student time use is evaluated in the college student population (Master’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Global database. (UMI No. 1545967).

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weems, G. H., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001). The impact of midpoint responses and reverse coding on survey data. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 166–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1983). The teaching of learning strategies. Innovation Abstracts, 5(32), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical. Perspectives, 2, 153–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. L. (2002). Exploring students’ calibration of self-reports about study tactics and achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Perry, N. E. (2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 531–566). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A., & Hussain, M. (2015). Investigating grit and its relations with college students’ self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 10(3), 293–311.

  • Yukselturk, E., & Bulut, S. (2009). Gender differences in self-regulated online learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 12–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zusho, A., Pintrich, P. R., & Coppola, B. (2003). Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1081–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Florida State University, 1107 W. Call St, Tallahassee, FL, 32304, USA

    Jamie L. Tock & Jerad H. Moxley

Authors
  1. Jamie L. Tock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerad H. Moxley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jamie L. Tock.

Ethics declarations

Funding

There was no outside funding for the completion of this research due to their being no cost associated with this project.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.The dataset in Study 1 was collected as part of a master’s thesis but no part of this data has been published nor have any of the analyses or arguments composed in the current paper been performed in the master’s thesis or any other work. The authors would also like to give special thanks to Kristen Gomez for her review and editing of this paper and Whitney Guthrie for her comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tock, J.L., Moxley, J.H. A comprehensive reanalysis of the metacognitive self-regulation scale from the MSLQ. Metacognition Learning 12, 79–111 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9161-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9161-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation