The Bifactor Model of the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Jr. MAI)
Few self-report measures actually exist that were designed to assess school-aged children’s metacognition. This study examined the factor structure and validity of the Junior Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Jr. MAI; Sperling et al. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 51–79, 2002) in a sample of primary school children from Singapore. A bifactor model which includes one general factor of metacognition and two uncorrelated knowledge and regulation of cognition group factors yielded the best fit to the data. The general factor of metacognition was found to have high internal consistency and accounted for a greater amount of variance than the two specific factors of knowledge and regulation of cognition. Multigroup analyses offered empirical evidence for the measurement invariance of the bifactor model across gender and ethnic groups. The criterion validity of the model was also demonstrated by significant predictive associations with measures of learning strategies and mathematics achievement. These results provided initial support for the validity and reliability of the Jr. MAI for use with children in the Asian setting. The implications of the findings for future metacognitive research and assessment among children are discussed.
KeywordsMetacognition Bifactor modeling Confirmatory factor analysis Measurement invariance
The author would like to thank Professor David Hogan for allowing us to use the mathematics achievement test items from the Core 2 Research Programme.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study was funded by the Office of Education Research, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (OER 38/12 NHK).
Conflict of Interest
Hoi Kwan Ning declares that she has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Blank, L. (2000). A metacognitive learning cycle: A better warranty for student understanding? Science Education, 84, 486–506. doi: 10.1002/1098-237x(200007)84:4<486::aid-sce4>3.0.co;2-u.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 367–406). New York: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
- Davidson, G. R., & Freebody, P. R. (1988). Cross-cultural perspectives on the development of metacognitive thinking. Hiroshima Forum for Psychology, 13, 21–31.Google Scholar
- Elshout-Mohr, M., Meijer, J., van Daalen-Kapteijns, M. M., & Meeus, W. (2004). Joint Research into the AILI (Awareness of Independent Learning Inventory). Paper presented at the first EARLI-SIG on metacognition. Program and abstract book, p. 18. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura & C. J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 213–245). Ayphen & Rijn: Sijtoff & Noordhoff.Google Scholar
- Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2014). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 7) (pp. 371–402). Greenwich: JAI Press.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: National Centre for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
- Schraw, G., Olafson, L., Weibel, M., & Sewing, D. (2012). Metacognitive knowledge and field-based science learning in an outdoor environmental education program. In A. Zohar & Y. J. Dori (Eds.), Metacognition in Science Education: Trends in Current Research, Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education (Vol. 40) (pp. 55–77). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-2132-6_4.Google Scholar
- Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., et al. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4, 63–85. doi: 10.1007/s11409-008-9033-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar