Internal and Construct Validity of the Metacognitive Thinking Questionnaire (MTQ)
Creators: name: Ritchie, Laura
name: Sharpe, Benjamin
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Personality and Social Contexts
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology
subject: KAPA model
subject: metacognition
subject: Self-efficacy
subject: validation

description: Internal and Construct Validity of the Metacognitive Thinking Questionnaire (MTQ) Rational Flavell’s (1979) definition of metacognition involved monitoring and controlling cognition, and he outlined the involvement and importance of cognitive self-appraisal. This appraisal includes aspects of knowledge about the person, task, and strategy. Flavell qualifies ‘person knowledge’ as: “encompasses everything that you could come to believe about the nature of yourself and other people as cognitive processors” (p907). There is an alignment with elements of social cognitive theory, as outlined by Bandura (1986) where the interconnectedness of personal, environmental, and bahavioural elements is seen throughout human functioning. Metacognition is the embodiment of this social cognitive theory on the micro-level. Interestingly, and relevant to the currently proposed research, Flavell’s definition of the person category also aligns with core tenants of self-efficacy, and clearly encompasses self-beliefs about capabilities to successfully carry out a task - using Flavell’s terminology – as a cognitive processor. Flavell does not explicitly mention self-efficacy, which had only been recently introduced by Bandura (1977) two years earlier, however, he does describe metacognitive experiences with very similar wording to that used to describe making self-efficacy judgements relating to personal capabilities to carry out a task: “For in-stance, you may feel that you are liable to fail in some upcoming enterprise” (Flavell, 1979, p908). Brown (1987) makes the distinction between two components of metacognition: knowledge and regulation of cognition. For Brown, knowledge involves conscious reflection on the task and its requirements, and the regulation involves implementation of self-regulatory strategies in order to accomplish the task. There is an implied ‘task’ associated with ‘thinking about thinking’ (Wellman, 1985); metacognition is not abstract, un-situated or decontextualised thinking. Thinking, as a very, suggests active engagement with something, the thing one is thinking about. Thinking processes themselves are not readily observable in the same outward-facing way as physical engagement with strategic behaviours, achievement outcomes, or even aspects or qualities of a task. For example, one could observe the task of pouring tea from a teapot into a cup without spilling, but cannot necessarily observe the internal assessment, monitoring, and negotiation of strategy and process that happens as the expectations of capabilities for that task become a reality. When the one physically picks up the teapot and feels its weight and temperature, and then engages with the dynamic process of getting the tea from the teapot into the teacup, there are countless possible moments of metacognitive awareness. These thinking processes are less visible, whereas the object of the thinking, the tasks and its elements are often visible. Following Flavell, subsequent researchers have expanded, and attempted to clarify and further qualify aspects of metacognition, often developing an understanding of the construct overall, while applying and contextualising metacognition in a tailored way to tasks within their specific domain. For example, Vandergrift et al (2006, p435), in the context of learning a second language state “metacognition is both self-reflection and self-direction.” The different definitions and explanations point to commonalities that an agent must understand, consider, and act. Jayapraba (2012) concentrated on approaches to developing metacognition in teaching science, and specifies a link to an outcome, stating: “metacognitive strategies are ordered processes used to control one’s own cognitive activities and to ensure that a cognitive goal has been met” (p165-6). When discussing the development of and engagement with metacognitive practices, Pearman et al (2020), this time in the context of improving memory function in an aging population, stress the importance of actively engaging with self-reflection, to avoid unconsidered, habitual responses. One important qualifying component of metacognitive thought is specifically that it is thinking about thinking (meta- [about-] cognition) as opposed to thinking about a concept (cognition). When thought processes involve strategic consideration directed toward accomplishing a task, it becomes a metacognitive process (Livingston, 2003). There is considerable discrepancy in the exact definition of the facets of metacognition (Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, &amp; Afflerbach, 2006) and this is seen in research through its practical measurement. Measuring metacognition Numerous measurement tools and intervention strategies have been designed to measure metacognition in diverse areas of life such as health contexts and the treatment of disorders (Clark et al, 2003; Tosun &amp; Irak, 2008; Bailey, &amp; Wells, 2015) and in educational settings across academic disciplines (See Veenman, Van Hout-Wolters, &amp; Afflerbach, 2006; Hacker, Dunlosky, &amp; Graesser, 2009; McCormick, Dimmitt, &amp; Sullivan, 2012 for reviews of educational studies and practices. See also Kinnunen, &amp; Vauras, 1995; De Jager, Jansen, &amp; Reezigt, 2005; Zohar &amp; Barzilai, 2013; Garrison &amp; Aykol, 2015). Pintrich and DeGroote (1990) devised the Motivational Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) for educational contexts which addresses metacognition within it, but it is not exclusively a metacognition questionnaire and also focuses on self-regulated learning (For a full explanation of the MSLQ, see Pintrich, 1991). Examining metacognition in terms of self-regulation is not uncommon in educational studies (Zimmerman and Schunk, 2001). The Metacognitions Questionnaire 30 (MCQ-30) (Wells, &amp; Cartwright-Hatton, 2004) is a dedicated instrument for measuring metacognition which has been translated into multiple languages and widely used. Although it is designed to measure metacognition, it could be interpreted that individual subscales address other constructs beside the component aspects of ‘thinking about thinking’. For example, the items in the cognitive confidence subscale are all focused on negative aspects of memory: “I do not trust my memory; I have a poor memory; I have little confidence in my memory for places; I have little confidence in my memory for places; I have little confidence in my memory for people and names; My memory can mislead me at times” which leaves room for theoretical scrutiny as to how closely the questionnaire adheres to the construct of metacognition. Other researchers have developed bespoke questionnaires that suite their specific environments, such as the Vandergrift et al (2006) metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire designed for students learning a foreign language. The items of this instrument are so task-specific that, although it is theoretically sound and has been shown to be a valid instrument, it is not useful for other researchers outside this context. Schellings and Van Hout-Wolters (2011) highlight both the usefulness and drawbacks of a self-report measure, emphasising the need to identify a task. They suggest careful consideration by researchers of how (or whether) that task represents or generalises to other tasks, allowing for a practical usefulness for the questionnaire. Shellings and Van Hout-Wolters also advise a mixed method approach. Van Gog et al (2005) used eye tracking to supplement self-reports. The Present Study The purpose of this study is to develop and validate the new Metacognitive Thinking Questionnaire (MTQ). Its theoretic development is strongly related to and based on the original definition of the construct as presented by Flavell (1979) and is not tied to a specific domain of functioning. It is intended to be developed for use by researchers as part of future mixed methods studies. This development and validation will follow steps for internal and construct validity as outlined by Churchill (1979). The new MTQ questionnaire is presented alongside two other established metacognition questionnaires and measurements of self-efficacy, personality, and general health. • Item development and initial data collection with for preliminary analysis of factor structure and internal consistency. The MTQ has been designed to assess aspects of metacognitive knowledge, experience, goals, and actions (Flavell, 1979). • Confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance testing and convergent construct validity. • Criterion validity based on correlations with self-efficacy and KAPA. Research Questions Can the new Metacognitive Thinking Questionnaire be validated as a reliable measure? Can the MTQ demonstrate construct validity, and relate to other constructs as would be theoretically expected in a social cognitive framework? Hypothesis It is hypothesised that the new Metacognitive Thinking Questionnaire (MTQ) will be a robust instrument with a reliable internal consistency. It is hypothesised the new MTQ will demonstrate highly correlated underlying factors through EFA analysis. It is hypothesised that the MTQ will demonstrate overall construct validity by demonstrating positive correlations and be part of a predictive model with self-efficacy for performing scores and with relevant qualities of personality. It is hypothesised that the MTQ will be positively correlated with behaviours scoring high (more likely) in relation to the self-declared personality weakness and strength in KAPA. It is hypothesised that the MTQ will correlate more strongly with self-efficacy scores compared to the MC-30 (correlating with self-efficacy) It is hypothesised that MTQ and self-efficacy will predict the behaviours scoring high (more likely) in relation to the self-declared personality weakness and strength in KAPA. It is hypothesised that the MCQ-30 will show sporadic relationships with the other constructs, and will not have the same predictive power, with self-efficacy, in relation to the strongest aspects of personality, the behaviours scoring high (more likely) in relation to the self-declared personality weakness and strength in KAPA. It is hypothesised that the ‘metacognitive construct for individual learners’ will perform similarly to the MTQ with regard to correlations with self-efficacy for performing but less strongly with behaviours scoring high (more likely) in relation to the self-declared personality weakness and strength in KAPA. It is hypothesised that the MCQ-30 will demonstrate variable correlations between its subscales and both self-efficacy and the behaviours scoring high (more likely) in relation to the self-declared personality weakness and strength in KAPA. It is hypothesised that metacognition will mediate self-efficacy’s predictive power of behaviours scoring high (more likely) in relation to the self-declared personality weakness and strength in KAPA. Participants Only participants over the age of 18 will be allowed to participate in the studies. Sample Size An overall sample of 228 will complete the battery of questionnaires , and be divided (n = 50) and (n = 178) to allow for EFA and CFA analysis. Sample Size Rationale The guidelines for power analyses in SEM, and especially multiple group SEM, are inconclusive. We will adopt a general rule of thumb where sample size for studies using CFA for data analysis is a minimum of the number of measurement variables (items in questionnaire) * 10. Green's (1991) rule of thumb (medium effect) was also considered when calculating sample size requirements for regression analysis (N ≥ 50 + (8 * No. Variables). With 16 items in the MTQ this means a minimum of 178 participants will need to complete the questionnaire for CFA. 50 participants will be used for EFA, following prior recommendations (Winter et al., 2009; Guadagnoli &amp; Velicer, 1988). Data Collection to date To date (June 25, 2021) 193 participants have completed the questionnaire. No data will be analysed until our requisite sample size is reached. Materials The Garrison and Akyol (2015) 'metacognitive construct for communities of individuals' and the Wells and Cartwright-Hatton (2004) MCQ-30 were both included as established and validated metacognition questionnaires. Garrison and Akyol (2015) developed a ‘metacognitive construct for communities of individuals’ designed to assess metacognition with two separate scales, for individuals and groups of learners. The items were devised to represent aspects of knowledge, monitoring, and regulation of cognition. The instrument for individuals was presented here; it comprises 13 items and is rated on a 6 point Likert-type scale with choices ranging from ‘very true of me’ to ‘very untrue of me’. The Wells and Cartwright-Hatton (2004) MCQ-30 is a dedicated metacognition questionnaire that comprises subscales covering cognitive confidence, positive beliefs, cognitive self-consciousness, uncontrollability and danger, and the need to control thoughts. The 30 items are rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale with the options: do not agree, slightly agree, moderately agree, very much agree. These choices are not balanced, with only one choice indicating disagreement and the remaining three all indicating a level of agreement. In this study, a new 16 item Metacognitive Thinking Questionnaire has been devised to focus on the aspects of the processes and awareness of thinking. The scale labels are based on the labels used in the Garrison and Akyol (2015) questionnaire, using the same gradations from ‘very true of me’ to ‘very untrue of me’. The Garrison and Akyol (2015) questionnaire used a 6-point Likert-type scale. Self-efficacy is measured through an adapted version of the Self-efficacy for Performing questionnaire, originally validated by Ritchie and Williamon (2011), along with a single numeric representation of confidence, and a free text descriptive explanation of self-efficacy. Personality is measured using the KAPA model (Cervone, 2004), which has multiple components requiring self-reported, free-text appraisals and descriptions of personal strengths and weakness, numerical ratings of the likelihood of carrying out various behaviours, and a behavioural sorting task. The General Health Questionnaire – short form (GHQ-12; Goldberg et al., 1997) was administered to assess the psychological signs of anxiety or depression experienced by the participants in the previous four weeks. Originally, a 60-item (GHQ-60) questionnaire designed for use in consulting settings aimed at detecting individuals with a diagnosable psychiatric disorder (Goldberg &amp; Hillier, 1979). Namely, assessing psychological signs of anxiety or depression experienced by the participants in the previous four weeks. All 12-items of the GHQ-12 have a 4-point scoring system ranging from a ‘better/healthier than normal’ through to ‘much worse/more than usual’. Responses are then used to produce a global score between 0 to 12. Typically, scores ≥2 indicate some form of anxiety and/or depression (Goldberg et al., 1997; vam Rhenen et al., 2008; Gouttebarge et al., 2015). Previous literature has demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α range = 0.76-0.94; Lesage et al., 2011; Anjara et al., 2020). Task Design Procedure Participants will complete an online battery of questionnaires, compiled with Qualtrics software, commencing with a participant information sheet and consent form. Then participants will complete questions gathering demographic information, and the following questionnaires: KAPA, Self-efficacy for Performing, Metacognitive Thinking, metacognitive construct for communities of individuals, and the MCQ-30. These will be completed on participant’s personal devices wherever they are (e.g. at home, work, or outside). Ethical Approval This study has received ethical approval from the University of Chichester Research Ethics Committee, approval number 2021_29. Planned Analyses The steps of the analysis follow the validation suggestions outlined by Churchill (1979). Kasier-Meyer-Olkin Mea-sure of Sampling Adequacy (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (with a minimum significance level of .05) will be used to test the correlations between scale items in the MTQ prior to employing PCA (EFA). Only factors with an Eigenvalue over the 1.0 threshold will be considered as separate factors. EFA will be carried out with a sample of 50, and the Varimax method of orthogonal rotation will be used, as suggested by Kleine (1958). Reliability analysis will be carried out on all metacognition questionnaires used, and Chronbach’s Alpha will be used test internal reliability of the items. As a result of these analysis, questionnaire items (in the MTQ) may be removed. The reliability analysis carried out with a sample 50 will be repeated with a sample of 178. CFA will also be carried out on the MTQ as a further validation tool to demonstrate how well the scale items demonstrate the construct with provide both model fit. It allows us to test “how well one’s theoretical specification of the factors matches reality (actual data). In a sense, CFA is a tool that enables researchers to either confirm or reject one’s preconceived theory” (Hair et al., 2010, p. 671). As suggested by previous literature (Byrne, 1998; Hoyle, 1995; Kline, 1998; Tanaka, 1993), goodness of fit will be determined through multiple measures of fit indices, as opposed to only using chi-square likelihood ratio test statistics, to provide a more accurate model evaluation process. The following measures, and criteria for good fit, will be considered: the normed Chi-square ,goodness-of-fit index (GFI), CMIN/DF (&lt; 2.00; Byrne, 2010); CFI (&gt; 0.95; Hu &amp; Bentler, 1999); PCFI (&gt; 0.60; Blunch, 2008); RMSEA (90% CI, &lt; 0.05; Browne &amp; Cudeck, 1993); and AIC values (Lower = better; Raykoy &amp; Marcoulides, 2000). Overall measures of model fit will be: chi-square RMSEA, NFI, CFI, PCFI, standardized regression coefficient, average variance extracted and construct reliability. Construct validity will also be demonstrated by the relationship of the MTQ with other constructs. Pearson Correlations will be carried out with all variables. This will be compared to that demonstrated by the other two established metacognition questionnaires. To identify whether self-efficacy and metacognition uniquely predict behaviours scoring high (more likely) in relation to the self-declared personality weakness and strength in KAPA, a multiple linear regression analysis will be conducted. Beta coefficients (β) will be used to access the unique variance associated with each variable. For regression analysis, G*Power 3.1.9.4 software (Faul et al., 2007) was used to perform an a priori calculation of sample size based on the formula proposed by Faul et al. (2009). With a power (1-β) of .95, two-tailed α of .05 and the set of predictors, 117 participants are required to detect a medium effect (f2 = .15). Transformations We do not plan to implement any transformation. Inference criteria The alpha level (p) for statistical significance will be set at 0.05. For Chronbach’s Alpha, a minimum level of α = 0.7 is generally considered acceptable (Cortina, 1993; Kline, 1999), although within psychology a lower level of α = 0.6 has also been used as a benchmark for acceptability (Field, 2005). Data exclusion We will exclude participants who could not complete all the conditions in the experiment. Missing data If there is missing data in a questionnaire, we will exclude those responses from the analysed sample. Data Availability A single plain text file will be generated to present all data in the completed sample prior to analysis, this will be uploaded to the OSF. Exploratory analysis SEM will be carried out to demonstrate a reciprocal, causal relationship between self-efficacy, metacognition, and with behaviours scoring high (more likely) in relation to the self-declared personality weakness and strength in KAPA. The GHQ-12 will also be included to explore the possible mediating effect of this construct. References: Anjara, S. G., Bonetto, C., Van Bortel, T., &amp; Brayne, C. (2020). Using the GHQ-12 to screen for mental health problems among primary care patients: psychometrics and practical considerations. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 14(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-020-00397-0 Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey. Bailey, R., &amp; Wells, A. (2015). Development and initial validation of a measure of metacognitive beliefs in health anxiety: the MCQ-HA. Psychiatry research, 230(3), 871-877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2015.11.035 Brown, A.L.(1987). Knowing when, where, and how to remember. A problem of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert &amp; R. H. Kluwe (Eds.) Advances in instructional psychology, 1, p77-165. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Browne M.W. &amp; Cudeck R. (1993) Alternative Ways of Accessing Model Fit. Sage Publication, Newbury Park, CA Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Cervone, D. (2004). The architecture of personality. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Psychologia-Paedagogia, 49(1), 3-44. Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketingconstructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64e73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110 Clark, D. A., Purdon, C., &amp; Wang, A. (2003). The Meta-Cognitive Beliefs Questionnaire: development of a measure of obsessional beliefs. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(6), 655-669. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00032-3 Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? an examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Research, 78, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the initial structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555 De Jager, B., Jansen, M., &amp; Reezigt, G. (2005). The development of metacognition in primary school learning environments. School effectiveness and school improvement, 16(2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450500114181 Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics using SPSS. SAGE: London. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., &amp; Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of metacognition in education. Routledge: New York. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906 Goldberg, D. P., &amp; Hillier, V. F. (1979). A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological medicine, 9(1), 139-145. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700021644 Gouttebarge, V., Backx, F. J., Aoki, H., &amp; Kerkhoffs, G. M. (2015). Symptoms of common mental disorders in professional football (soccer) across five European countries. Journal of sports science &amp; medicine, 14(4), 811. https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2015-0130 Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate behavioral research, 26(3), 499-510. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7 Hair, J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., &amp; Anderson, R. E. (2010).Multivariate data analysis: Aglobal perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage. Hu, L. T., &amp; 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Jayapraba, G. (2013). Metacognitive instruction and cooperative learning-strategies for promoting insightful learning in science. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(1), 165-172. ISSN:1309-6249 Kinnunen, R., &amp; Vauras, M. (1995). Comprehension monitoring and the level of comprehension in high-and low-achieving primary school children's reading. Learning and Instruction, 5(2), 143-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(95)00009-R Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing. 2nded. Routledge: London. Lesage, F. X., Martens-Resende, S., Deschamps, F., &amp; Berjot, S. (2011). Validation of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) adapted to a work-related context. Open J Prev Med, 1(02), 44. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojpm.2011.12007 Livingston, J. A. (2003). Metacognition: An Overview. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474273.pdf McCormick, C. B., Dimmitt, C. A. R. E. Y., &amp; Sullivan, F. R. (2012). Metacognition, learning, and instruction. Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition, 7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop207004 Moritz, S., &amp; Lysaker, P. H. (2018). Metacognition–what did James H. Flavell really say and the implications for the conceptualization and design of metacognitive interventions. Schizophrenia Research, 201, 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2018.06.001 Pearman, A., Lustig, E., Hughes, M. L., &amp; Hertzog, C. (2020). Initial Evidence for the Efficacy of an Everyday Memory and Metacognitive Intervention. Innovation in aging, 4(6), igaa054. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaa054 Pintrich, P. R., &amp; de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33 Raykov, T., &amp; Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A method for comparing completely standardized solutions in multiple groups. Structural equation modeling, 7(2), 292-308. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0702_9 Ritchie, L., &amp; Williamon, A. (2011). Measuring distinct types of musical self-efficacy. Psychology of Music, 39(3), 328-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735610374895 Schellings, G., &amp; Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2011). Measuring strategy use with self-report instruments: theoretical and empirical considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 6(2), 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9081-9 Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. Testing structural equation models, 10-39. Tosun, A., &amp; Irak, M. (2008). Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability of the Metacognition Questionnaire-30 for the Turkish Population, and its Relationship to Anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsive Symptoms. Turkish Journal of Psychiatry, 19(1). http://www.turkpsikiyatri.com/c19s1/en/67-80.pdf van Rhenen, W., van Dijk, F. J., Schaufeli, W. B., &amp; Blonk, R. W. (2008). Distress or no distress, that's the question: A cutoff point for distress in a working population. Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, 3(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6673-3-3 Vandergrift, L., Goh, C. C., Mareschal, C. J., &amp; Tafaghodtari, M. H. (2006). The metacognitive awareness listening questionnaire: Development and validation. Language learning, 56(3), 431-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00373.x Veenman, M. V., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H., &amp; Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and learning, 1(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0 Wellman, H. (1985). The Child’s Theory of Mind: The Development of Conscious Cognition. San Diego: Academic Pres. Wells, A., &amp; Cartwright-Hatton, S. (2004). A short form of the metacognitions questionnaire: properties of the MCQ-30. Behaviour research and therapy, 42(4), 385-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00147-5 Zimmerman, B. J., &amp; Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives. Routledge: New York. Zohar, A., &amp; Barzilai, S. (2013). A review of research on metacognition in science education: Current and future directions. Studies in Science education, 49(2), 121-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2013.847261