Revising the metacognitive awareness of reading strategies inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance

Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching

Volumn 8, Issue 2 Special Issue, 2018, Pages 219-246

  Mokhtari, Kouider ^a   Dimitrov, Dimiter M ^b,c   Reichard, Carla A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER   (United States)

^b National Center for Assessment in Higher Education   (Saudi Arabia)

^c GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Metacognition; Metacognitive awareness; Reading comprehension; Reading strategies

Indexed keywords

EID: 85049970068     PISSN: 20835205     EISSN: 20841965     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.3     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS 6: Structural equation program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
3. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. L. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 111-130.
4. Byrne, B. M. (1988). The self-description questionnaire III: Testing for equivalent factorial validity across ability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 397-406.
5. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. O. (1989). Testing for equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
6. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Self-report of reading comprehension strategies: What are we measuring? Metacognition and Learning, 1, 229-247.
9. Desoete, A., & Özso, G. (Eds.). (2009). Metacognition [Special issue]. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(1).
10. Dimitrov, D. M. (2012). Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
11. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320.
13. Guan, C. Q., Roehrig, A. D., Mason, R., & Meng, W. (2010). Psychometric properties of Meta-cognitive Awareness of Reading Strategy Inventory. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 1, 3-17.
14. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Hadwin, A.F., Winne, P.H., Stockley, D. B., Nesbit, J., & Woszczyna, C. (2001). Context moderates students’ self-reports about how they study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 477-487.
16. Hancock, G. R. (2004). Experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental design and analysis with latent variables. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 317-334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Hartman, H. J. (Editor). (2001). Metacognition in learning and instruction: Theory, research and practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
18. Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
19. Israel, S. E., Block, C. C., Bauserman, K. L., & Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (Eds.). (2005). Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and professional development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1979). Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.
21. Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85-106.
22. MacNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. MacNamara, D. S. (2011). Measuring deep, reflective comprehension and learning strategies: challenges and successes. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 195-203.
24. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
25. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York, NY: American Council on Education.
26. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.
27. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.
28. Mokhtari, K., & Sheorey, R. (2002). Measuring ESL students’ awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Developmental Education, 25(3), 2-10.
29. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
30. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.
31. Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Schellings, G., & van Hout Wolters, B. (2011). Measuring strategy use with self-report instruments [Special issue]. Metacognition and Learning, 6(1).
33. Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.
34. Veenman, M. V. J. (2011). Alternative assessment of strategy use with self-report instruments: A discussion. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 205-211.
35. Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3-14.