Exploring the Stability of Monitoring-Effectiveness Indexes in Metamemory

碩士 === 中原大學 === 心理學系 === 88 === The present study empirically compared several monitoring-effectiveness indexes with three stability criterions (stability with respect to item difficulty, stability within a single domain, and stability across domains). The G index was evaluated theoretica...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: LIANG, EN-PING, 梁恩萍
Other Authors: LEE, JU-WHEI
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2000
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/85631784206454007309
id ndltd-TW-088CYCU0071004
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-TW-088CYCU00710042015-10-13T11:50:52Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/85631784206454007309 Exploring the Stability of Monitoring-Effectiveness Indexes in Metamemory 探討後設記憶中監控力指標之穩定性 LIANG, EN-PING 梁恩萍 碩士 中原大學 心理學系 88 The present study empirically compared several monitoring-effectiveness indexes with three stability criterions (stability with respect to item difficulty, stability within a single domain, and stability across domains). The G index was evaluated theoretically by Nelson (1984) as the best monitoring-effectiveness index. Consequently, it was widely adopted by many researchers in the field of metacognition. However, some researchers recently found that the value of the G index could not accurately reflect the subject's monitoring-effectiveness; it varied with item difficulty; and it was unstable within a single domain. In these years, some scholars adopted the PSbar, Bias, CI, DI, and ANDI indexes to evaluate the subject's monitoring-effectiveness. The purpose of the present study, thus, is to empirically compare these existing monitoring-effectiveness indexes for the most stable one. Three experiments, each with a single factor design (item difficulty: easy/normal/difficult) were conducted in this study. Although these experiments belonged to different domains (the word recognition test, the face recognition test, the general knowledge test), they all adopted the confidence-judgment paradigm to measure the subject's monitoring-effectiveness. Results from the three experiments showed that the values of the ANDI and G indexes did not change with item difficulty. The PSbar, Bias, CI, DI, and ANDI indexes are stable within a domain. The PSbar, Bias, CI, and ANDI indexes could reflect the monitoring-effectiveness stability across domains. In conclusion, either from the perspective of discrimination indexes (DI, ANDI, and G) or from other accuracy indexes (PSbar, Bias, and CI), ANDI is the most stable monitoring-effectiveness index. LEE, JU-WHEI 李玉惠 2000 學位論文 ; thesis 125 zh-TW
collection NDLTD
language zh-TW
format Others
sources NDLTD
description 碩士 === 中原大學 === 心理學系 === 88 === The present study empirically compared several monitoring-effectiveness indexes with three stability criterions (stability with respect to item difficulty, stability within a single domain, and stability across domains). The G index was evaluated theoretically by Nelson (1984) as the best monitoring-effectiveness index. Consequently, it was widely adopted by many researchers in the field of metacognition. However, some researchers recently found that the value of the G index could not accurately reflect the subject's monitoring-effectiveness; it varied with item difficulty; and it was unstable within a single domain. In these years, some scholars adopted the PSbar, Bias, CI, DI, and ANDI indexes to evaluate the subject's monitoring-effectiveness. The purpose of the present study, thus, is to empirically compare these existing monitoring-effectiveness indexes for the most stable one. Three experiments, each with a single factor design (item difficulty: easy/normal/difficult) were conducted in this study. Although these experiments belonged to different domains (the word recognition test, the face recognition test, the general knowledge test), they all adopted the confidence-judgment paradigm to measure the subject's monitoring-effectiveness. Results from the three experiments showed that the values of the ANDI and G indexes did not change with item difficulty. The PSbar, Bias, CI, DI, and ANDI indexes are stable within a domain. The PSbar, Bias, CI, and ANDI indexes could reflect the monitoring-effectiveness stability across domains. In conclusion, either from the perspective of discrimination indexes (DI, ANDI, and G) or from other accuracy indexes (PSbar, Bias, and CI), ANDI is the most stable monitoring-effectiveness index.
author2 LEE, JU-WHEI
author_facet LEE, JU-WHEI
LIANG, EN-PING
梁恩萍
author LIANG, EN-PING
梁恩萍
spellingShingle LIANG, EN-PING
梁恩萍
Exploring the Stability of Monitoring-Effectiveness Indexes in Metamemory
author_sort LIANG, EN-PING
title Exploring the Stability of Monitoring-Effectiveness Indexes in Metamemory
title_short Exploring the Stability of Monitoring-Effectiveness Indexes in Metamemory
title_full Exploring the Stability of Monitoring-Effectiveness Indexes in Metamemory
title_fullStr Exploring the Stability of Monitoring-Effectiveness Indexes in Metamemory
title_full_unstemmed Exploring the Stability of Monitoring-Effectiveness Indexes in Metamemory
title_sort exploring the stability of monitoring-effectiveness indexes in metamemory
publishDate 2000
url http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/85631784206454007309
work_keys_str_mv AT liangenping exploringthestabilityofmonitoringeffectivenessindexesinmetamemory
AT liángēnpíng exploringthestabilityofmonitoringeffectivenessindexesinmetamemory
AT liangenping tàntǎohòushèjìyìzhōngjiānkònglìzhǐbiāozhīwěndìngxìng
AT liángēnpíng tàntǎohòushèjìyìzhōngjiānkònglìzhǐbiāozhīwěndìngxìng
_version_ 1716849497415352320