Buros-Nebraska Series on Measurement and Testing


Date of this Version


Document Type



Published in Issues in the Measurement of Metacognition, ed. Gregory Schraw & James C. Impara (Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 2000).


Copyright © 2000 Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Digital Edition Copyright © 2012 Buros Center for Testing.


In this chapter we provide an overview of the conceptual and methodological issues involved in developing and evaluating measures of metacognition and self-regulated learning. Our goal is to suggest a general framework for thinking about these assessments- a framework that will help generate questions and guide future research and development efforts. Broadly speaking, we see the main issue in assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning as one of construct validity. Of critical importance are the conceptual or theoretical definitions of these constructs and the adequacy of the empirical evidence offered to justify or support interpretations of test scores obtained from instruments designed to measure them.

In speaking to this issue of construct validity, we organize our chapter into four main sections. First, we review the various theoretical and conceptual models of metacognition and self-regulated learning and propose three general components of metacognition and selfregulation that will guide our discussion in subsequent sections. Second, we briefly describe a set of criteria proposed by Messick (1989) for investigating construct validity and suggest a set of guiding questions and general issues to consider in evaluating measures of metacognition and self-regulated learning. Third, we discuss in some detail several measures for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in light of the empirical evidence available to address issues of the construct validity of these measures. In the fourth and final section, we draw some conclusions about current measures of metacognition and self-regulated learning, suggest some directions for future research, and raise some issues that merit consideration in the development and evaluation of valid measures of metacognition.