These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30270949)
1. Are there Sex Differences in Confidence and Metacognitive Monitoring Accuracy for Everyday, Academic, and Psychometrically Measured Spatial Ability? Ariel R; Lembeck NA; Moffat S; Hertzog C Intelligence; 2018; 70():42-51. PubMed ID: 30270949 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Age-related similarities and differences in monitoring spatial cognition. Ariel R; Moffat SD Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn; 2018 May; 25(3):351-377. PubMed ID: 28361562 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Unskilled but subjectively aware: Metacognitive monitoring ability and respective awareness in low-performing students. Händel M; Fritzsche ES Mem Cognit; 2016 Feb; 44(2):229-41. PubMed ID: 26438233 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Are you sure the library is that way? Metacognitive monitoring of spatial judgments. Stevens CA; Carlson RA J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2016 Jul; 42(7):1034-49. PubMed ID: 26866660 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Confidence judgments in real classroom settings: monitoring performance in different types of tests. de Carvalho Filho MK Int J Psychol; 2009 Apr; 44(2):93-108. PubMed ID: 22029451 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The accuracy of academic self-evaluations in adolescents with learning disabilities. Stone CA; May AL J Learn Disabil; 2002; 35(4):370-83. PubMed ID: 15493246 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Unskilled, underperforming, or unaware? Testing three accounts of individual differences in metacognitive monitoring. Grabman JH; Dodson CS Cognition; 2024 Jan; 242():105659. PubMed ID: 37939445 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Further development and testing of the metacognitive model of procrastination: Self-reported academic performance. Fernie BA; Kopar UY; Fisher PL; Spada MM J Affect Disord; 2018 Nov; 240():1-5. PubMed ID: 30032005 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparing metacognitive monitoring between native and non-native speaking primary school students. Buehler FJ; van Loon MH; Bayard NS; Steiner M; Roebers CM Metacogn Learn; 2021; 16(3):749-768. PubMed ID: 34867119 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Early metacognitive abilities: the interplay of monitoring and control processes in 5- to 7-year-old children. Destan N; Hembacher E; Ghetti S; Roebers CM J Exp Child Psychol; 2014 Oct; 126():213-28. PubMed ID: 24945686 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape. Ceci SJ; Ginther DK; Kahn S; Williams WM Psychol Sci Public Interest; 2014 Dec; 15(3):75-141. PubMed ID: 26172066 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Younger and older adults weigh multiple cues in a similar manner to generate judgments of learning. Hines JC; Hertzog C; Touron DR Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn; 2015; 22(6):693-711. PubMed ID: 25827630 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Differences in metacognitive regulation in introductory biology students: when prompts are not enough. Stanton JD; Neider XN; Gallegos IJ; Clark NC CBE Life Sci Educ; 2015; 14(2):. PubMed ID: 25976651 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Metacognition and proofreading: the roles of aging, motivation, and interest. Hargis MB; Yue CL; Kerr T; Ikeda K; Murayama K; Castel AD Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn; 2017 Mar; 24(2):216-226. PubMed ID: 27220818 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]