Journal of Education and Health Promotion

Validation of Metacognitive Awareness Inventory from a Private Medical University in India

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

. Abirami Omprakash 1
. Archana Prabu Kumar 2
. Maheshkumar Kuppusamy 3
. Thyagarajan Ravinder 4
. Padmavathi Ramaswamy 1

1 Department of Physiology, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, SRIHER, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

2 Medical Education Unit, College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain

3 Department of Biochemistry and Physiology, Government Yoga and Naturopathy Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

4 Department of Community Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, SRIHER, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metacognition is the awareness and the capability to regulate one’s own thinking
process. Metacognition is critical in medical education for clinical reasoning and management. Hence,
the objective of this study is to evaluate the construct validity and reliability of the Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory (MAI) among first‑year medical and dental students, from a private medical
university in India, using confirmatory analysis and internal consistency method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross‑sectional study using convenient sampling.
Fifty‑two‑item MAI was administered to 933 first‑year medical and dental students from a private
medical university in India. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), principal component analysis,
Cronbach’s α, and confirmatory factor analysis with global fit indices were performed. Structural
equation modeling (SEM) was performed to evaluate the relationship between the structural path
and factors using AMOS version 22.
RESULTS: During EFA, 12 items with <0.40 factor loadings were trimmed sequentially. The remaining
items with respective factors had a good internal consistency of ≥ 0.9. Comparative fit index (0.78),
goodness‑of‑fit index (0.8), adjusted goodness of fit index (0.77), Tucker–Lewis index (0.7),
standardized root mean square residual (0.06), and root mean square error of approximation (0.09)
values showed that six‑factor model fits to satisfactory. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was found
to be high between factors (>0.80). SEM for each item (observed) and factor (unobserved) illustrated
the hypothesized model.
CONCLUSION: The resultant 40‑item model based on MAI designed by Schraw is a valid and
reliable tool for assessing the metacognitive awareness of Indian students. Employing a valid and
reliable tool in assessing the metacognitive awareness will help the academicians in incorporating
appropriate curricular interventions.

Keywords

Factor analysis
metacognition
structural equation modeling
validation
1. Flavell JH. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area
of cognitive–developmental inquiry. Am Psychol 1979;34:906.
2. Ohtani K, Hisasaka T. Beyond intelligence: A meta‑analytic
review of the relationship among metacognition, intelligence,
and academic performance. Metacogn Learn 2018;13:179‑212.
3. Schraw G, Moshman D. Metacognitive theories. EducPsychol
Review. 1995 1;7 (4):351‑71.
4. Kanai R, Rees G. The structural basis of inter‑individual
differences in human behaviour and cognition. Nat Rev Neurosci
2011;12:231‑42.
5. Molenaar I, Sleegers P, van Boxtel C. Metacognitive scaffolding
during collaborative learning: A promising combination.
Metacogn Learn 2014;9:309‑32.
6. Smith JM, Mancy R. Exploring the relationship between
metacognitive and collaborative talk during group mathematical
problem‑solving – what do we mean by collaborative
metacognition? Res Math Educ 2018;20:14‑36.
7. Maudsley G, Strivens J. ‘Science’, ‘critical thinking’ and
‘competence’ for tomorrow’s doctors. A review of terms and
concepts. Med Educ 2000;34:53‑60.
8. Colbert CY, Graham L, West C, White BA, Arroliga AC, Myers JD,
et al. Teaching metacognitive skills: Helping your physician
trainees in the quest to ‘know what they don’t know’. Am J Med
2015;128:318‑24.
9. Cho KK, Marjadi B, Langendyk V, HuW. Medical student changes
in self‑regulated learning during the transition to the clinical
environment. BMC Med Educ 2017;17:59.
10. Schraw G, Dennison RS. Assessing metacognitive awareness.
Contemp Educ Psychol 1994;19:460‑75.
11. Abdullah R, Soemantri D. Validation of metacognitive awareness
inventory in academic stage of undergraduate medical education.
E J Kedokt Indones 2018;6:237856.
12. Akın, A., Abacı, R. Çetin, B. (2007). The validity and reliability
study of the turkish version of the metacognitive awareness
inventory. Educational Science: Theory and Practice, 2007; 7 (2),
655‑680.
13. Favieri AG. General metacognitive strategies inventory (GMSI)
and the metacognitive integrals strategies inventory (MISI).
Electron J Res Educ Psychol 2013;11:831‑50.
14. Teo T, Lee CB. Assessing the factorial validity of the metacognitive
awareness inventory (MAI) in an Asian country: A confirmatory
factor analysis. Int J Educ Psychol Assess 2012;10:92‑103.
15. Kosior K, Wall T, Ferrero S. The role of metacognition in teaching
clinical reasoning: Theory to practice. Educ Health Prof 2019;2:108.
16. Medina MS, Castleberry AN, Persky AM. Strategies for improving
learner metacognition in health professional education. Am J
Pharm Educ 2017;81:78.
17. VeenmanMV, Van Hout‑Wolters BH, Afflerbach P. Metacognition
and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations.
Metacogn Learn 2006;1:3‑14.
18. Gönüllü İ, Artar M. The impact of metacognition training on
metacognitive awareness of medical students/tip fakültesi
öğrencilerinde öğretimle yönlendirmenin metabilişsel farkindaliğa
etkisi. Educational Science: Theory and Practice, 2014;10:594‑612.
19. Zulkiply N, Kabit M, Ghani K. Metacognition: What roles does it
play in students academic performance. Int J Learn 2008;75:97‑105.
20. Turan S, Demirel O, Sayek I. Metacognitive awareness and
self‑regulated learning skills of medical students in different
medical curricula. Med Teach 2009;31:e477‑83.
21. Abdelrahman RM. Metacognitive awareness and academic
motivation and their impact on academic achievement of Ajman
University students. Heliyon 2020;6:e04192.
22. Veloo A, Rani MA, Krishnasamy HN. The role of gender in the
use of metacognitive awareness reading strategies among biology
students. Asian Soc Sci 2014;11:67‑73.
23. Sawant NS, Parkar SR, Sharma A. Assessing metacognitive
abilities of postgraduate medical students. Ann Indian Psychiatry
2018;2:23.
24. Harrison GM, Vallin LM. Evaluating the metacognitive awareness
inventory using empirical factor‑structure evidence. Metacogn
Learn 2018;13:15‑38.
25. MCI. Competency Based under Graduate Curriculum
April 01, 2020. Available from: https://www.mciindia.
org/CMS/information‑desk/for‑colleges/ug‑curriculum.
[Last accessed on 2021 May 23].
26. Padmavathi R, Dilara K, MaheshKumar K, Anandan S,
Vijayaraghavan PV. RAPTS – An empowerment to the medical
postgraduates. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health 2020;8:806‑7.
Journal of Education and Health Promotion
Volume 11, Issue 8
September 2021
Pages 1-6

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us