Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:36:15.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Benefits of Order: The Influence of Item Sequencing on Metacognition in Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2012

Kathy S. Chiou
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University; University Park, Pennsylvania
Frank G. Hillary*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University; University Park, Pennsylvania
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: F.G. Hillary, 347 Moore Building, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. E-mail: fhillary@psu.edu

Abstract

The ability to appraise one's own ability has been found to have an important role in the recovery and quality of life of clinical populations. Examinee and task variables have been found to influence metacognition in healthy students; however the effect of these variables on the metacognitive accuracy of adults with neurological insult, such as traumatic brain injury (TBI), remains unknown. Twenty-two adults with moderate and severe TBI and a matched sample of healthy adults participated in this study examining the influence of item sequencing on metacognitive functioning. Retrospective confidence judgments were collected while participants completed a modified version of the Matrix Reasoning subtest. Significant influence of item sequence order was found, revealing better metacognitive abilities and performance when participants completed tasks where item difficulty progressed in order from easy to difficult. We interpret these findings to suggest that the sequencing of item difficulty offers “anchors” for gauging and adjusting to task demands. (JINS, 2012, 18, 379–383)

Type
Brief Communications
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J.W., Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (2009). Predictions of episodic memory following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury during impatient rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31(4), 425438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boone, D.E., Kaplan, E.P. (1993). WAIS-R difficulties with psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(6), 860874.3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiou, K.S., Carlson, R.A., Arnett, P.A., Cosentino, S.A., Hillary, F.G. (2011). Metacognitive monitoring in moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(4), 720731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cosentino, S., Stern, Y. (2005). Metacognitive theory and assessment in dementia: Do we recognize our areas of weakness? Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11(7), 910919.Google Scholar
Evans, C.C., Sherer, M., Nick, T.G., Nakase-Richardson, R., Yablon, S.A. (2005). Early impaired self-awareness, depression, and subjective well-being following traumatic brain injury. Journal of head Trauma Rehabilitation, 20(6), 488500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flashman, L.A., McAllister, T.W. (2002). Lack of awareness and its impact in traumatic brain injury. Neurorehabilitation, 17, 285296.Google Scholar
Flavell, J.H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L.A., Kruskal, W.H. (1954). Measures of association for cross classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49(268), 732764.Google Scholar
Kennedy, M.R.T. (2001). Retrospective confidence judgments made by adults with traumatic brain injury: Relative and absolute accuracy. Brain Injury, 15(6), 469487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, M.R.T., Carney, E., Peters, S.M. (2003). Predictions of recall and study strategy decisions after diffuse brain injury. Brain Injury, 17(12), 10431064.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, L.-M., Zabrucky, K.M. (1998). Calibration of comprehension: Research and implications for education and instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 345391.Google Scholar
Lin, L.-M., Zabrucky, K.M., Moore, D. (2002). Effects of text difficulty and adults’ age on relative calibration of comprehension. The American Journal of Psychology, 115(2), 187198.Google Scholar
Maki, R.H., Swett, M. (1987). Metamemory for narrative text. Memory & Cognition, 15(1), 7283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, T.O., Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 26, 125173.Google Scholar
Ownsworth, T., Fleming, J. (2005). The relative importance of metacognitive skills, emotional status, and executive function in psychosocial adjustment following acquired brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 20(4), 315332.Google Scholar
Weaver, C.A. III, Bryant, D.S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text. Memory & Cognition, 23(1), 1222.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised manual. New York, NY: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Whyte, J., Hart, T., Laborde, A., Rosenthal, M. (2005). Rehabilitation of the patient with traumatic brain injury. In DeLisa, J. A., Gans, B.M., Walsh, N. E. (Eds.), Rehabilitation medicine: Principles and practice (4th ed., pp. 16771714). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Zhao, Q., Linderholm, T. (2008). Adult metacomprehension: Judgment processes and accuracy constraints. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 191206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar