Thinking about Thinking

Abstract

Measuring metacognitionResearch on metacognition poses quite a challenge: asking people directly to evaluate their metacognition may be flawed as they may struggle to realistically evaluate their deficits if they do indeed have a deficit in metacognition (Nelson & Narens, 1994). The three main methods to investigate metacognition are self-reports, the comparison of self-and other reports, and comparing peoples' self-evaluation with an outside criterion. Self-reports are a useful tool in gaining an understanding of patients' perspective of their functioning, yet a deficit in metacognition would imply that the person would struggle to evaluate themselves realistically. The comparison of self-and informant reports yields unique information about how the individual may fare in a variety of situations, yet, informants' (partners or relatives) evaluation will also be subjective and prone to biases (Williamson et al., 2010). The last method to investigate metacognition compares patients' evaluation with an outside criterion.In this approach, participants' subjective evaluation of their cognitive performance on a neuropsychological test can be compared to their actual performance on this test. This selfevaluation may occur after the test is completed (postdiction). The advantage of this approach is that the subjective self-evaluation is compared to an (arguably) objective outside criterion, yielding insight into the discrepancy between patients' perceived and actual performance.