Metacognitive Comprehension Monitoring: Cognitive Abilities Explain Performance Differences Between Younger and Older Adults

Figures & data

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Study Variables for the Total Sample, Younger Adults, and Older Adults.

	Total sample (N = 209)	Younger adults (n = 101)	Older adults (n = 108)
Number of detected inconsistencies	3.12 (1.56)	3.41 (1.48)	2.86 (1.60)
Working memory updating based on a semantic criterion	15.31 (1.87)	15.72 (1.37)	14.93 (2.18)
Working memory updating based on a formal criterion	6.28 (1.89)	6.78 (1.68)	5.81 (1.97)
Short-term memory capacity	7.30 (2.18)	7.96 (2.35)	6.68 (1.81)
Verbal intelligence	21.94 (7.11)	24.76 (4.49)	19.30 (8.05)

Note. Number of detected inconsistencies (self-constructed inconsistency task), working memory updating based on a semantic criterion (self-constructed task), working memory updating based on a formal criterion (self-constructed n-back task), short-term memory (digit span forward of the WAIS-IV), indicator of verbal intelligence (word analogies of the KFT 4–12).

Figure 1. Path Model with Standardized Effects of Working Memory Updating Based on a Semantic Criterion and Working Memory Updating Based on a Formal Criterion on the Number of Detected Inconsistencies (N = 209).

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Figure 2. Path model with Standardized Effects of the Effects of Age Group (n_younger = 101, n_older = 108) on the Number of Detected Inconsistencies, Mediated by Verbal Intelligence, Short-Term Memory Capacity and Working Memory Updating Based on a Semantic Criterion (N_total = 209).

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.