Spontaneous strategy use in children with autism spectrum disorder: the roles of metamemory and language skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metamemory, or beliefs about one's own memory capabilities, knowing what you know, and knowing what you don't know, has frequently been linked to the spontaneous use of rehearsal strategies in typically developing children. However, limited research has investigated mnemonic strategy use, metamemory, or the relationship between these two cognitive processes in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). The current study examined the relative strength of metamemory knowledge and language skills as predictors of rehearsal use and memory performance in individuals with ASD. Twenty-one children with ASD and 21 children in a combined comparison group were matched on chronological and verbal mental age. Over two sessions, participants completed a serial recall task, a language measure, and a metamemory questionnaire. Children were classified as rehearsers/non-rehearsers based on behavioral observations and/or verbal reports of strategy use. As expected from previous research, the comparison group had a significantly higher proportion of rehearsers than the ASD group. However, spontaneous rehearsers performed significantly better on the serial recall task than non-rehearsers, regardless of group membership. Children in the comparison group had a higher mean total score on the metamemory questionnaire than the ASD group. However, when examined by rehearsal use, participants classified as rehearsers, regardless of diagnostic group, scored significantly higher on the metamemory questionnaire than non-rehearsers. Finally, across groups, hierarchical regression analyses identified both metamemory and language proficiency as significant predictors of rehearsal strategy use. The fact that the predictors showed the same relationship across the comparison group and the ASD group implies that metamemory and language proficiency, while separate entities, are both fundamental underlying skills contributing to the emergence of rehearsal strategies, and that the results are likely generalizable to other populations with developmental challenges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".