Freudly+971 508685814hello@freudly.ai
Freudly
metacognition

Comprehensive Metacognitive Potential Questionnaire Test

Take the online Comprehensive Metacognitive Potential Questionnaire Test - AI psychologist FreudlyYou can take Comprehensive Metacognitive Potential Questionnaire Test here. Online version of a simple and accurate psychological test with interpretation.en
Completed in about 15 minutes, this 80-question assessment explores how you monitor, regulate, and reflect on your thinking while learning and solving problems. The Comprehensive Metacognitive Potential Questionnaire Test offers a profile of your cognitive strengths, supporting focused self-reflection and a clearer view of your personal strategies.
Questions: 8015 minutes
Comprehensive Metacognitive Potential Questionnaire: situation and reply bubbles
October 2, 2025October 2, 2025Material has been updatedOctober 2, 2025Material has been published
23,231 view
2,091 completion
1,586 likes
Daniel HallPsychologist · Test reviewer
1,586 likes
Scale Explorer

How the Scales are Structured

Self-RegulatorySR
Measures how well a person can independently regulate behavior and emotions while performing cognitively demanding tasks.
example score51/70
51/70Strongexample score
10 – 30Needs support
31 – 50Adequate
51 – 70Strong
A score of 51 falls in the Strong range, suggesting consistent self-management of attention, behavior, and emotional responses during cognitive activity.
EndocognitiveE
Measures the extent of internal self-observation and self-analysis that support self-awareness and self-regulation.
example score30/70
30/70Lowerexample score
10 – 30Lower
31 – 50Moderate
51 – 70Higher
A score of 30 falls in the Lower range, suggesting less frequent or less developed self-observation and self-analysis in information-related tasks compared with higher scores.
MetaproceduralM
Measures awareness and control over the procedures and strategies you use while thinking and learning.
example score45/70
45/70Developing strategy controlexample score
10 – 29Limited procedural awareness
30 – 49Developing strategy control
50 – 70Strong strategy monitoring
A score of 45 falls in the Developing strategy control range, suggesting generally consistent awareness of learning/thinking strategies with some room to strengthen monitoring and adjustment.
MetadeclarativeM
Measures how well a person can recognize, describe, and use knowledge about their own cognitive processes to solve problems.
example score59/70
59/70Well-developedexample score
10 – 30Developing
31 – 50Functional
51 – 70Well-developed
A score of 59 falls in the Well-developed range, suggesting strong awareness and articulation of your thinking processes and an ability to apply that insight in problem-solving.
InhibitoryI
Measures the ability to inhibit impulsive responses and suppress unwanted thoughts or actions during cognitive tasks.
example score37/70
37/70Moderate inhibitionexample score
10 – 29Lower inhibition
30 – 49Moderate inhibition
50 – 70Higher inhibition
A score of 37 falls in the Moderate inhibition range, suggesting a generally adequate capacity to pause impulsive reactions, with room to strengthen consistency under distraction or pressure.
MetacommunicativeM
Measures awareness and regulation of communication processes and the ability to interpret others’ intentions.
example score37/70
37/70Moderateexample score
10 – 29Developing
30 – 49Moderate
50 – 70Strong
A score of 37 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting generally adequate metacommunicative awareness with room to further strengthen intentional regulation and interpretation in complex interactions.
MetaregulatoryM
Measures how effectively you monitor, control, and adjust your thinking during problem solving to stay flexible and adapt to changing conditions.
example score48/70
48/70Developingexample score
10 – 29Needs support
30 – 49Developing
50 – 70Strong
A score of 48 falls in the Developing range, suggesting generally adequate cognitive self-regulation with room to improve consistency and flexibility under changing task demands.
MetacognitiveM
Measures awareness of one’s own thinking and the ability to analyze, plan, and monitor cognitive activity.
example score41/70
41/70Functionalexample score
10 – 30Developing
31 – 50Functional
51 – 70Advanced
A score of 41 falls in the Functional range, suggesting generally adequate insight into your thought processes with room to strengthen consistent planning and self-monitoring.
Metacognitive PotentialMP
Metacognitive Potential measures how well a person can monitor, control, and regulate their own cognitive processes and thinking strategies.
example score249/560
249/560Moderateexample score
80 – 239Lower
240 – 399Moderate
400 – 560Higher
A score of 249 falls in the Moderate range, suggesting a generally workable level of awareness and regulation of thinking with room for further development of self-monitoring and control strategies.
just completed the test
DATA-BASED USER COHORTS

Who Usually Takes This Test?

Managers and team leads
41%OF USERS
They take it to understand how they monitor their thinking, stay focused, and make higher-quality decisions under responsibility.
Students and lifelong learners
34%OF USERS
They use it to pinpoint which self-regulation and learning strategies help them study smarter and process information more effectively.
Psychologists and researchers
25%OF USERS
They administer it to assess metacognitive components in individuals or groups for diagnostics, coaching, or research purposes.
BASED ON AGGREGATED, ANONYMIZED DATA FROM TENS OF THOUSANDS OF FREUDLY USERS.
Benchmarking

See How You Compare

Once you complete the test, your results are compared with real-world data from people in your country.
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Shaded area — where most people score
Dot — the average
You — your score lands on each curve after the test— your score, after the test
Self-regulatoryS
You?
Average28.8
Typical rangeTypical19.2 – 38.3
Possible10 – 70
EndocognitiveE
You?
Average48.3
Typical rangeTypical38.2 – 58.4
Possible10 – 70
MetaproceduralM
You?
Average51.7
Typical rangeTypical42.4 – 61.1
Possible10 – 70
MetadeclarativeM
You?
Average28.4
Typical rangeTypical20.7 – 36
Possible10 – 70
InhibitoryI
You?
Average28.1
Typical rangeTypical20.6 – 35.5
Possible10 – 70
MetacommunicativeM
You?
Average26.9
Typical rangeTypical17.1 – 36.7
Possible10 – 70
MetaregulativeM
You?
Average32.6
Typical rangeTypical24.9 – 40.3
Possible10 – 70
MetacognitiveM
You?
Average32.3
Typical rangeTypical21.5 – 43
Possible10 – 70
Metacognitive PotentialMP
You?
Average339.1
Typical rangeTypical250.1 – 428.1
Possible80 – 560
Featured On
SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Example Questions From the Test

    • Not true at all
    • Almost completely not true
    • More not true than true
    • Not sure
    • More true than not true
    • Almost completely true
    • Completely true
    • Does not apply at all
    • Almost certain this does not apply
    • More true than not true
    • Not sure
    • More true than not true
    • Almost certain this applies
    • Completely applies
    • Does not apply at all
    • Almost sure it does not apply
    • Rather does not apply than applies
    • Not sure
    • Rather applies than does not apply
    • Almost sure it applies
    • Completely applies
WHAT THE TEST MEASURES

Comprehensive Metacognitive Potential Questionnaire Test - Description and methodology of the test

metacognition

People who want a structured view of how they plan, monitor, and adjust thinking can use the Comprehensive Metacognitive Potential Questionnaire Test to examine everyday cognitive habits. It suits people reflecting on learning, work, decisions, concentration, communication, and problem solving. A metacognitive assessment profile can show patterns worth developing without reducing them to a single ability label.

What This Assessment Measures

The metacognitive skills test covers these dimensions:

  • Metacommunicative (10-70) measures communication control: Developing 10-29; Moderate 30-49; Strong 50-70.
  • Self-Regulatory (10-70) measures behavioral/emotional regulation: Needs support 10-30; Adequate 31-50; Strong 51-70.
  • Endocognitive (10-70) measures self-monitoring: Lower 10-30; Moderate 31-50; Higher 51-70.
  • Metaprocedural (10-70) measures strategy control: Limited procedural awareness 10-29; Developing strategy control 30-49; Strong strategy monitoring 50-70.
  • Metadeclarative (10-70) measures cognitive knowledge: Developing 10-30; Functional 31-50; Well-developed 51-70.
  • Inhibitory (10-70) measures impulse control: Lower inhibition 10-29; Moderate inhibition 30-49; Higher inhibition 50-70.
  • Metaregulatory (10-70) measures cognitive adjustment: Needs support 10-29; Developing 30-49; Strong 50-70.
  • Metacognitive (10-70) measures thinking awareness: Developing 10-30; Functional 31-50; Advanced 51-70.
  • Metacognitive Potential (80-560) measures metacognitive resources: Lower 80-239; Moderate 240-399; Higher 400-560.

Methodology and Evidence Base

Each statement uses a seven-point response continuum, moving from no fit or untruth through uncertainty to complete fit or truth. Wording varies, but respondents judge how well each statement describes them.

Responses produce separate dimension scores and an overall composite score. Displayed bands show the range for each result, not a universal ability standard. Because item weighting is undocumented, no point-per-answer rule should be inferred.

Methodologically, the questionnaire is conceptually consistent with COMP-I (Karpov & Karpov, 2022), but is not an adaptation of that published instrument. Its organization also aligns with work by Karpov, Karpov, and Filippova (2023) on performance parameters and by Karpov, Karpov, and Chemyakina (2022) on reflexivity components. As a metacognitive potential questionnaire, it is an online self-report profile, not a standardized instrument for this version.

These studies provide context rather than norms, reliability estimates, or diagnostic validation. Interpret scores as a snapshot: current demands, self-awareness, and response bias can influence answers, so one band is not a fixed description or diagnosis.

Author: Adrian F. Wells
Literature:
  • Karpov, Anatolii V., & Karpov, Aleksandr A. (2022). The Structure of Metacognitive Regulation of Information Activity. Yaroslavl: Filigran. 816 pp. ISBN 978-5-6048593-7-7.
  • Karpov, Anatolii V., Karpov, Aleksandr A., & Filippova, Yulia V. (2023). Metacognitive Determination of Performance Parameters of Programmers. Russian Psychological Journal, 20(1), 100-117. 10.21702/rpj.2023.1.7
  • Karpov, Anatolii V., Karpov, Aleksandr A., & Chemyakina, Anna V. (2022). The Specifics of the Structural Organization of the Metacognitive Components of Reflexivity. Russian Psychological Journal, 19(1), 127-142. 10.21702/rpj.2022.1.10

Updated:

Popular tests
Comments
Leave a Comment