Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI-32) Test

For readers who want to examine how they direct learning, decisions, and problem-solving, the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI-32) Test offers a structured profile of thinking habits. It can clarify strengths in planning, monitoring, strategy selection, and reflection, helping people identify patterns worth exploring in study, work, or everyday tasks. A metacognitive awareness questionnaire makes those habits easier to discuss.

What This Assessment Explores

Items show how people manage thinking in learning and problem-solving. Results describe self-regulation, not intelligence or subject knowledge. A metacognitive skills assessment highlights planning, strategy choice, monitoring, correction, and evaluation.

These groups show the dimensions:

• Awareness scores show cognitive knowledge and control: Metacognitive Engagement (32-160): Low=32-74, Moderate=75-117, High=118-160; Metacognitive Knowledge (12-60): Low=12-27, Moderate=28-44, High=45-60; Declarative Knowledge (5-25): Limited awareness=5-11, Developing awareness=12-18, Strong awareness=19-25; Procedural Knowledge (3-15): Developing=3-7, Adequate=8-11, Strong=12-15; Conditional Knowledge (4-20): Developing=4-10, Functional=11-15, Strong=16-20.
• Regulation scores show task control: Metacognitive Regulation (20-100): Low=20-46, Moderate=47-73, High=74-100; Planning (4-20): Low=4-9, Moderate=10-15, High=16-20; Information Management Strategies (2-10): Developing=2-4, Functional=5-7, Strong=8-10.
• Review scores show checking and correction: Component Monitoring (6-30): Low=6-15, Moderate=16-23, High=24-30; Error Correction Structure (4-20): Developing=4-9, Adequate=10-14, Strong=15-20; Evaluation (4-20): Limited evaluation=4-9, Moderate evaluation=10-14, Strong evaluation=15-20.

Methodology and Scientific Basis

Each statement uses five response choices, from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. Responses are organized into domain scores, so the output gives a profile of metacognitive knowledge and regulation rather than a pass-or-fail judgment. The scoring display should be read as a pattern across domains, not as a single overall grade.

The closest supporting evidence is Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (Perikova & Byzova, 2022), which examined how items in a Russian version grouped into factors. The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with the original MAI framework described by Schraw and Dennison (1994), especially its distinction between metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. This online form is not presented as a direct reproduction of either published version, and the cited evidence does not demonstrate that it has been independently standardized or validated.

Interpret the displayed bands as descriptive guides for self-reflection. Because the format relies on self-report, scores can shift with current demands, memory, self-awareness, and the wish to appear consistent or capable. A self-regulated learning assessment is most useful when its pattern prompts concrete reflection on how someone prepares tasks, checks understanding, changes strategy, and responds to mistakes.