The objective of this study is to provide a systematic account of three typical phenomena surrounding absolute accuracy of metacomprehension assessments: (1) the absolute accuracy of predictions is typically quite low; (2) there exist individual differences in absolute accuracy of predictions as a function of reading skill; and (3) postdictions are more accurate than predictions. To achieve the stated objective, I tested two models, the Anchoring and Adjustment model (Zhao & Linderholm, 2008) and the Standards model (based on Wiley et al., 2005) to determine which model better explains those three different findings. According to the Anchoring and Adjustment model (Zhao & Linderholm, 2008), when evaluating performance on a specific reading task, readers anchor around their self-perception of reading skill and make an adjustment away from it based on the perceived level of text understanding. In contrast, the Standards model, that I proposed by following Wiley et al. (2005)'s theory of metacomprehension assessment, states that readers set a standard based on their ideas of good comprehension and evaluate the perceived level of text understanding against the standard. The study results suggested that the Anchoring and Adjustment model successfully explained all of the three findings in general. (1) The extent to which one's self-perception of reading skill deviated from reality accounted for readers' limited absolute accuracy levels. (2) The different manner in which more- and less-skilled readers perceive their own reading skill accounted for individual differences in predictions between the two reading skill groups. (3) The magnitude of adjustments was greater for postdictions than predictions, as proposed by the Anchoring and Adjustment model, although self-perception of reading skill was more predictive of postdictions than predictions as opposed to the model's hypothesis. Meanwhile, the data did not fit into the three accounts built from the Standards model's standpoint overall. (1) The extent to which one's standard of reading comprehension deviated from the test-giver's standard did not account for limited absolute accuracy of predictions. (2) Differences in the standard of reading comprehension did not predict more-skilled readers' underestimations and less-skilled readers' overestimations of reading performance. (3) The new standards that readers built for postdictions were not closer to the test-giver's standard than the original standards they formed for predictions, as opposed to the model's prediction. Attempts were made to interpret findings contradicting each of the models' hypotheses. Lastly, I discussed theoretical and educational implications, and limitations of the present study. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]