In recent decades, increasing numbers of studies have focused on metacomprehension accuracy, or readers' ability to distinguish between texts comprehended more vs. less well. Following early findings that suggested readers are fairly poor at doing so, a number of studies have identified specific tasks to supplement a single reading of text that have resulted in greater metacomprehension accuracy. One assumption underlying these studies is that, in the absence of such tasks, metacomprehension accuracy is uniformly poor, and given their implementation, readers uniformly improve. Here we describe the individual variation that occurs both in the absence (e.g., within a "single" text reading manipulation) and presence (e.g., within a "rereading" or "selective rereading" task manipulation) of these supplementary tasks (N = 214), in order to make a case for greater attention to individual differences in metacomprehension accuracy. We also introduce a new manipulation in metacomprehension research, selective rereading, and argue that certain types of tasks may be more likely to reveal individual differences in metacomprehension accuracy due to the nature of the task being more or less demanding on working memory capacity.