Pretest and Posttest Confidence Ratings in Test Performance by Low-, Medium-, and High-Scoring Students

Abstract

Before and after taking 12 successive tests, 90 introductory psychology students rated their level of confidence in passing each test. Students were divided into high, medium, and low groups based on their semester test scores. Students in the high group had higher ratings and were better able to predict their average performance than students in the low and medium groups. Ratings for all students averaged across the 12 tests correlated significantly with average test scores, but students were unable to evaluate their readiness for taking individual tests. Results suggest that ratings were based primarily on students' assessments of the relative difficulty of the test material and on their general ability in the course, rather than on the effectiveness of their study.

The Usefulness of Retrieval Practice and Review-Only Practice for Answering Conceptually Related Test Questions

“…More cautious posttest estimates were consistent with the students' ratings of difficulty after the test, which were higher than those produced before the test. These findings are consistent with the notion that students' perceived ease or difficulty of processing the material to be tested influences their predictions about performance (Begg et al, 1989;Maki & Serra, 1992;Sjostrom, & Marks, 1994). They are also consistent with the notion that increased exposure to the test material enhances learners' awareness of their actual knowledge in relation to the demands of the test while it decreases the influence of domain familiarity (see Maki & Serra).…”

“…Evidence that students' perceived ease or difficulty of processing of the material to be tested influences their predictions about performance (Begg, Duft, Lalonde, Melnick, & Sanvito, 1989;Maki & Serra, 1992;Sjostrom, & Marks, 1994) led us to expect that domain familiarity would inflate self-assessment by biasing students' view of the content of a test as one that would be easy to process. Hence, we expected domain familiarity to lead to inflated self-assessments in a baseline condition without practice and even more inflated self-assessments when the source of such familiarity was of recent-rather than remote-origin.…”

Does momentary accessibility influence metacomprehension judgments? The influence of study—judgment lags on accessibility effects

“…Although the experiments reported here may be the first ones inspired by Morris's (1990) momentary-accessibility hypothesis, the effects of accessibility on metacomprehension described by Morris appear to be well-received generalizations within the field (see, e.g., Koriat, 1993;Maki, 1998a;Rawson & Dunlosky, 2002;Sjostrom & Marks, 1994;Thiede & Anderson, 2003). Most importantly, we know of no published research that has replicated Morris's original work or that has assessed the scope of the most relevant effects.…”

Implications of Contemporary Intelligence Theories to Marketing Education

“…Performance on tests of analytic or linguistic intelligence are affected by the confidence a student brings to the exam (e.g., see Sjostrom & Marks, 1994). This seems to occur independently of how well the student is prepared for the exam.…”