Across all adult age groups and both genders, global performance judgments of mathematics and reading competence are on average overestimated¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2030: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Mean bias indicators were positive for men and women in both domains, indicating overestimation of performance in all groups. → Maximilian Seitz 2025
Evidence¶
Maximilian Seitz 2025¶
Maximilian Seitz, Anna Hawrot, Kathrin Lockl. (2025). Performance judgment in mathematical and reading competence in adults. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09416-2
q3 · i? · associational · r3
Descriptive overview of the weighted NEPS SC6 indicators (mathematics bias M = 0.18; reading bias M = 0.06) showed positive bias for both genders in both domains, i.e., postdictions exceeded actual percentage-correct scores.
"On average, men's and women's bias indicators were positive. That is, men and women stated that they solved more items correctly than they really did."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Gender differences in global performance judgments follow domain stereotypes: men higher in mathematics, women higher in reading, with no gender differences in bias — related
- Older age groups overestimate their mathematical and reading competence more than younger age groups, but this may reflect performance differences — related
- Older age groups report lower global performance judgments of their mathematical competence, controlling for education — related
- Older age groups report lower global performance judgments of their reading competence, controlling for education — related
- Reflective judgment scores increased consistently with age and educational level — related
- Teachers' judgments of students' performance deviated 21.96% from students' actual performance, tending to overestimate it — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
adults-overestimate-competence-all-ages |
title |
Across all adult age groups and both genders, global performance judgments of mathematics and reading competence are on average overestimated |
description |
Across all adult age groups and both genders, global performance judgments of mathematics and reading competence are on average overestimated |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
recheck_by |
2030 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — maximilian-seitz-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.