Older age groups overestimate their mathematical and reading competence more than younger age groups, but this may reflect performance differences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · associational r3 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Age positively predicted judgment bias in mathematical competence (β = 0.14, p < 0.01), indicating more overestimation in older age groups. → Maximilian Seitz 2025 q3 i1 Age positively predicted judgment bias in reading competence (β = 0.11, p < 0.01), indicating more overestimation in older age groups. → Maximilian Seitz 2025 (2) q3 i? In sensitivity analyses restricted to participants with comparable test scores, age was not a significant predictor of judgment or bias in either domain. → Maximilian Seitz 2025 (3)

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 · i1 · associational · r3

Weighted linear regression on the mathematics subsample controlling for education showed "a significant age effect" on bias (β = 0.14, p < 0.01); the model explained R² = 0.06 and the generalized additive model showed the same positive age pattern.

"Regarding performance judgment bias in mathematical competence, there was a significant age effect in the linear model (Fig. 1), suggesting that older age groups overestimated their mathematical competence (β = 0.14, p < 0.01)."

Maximilian Seitz 2025 (2)¶

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 · i1 · associational · r3

Weighted linear regression on the reading subsample controlling for education showed a positive age effect on bias (β = 0.11, p < 0.01); the model explained R² = 0.04 and the generalized additive model replicated the pattern.

"Finally, the linear model predicting performance judgment bias in reading competence indicated a positive age effect (β = 0.11, p < 0.01), namely that older age groups showed more overestimation."

Maximilian Seitz 2025 (3)¶

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

Sensitivity analysis restricted to cases within 1/8 SD of the mean mathematics score (subsample n = 420): age was not a significant predictor of judgment or bias; the parallel reading analysis (n = 521) showed the same null result.

"In both models predicting performance judgment and performance judgment bias, age was not a significant predictor (Table 3S, 4S)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Age and Developmental Stage — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Across all adult age groups and both genders, global performance judgments of mathematics and reading competence are on average overestimated — related
• At low memory loads, older adults report less uncertainty than younger adults despite making larger errors, suggesting an overconfidence bias — 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
• Gender differences in global performance judgments follow domain stereotypes: men higher in mathematics, women higher in reading, with no gender differences in bias — related
• Reflective judgment scores increased consistently with age and educational level — related