EOL judgments are highly accurate when items vary widely in difficulty within a list, but poorly accurate when variation is small¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2020: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 In Experiment 1, EOL accuracy (gamma) was reliably higher for the high-variability list (M = .74) than the low-variability list (M = .21), d = 2.70. → Jemstedt 2017

Evidence¶

Jemstedt 2017¶

Jemstedt, A., Kubik, V., & Jönsson, F. U. (2017). What moderates the accuracy of ease of learning judgments? Metacognition and Learning, 12, 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9172-3

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Within-group experiment with 31 Stockholm University psychology students judging and learning two lists of 40 word pairs each, one high and one low in semantic-relatedness variability. The main effect of list was significant, F(1, 30) = 110.82, p < .001, with "d = 2.70" described as a very large effect size.

"EOL accuracy was reliably higher for the high (M =. 7 4 ,SD = .13) than for the low variability list ( M =. 2 1 , SD = .24), as shown by a main effect of list,F(1, 30) = 110.82,p < .001, mean difference = .53, 95% CI = [.43, .63], d = 2.70."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• EOL judgments rely heavily on semantic relatedness, whose predictive validity appears to cap attainable EOL accuracy — related
• Learners generally underestimate how fast they will learn word pairs, and this underconfidence is larger for low-variability lists — related
• The type of EOL task (difficulty vs. trials-to-learn scale) does not reliably affect EOL accuracy — related
• Older adults show no reliable deficit in assessing item difficulty (EOL accuracy) — related