Men reported higher monitoring judgments on health math problems than women, even accounting for performance accuracy¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
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? Males reported higher monitoring judgments than females on the pretest problem and on two of three posttest problems when other predictors were in the model. → Scheibe 2022
Evidence¶
Scheibe 2022¶
Scheibe, D. A., Fitzsimmons, C. J., Mielicki, M. K., Taber, J. M., Sidney, P. G., Coifman, K., & Thompson, C. A. (2022). Confidence in COVID problem solving: What factors predict adults’ item-level metacognitive judgments on health-related math problems before and after an educational intervention? Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-022-09300-3
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Regression on pretest monitoring judgments in the 1,177-participant sample: accuracy predicted judgments (β = 0.08, p = 0.009) but not once gender was added, while "males reported higher monitoring judgments than females, β = 0.19, t = 6.43, p < 0.001".
"However, males reported higher monitoring judgments than females, β = 0.19, t = 6.43, p < 0.001."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Adults who answered health math problems correctly reported higher monitoring judgments than those who answered incorrectly, with larger differences at posttest than pretest — related
- Adults randomly assigned to a worked-example educational intervention made higher post-intervention monitoring judgments on health math problems than control participants — related
- Math anxiety explained variance in posttest monitoring judgments beyond trait anxiety, supporting its distinctness from general anxiety — related
- Math self-efficacy (first four SNS items) was the only variable significantly predicting monitoring judgments on all four health math problems — related
- Female students provided lower local judgments with lower sensitivity but higher specificity than male students — related
- Math anxiety mediated the effect of gender on pretest monitoring judgments in exploratory analyses — 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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
gender-difference-monitoring-judgments-health-math |
title |
Men reported higher monitoring judgments on health math problems than women, even accounting for performance accuracy |
description |
Men reported higher monitoring judgments on health math problems than women, even accounting for performance accuracy |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — scheibe-2022 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.