The confidence-rating impairment on ambiguous transfer items persists among participants who met the learning criterion¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? Among the 557 participants who met the learning criterion (at least 11/12 on at least one training block), the confidence rating group again performed significantly worse on ambiguous transfer items than both comparison groups. → Kit S. Double 2025
Evidence¶
Kit S. Double 2025¶
Kit S. Double, Micah B. Goldwater, Damian P. Birney. (2025). Reactivity to confidence ratings: evidence of impaired rule-learning. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09413-5
q3 · i? · causal · r3
Analysis restricted to the 557 (78%) participants who met the learning criterion adopted from Little and McDaniel (2015). "Pairwise comparisons indicated that the only significant differences were for the ambiguous transfer items, where, again, the confidence rating group performed significantly worse than both the JOL group and the no-rating group." A post-hoc power analysis indicated > 99% power for the interaction effect.
"There was also a main effect of condition, F(2,554) = 7.97, p <.001, ηp 2 = 0.028 and a sig - nificant interaction between condition and item type, F(4,1108) = 3.45, p =.008, ηp 2 = 0.012, see Table 3 for group mean and pairwise comparisons."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Confidence ratings do not impede category learning per se: no condition differences in training accuracy or on unambiguous and trained transfer items
- Reactivity differs by rating scope: item-focused confidence ratings impaired rule learning while task-focused judgments of learning did not
- Eliciting confidence ratings impairs rule-based category learning compared to both no-rating and judgment-of-learning conditions on ambiguous transfer items — a broader claim this one bears on
- Confidence ratings are unlikely to be an effective educational tool when knowledge transfer is the goal — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
rule-learning-impairment-persists-among-learners |
title |
The confidence-rating impairment on ambiguous transfer items persists among participants who met the learning criterion |
description |
The confidence-rating impairment on ambiguous transfer items persists among participants who met the learning criterion |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — kit-s-double-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.