Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis

Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis Reviews 55 studies in which self-evaluations of ability were compared with measures of performance to show a low mean validity coefficient (mean r = .29) with high variability (SD = .25). A meta-analysis by the procedures of J. E. Hunter et al (1982) calculated sample-size weighted estimates of –- r ^/ and SD^Br ) and estimated the appropriate adjustments of these values for sampling error and unreliability. Among person variables, high intelligence, high achievement status, and internal locus of control were associated with more accurate evaluations. Much of the variability in the validity coefficients (R = .64) could be accounted for by 9 specific conditions of measurement, notably (a) the rater's expectation that the self-evaluation would be compared with criterion measures, (b) the rater's previous experience with self-evaluation, (c) instructions guaranteeing anonymity of the self-evaluation, and (d) self-evaluation instructions emphasizing comparison with others. It is hypothesized that conditions increasing self-awareness would increase the validity of self-evaluation. (84 ref) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Applied Psychology American Psychological Association

Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis

Journal of Applied Psychology , Volume 67 (3): 17 – Jun 1, 1982

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/validity-of-self-evaluation-of-ability-a-review-and-meta-analysis-zzdLkojgGb

References (73)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0021-9010
eISSN
1939-1854
DOI
10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.280
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Reviews 55 studies in which self-evaluations of ability were compared with measures of performance to show a low mean validity coefficient (mean r = .29) with high variability (SD = .25). A meta-analysis by the procedures of J. E. Hunter et al (1982) calculated sample-size weighted estimates of –- r ^/ and SD^Br ) and estimated the appropriate adjustments of these values for sampling error and unreliability. Among person variables, high intelligence, high achievement status, and internal locus of control were associated with more accurate evaluations. Much of the variability in the validity coefficients (R = .64) could be accounted for by 9 specific conditions of measurement, notably (a) the rater's expectation that the self-evaluation would be compared with criterion measures, (b) the rater's previous experience with self-evaluation, (c) instructions guaranteeing anonymity of the self-evaluation, and (d) self-evaluation instructions emphasizing comparison with others. It is hypothesized that conditions increasing self-awareness would increase the validity of self-evaluation. (84 ref)

Journal

Journal of Applied PsychologyAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Jun 1, 1982

There are no references for this article.