MATHEMATICS SELF-EFFICACY SCALE
How confident do you feel about:
Each Question is accompanied by the following rating scale:
Not very
confidentVery confident
&&& &
Calculating how many square meters of tile you need to cover a floor.
Calculating how much cheaper a TV would be after a 30% discount.
Using a train timetable to work out how long it would take to get from one place to another.
Understanding graphs presented in newspapers.
Finding the actual distance between two places on a map with a 1:100 scale.
Calculating the petrol consumption rate of a car.
Solving an equation like 3x 15517.
Solving an equation like 2(x 13)5(x13)(x/C03).
ONLINE PERFORMANCE BASED MEASURES
Proverbs Matching Test (PMT)
(Subtest from Stankov’s Test of Cognitive Abilities /C0STOCA)
and
Future Life Events Scale (FLES)
(Kleitman & Stankov, 2007 ).
Variable
Confidence judgments (including online measures such as the PMT and FLES) are an integral part of metacog-
nitive self-monitoring and experience processes, as they reflect one’s belief in the accuracy of their decision fol-
lowing a particular cognitive act (e.g., Keren, 1991 ;Kleitman, 2008 ;Schraw, Dunkle, Bendixen, & Roedel 1995 ;
Stankov, 2000 ). Self-monitoring is defined as the ability to watch, check and appraise the quality of one’s own
cognitive work in the course of doing it ( Schraw & Moshman, 1995 ).Allwood and Granhag (2000) referred to
these confidence judgments as deliberately derived feelings of confidence that occur in connection with decision
making and action regulation (see also Koriat, 2012 ;Koriat & Goldsmith, 1996 ).Efklides (2006, 2008) and Stankov
(2000) pointed out that these confidence ratings capture key metacognitive experiences closely tied with decision-
making and self-regulation.
Description
Measures of subjective confidence in one’s own judgments and knowledge have been employed in many stud-
ies (e.g., Crawford & Stankov, 1996 ;Dunlosky & Metcalfe, 2009 ;Koriat, 2012 ;Moore & Healy, 2008 ;Perfect &
Schwartz, 2002 ;Howie & Roebers, 2007 ; Stankov & Crawford, 1996a,b; 1997;). Moore and Healy (2008) reviewed
the different types of confidence judgments, including online confidence judgments carried out immediately after
responding to a test item. They reported that immediate confidence judgments could be given as: (1) discrete esti-
mates, such as unique probabilistic numbers along a ‘confidence scale’ and/or as a verbal category along a typi-
cal Likert-type scale (e.g., ranging from ‘Unsure’ to ‘Very Sure’); and (2) interval, or confidence interval
estimates, asking participants to estimate, for instance, 90% confidence intervals around their answers. Discrete
confidence judgments have been more prevalent than confidence intervals around answers ( Moore & Healy,
2008) and are the main focus here.
Participants in this paradigm rate how confident (or ‘sure’) they are that their chosen answer is correct imme-
diately after responding to an item in a test. Confidence levels are usually expressed in terms of percentages176 7. MEASURES OF THE TRAIT OF CONFIDENCE
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS