Parallel Forms and Odd/Even
Stankov and Crawford (1996a,b) also reported Parallel Forms and Odd/Even reliabilities for the
Discrimination scores labeled ‘Slope’ scores following the work of Ronis and Yates (1987) for five cognitive tests.
They found that the Odd/Even reliability coefficient for Discrimination scores for the Raven’s Progressive Matrices
test was .65. The other four tests exhibited coefficients lower than .55.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
No convergent validity evidence is currently available.
Divergent/Discriminant
No divergent validity evidence is currently available.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Few studies have investigated the factorial structure of discrimination scores. The available evidence, con-
ducted with undergraduate student populations using principal components analyses, does not adequately sug-
gest whether discrimination scores generalize across cognitive domains. For example, two studies have
demonstrated that discrimination scores converge only when cognitive requirements of the tasks they are derived
from are similar ( N5134 to 192; Schraw et al., 1995 ;Schraw & Nietfeld, 1998 ). In contrast, Jackson and Kleitman
(2014) found that discrimination scores derived from various cognitive domains (Gf, Gc, MDMT) all defined a
single latent dimension ( N5193).
Results and Comments
Given that Discrimination scores had lower reliability coefficients than Bias scores, we had focused on the lat-
ter in calibration studies carried out over the past 15 years. However, discrimination scores remain popular in
experimental studies that focus on the overall group differences. The work of Jackson and Kleitman (2014) indi-
cates that these scores may still hold promise in correlational studies of individual differences.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
In this chapter we have elaborated on two types of measures of confidence /C0six questionnaire based self-
report assessments that tap confidence in the academic and sport domains; and online on-task assessments that
have been used in studies of test-taking and decision making. These two areas have different origins and there is
no information at present about their mutual relationship.
Overall, most questionnaire measures have satisfactory psychometric properties although the evidence for
their validity is sketchy. They can be used profitably in the specific areas for which they were intended.
However, much additional work needs to be carried out to establish their usefulness within a broader context. Of
particular importance will be (a) the Examination of the relationships among the six questionnaire measures
themselves; (b) Study of the relationship between questionnaire measures of confidence and other non-cognitive
psychological constructs such as personality, social attitudes self-beliefs; (c) Examination of their predictive valid-
ity within a broader context; and (d) Exploration of the relationship between questionnaire measures and online
assessment of confidence.
There is overwhelming psychometric evidence that online confidence judgments that follow a cognitive act or
decision-making, such as an answer to a test item, are good measures of the confidence trait. In this chapter we
have summarized findings from the studies of individual differences in online measures of confidence that were
carried out over the past 15 years. In this line of research, confidence ratings are treated as an assessment in their
own right and it is clear that the psychometric properties of confidence scores are excellent. For example, their
reliability surpasses reliability of accuracy scores themselves. Also, in studies that used accuracy scores obtained
from typical achievement and intelligence tests as criteria, their predictive validity has been second to no other
non-cognitive measure. It approached the predictive validity of ability measures themselves. Their predictive
validity for school grades and decision acts in general has also been established. Importantly, confidence scores
in several studies of ours define a confidence factor, and it appears that there is a general confidence factor simi-
lar to Spearman’s ‘g’. This trait reflects the habitual way in which people assess the accuracy of their cognitive185 FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS