Thus, both self-efficacy and confidence measures use the term ‘confidence’ within the item stems. Indeed, in the
Morony, Kleitman, Lee, and Stankov (2013) study, the correlation between self-efficacy and online measure of
confidence was .54. Clearly, the correlation between these two constructs is far from perfect and confidence judg-
ments tend to have a considerably higher predictive validity than self-efficacy, suggesting that the differences are
not trivial.
There is a major distinction between self-efficacy and confidence in terms of their definitions, broadness, pre-
dictive power and practical applications. Self-efficacy refers to the belief that if one is engaged in a particular
behavior, s/he will achieve a positive outcome within that specific task/domain ( Bandura, 1997 ). Thus, self-
efficacy is domain specific /C0i.e., it is limited to a particular task/domain (e.g., mathematics or verbal). In con-
trast, confidence measures define a broad factor that extends across different tasks/domains. It follows that there
are important differences with respect to the generality of predictions each construct makes and their practical
applications. While predictions based on self-efficacy judgments are constrained to a particular domain, predic-
tions/applications of self-confidence (and its accuracy) extend to include broad educational, and social psycho-
logical realms ( Kleitman & Moscrop, 2010; Schraw, 2006 ).
Some ongoing debates in the field of decision-making concern the question of whether biases people show
while performing cognitive tasks result from researchers’ lack of attention to ecological factors such as the type
of questions asked such as misleading/tricky questions ( Gigerenzer, Hoffrage, & Kleinbo ¨lting 1991; Juslin, 1994 ).
The issue of particular interest was whether normative theory should be used to interpret confidence ratings
(Bayesian or Thurstonian; see Gigerenzer, 1996) or whether biases reflect general tendencies of human irrational-
ity (Kahneman & Tversky, 1996 ). Irrespective of the researcher’s stance research has demonstrated that, while
manipulating item selection can affect bias, there are pronounced individual differences in levels of confidence
(Kleitman & Stankov, 2001; Pallier et al., 2002; Soll, 1996 ). Some people tend to be more rational than others irre-
spective of environmental influences ( Kleitman, 2008 ).
MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
This chapter is organized in three subsections. First, we overview self-report measures of confidence which, on
the basis of their item content and intended use, can be grouped into two broad categories: Cognitive and
Physical Confidence. The cognitive measures relate to academic and vocational tasks, and the physical scales
relate to sports performance. Empirical studies based on these scales, as well as results based on judgments of
accuracy described in the second section suggest that confidence for cognitive and physical activities may be
unrelated. The Cognitive/Physical distinction is therefore, both conceptually and empirically, a useful one to
make. Second, we briefly describe the use of confidence in studies of self-efficacy. Third, we focus on the online,
performance-based, measurement of confidence and consider different indices of the calibration of these and
accuracy. Given the scope of this book, we focus on individual differences and psychometric perspectives. A list
of all reviewed measures is provided below.
Self-Report /C0Cognitive Confidence
1.Personality Evaluation Inventory ( Shrauger & Schohn, 1995 )
2.Individual Learning Profile ( Pulford & Sohal, 2006 )
3.Academic Behavioral Confidence Scale ( Sander & Sanders, 2003 )
4.CAPA Confidence Inventory ( Betz & Borgen, 2010 )
Self-Report /C0Physical Confidence
1.Trait-Robustness of Self-Confidence Inventory ( Beattie, Hardy, Savage, Woodman, & Callow 2011 )
2.Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory ( Vealey, 1986 )
Confidence and Item Level Measures of Self-Efficacy
1.Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale ( OECD, 2005 )
Online, Performance Based, Measures
1.Proverbs Matching Test (Stankov, unpublished)
2.Future Life Events Scale ( Kleitman & Stankov, 2007 )159 MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS