Premium
Gamma is a Measure of the Accuracy of Predicting Performance on One Item Relative to Another Item, not of the Absolute Performance on an Individual Item Comments on Schraw (1995)
Author(s) -
Nelson Thomas O.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
applied cognitive psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.719
H-Index - 100
eISSN - 1099-0720
pISSN - 0888-4080
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199606)10:3<257::aid-acp400>3.0.co;2-9
Subject(s) - psychology , aka , measure (data warehouse) , value (mathematics) , metamemory , cognition , test (biology) , cognitive psychology , calibration , social psychology , statistics , metacognition , mathematics , data mining , computer science , paleontology , neuroscience , biology , library science
Abstract The recent paper by Schraw ( Measures of feeling‐of‐knowing accuracy: a new look at an old problem , Applied Cognitive Psychology , 1995, 9, 321—332) is flawed by several inaccuracies and by Schraw's failure to distinguish between two fundamentally different aspects of the accuracy of metacognitive predictions: (1) calibration (aka absolute accuracy, defined in terms of whether the predicted value assigned to a single item is followed by the occurrence of that value on the criterion test), and (2) resolution (aka relative accuracy, defined in terms of whether the predicted performance on one item relative to another item is followed by the occurrence of that ordering of the two items on the criterion test). Because of these (and other) problems, his recommendations seem misleading and counterproductive.