Exploring the divergence between self-assessment and self-monitoring
Open accessAbstract
Many models of professional self-regulation call upon individual practitioners to take responsibility both for identifying the limits of their own skills and for redressing their identified limits through continuing professional development activities. Despite these expectations, a considerable literature in the domain of self-assessment has questioned the ability of the self-regulating professional to enact this process effectively. In response, authors have recently suggested that the construction of self-assessment as represented in the self-regulation literature is, itself, problematic. In this paper we report a pair of studies that examine the relationship between self-assessment (a global judgment of one's ability in a particular domain) and self-monitoring (a moment-by-moment awareness of the likelihood that one maintains the skill/knowledge to act in a particular situation). These studies reveal that, despite poor correlations between performance and self-assessments (consistent with what is typically seen in the self-assessment literature), participant performance was strongly related to several measures of self-monitoring including: the decision to answer or defer responding to a question, the amount of time required to make that decision to answer or defer, and the confidence expressed in an answer when provided. This apparent divergence between poor overall self-assessment and effective self-monitoring is considered in terms of how the findings might inform our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms yielding both self-monitoring judgments and self-assessments and how that understanding might be used to better direct education and learning efforts.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A focus on how feedback is given ignores the important element of how it is received by learners.
“This focus on how feedback is given ignores the important element of how it is received by learners [88].”
From Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education. (2015) · cites this paper as [88]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121 · Cited by 7,731 · see citing works
Davis, D. A., Mazmanian, P. E., Fordis, M., Van Harrison, R., Thorpe, K. E., & Perrier, L. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.296.9.1094 · Cited by 2,375 · see citing works
The person and the situation: perspectives of social psychology
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3604 · Cited by 2,205 · see citing works
Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and the Workplace
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x · Cited by 1,865 · see citing works
The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167202286008 · Cited by 1,289 · see citing works
Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.547 · Cited by 1,167 · see citing works
Self-Assessment in the Health Professions: A Reformulation and Research Agenda
Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2005) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200510001-00015 · Cited by 992 · see citing works
Self-citationEnhancing Learning Through Self-assessment
Boud, D. J. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315041520 · Cited by 914 · see citing works
Enhancing learning through self-assessment
Vella, F. (1996) · Biochemical Education · doi:10.1016/0307-4412(96)82523-4 · Cited by 671 · see citing works
A review of the validity and accuracy of self-assessments in health professions training
Gordon, M. J. (1991) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199112000-00012 · Cited by 537 · see citing works
Continuing Medical Education and the Physician as a Learner
Mazmanian, P. E., & Davis, D. A. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.9.1057 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
The feeling of knowing: some metatheoretical implications for consciousness and control.
Koriat, A. (2000) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1006/ccog.2000.0433 · Cited by 458 · see citing works
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90266-2 · Cited by 352 · see citing works
Assessing Our Own Competence: Heuristics and Illusions
Bjork, R. A. (1999) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1480.003.0023 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
The processes and dimensions of informed self-assessment: A conceptual model.
Sargeant, J., Armson, H., Chesluk, B., Dornan, T., Eva, K., Holmboe, E., Lockyer, J., Loney, E., Mann, K., & van der Vleuten, C. (2010) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181d85a4e · Cited by 318 · see citing works
Self-citationSlowing Down When You Should: A New Model of Expert Judgment
Moulton, C.-A. E., Regehr, G., Mylopoulos, M., & MacRae, H. (2007) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181405a76 · Cited by 315 · see citing works
Self-citationHODGES, B., REGEHR, G., & MARTIN, D. (2001) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200110001-00029 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Development of Expertise in Dermatology
Norman, G. R. (1989) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.1989.01670200039005 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Knowing When to Look It Up: A New Conception of Self-Assessment Ability
Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G. (2007) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31813e6755 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Self-citationRobinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Herndon, F. (1997) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.416 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Feedback, the various tasks of the doctor, and the feedforward alternative
Kluger, A. N., & Van Dijk, D. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03849.x · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Maintaining competence in the field: Learning about practice, through practice, in practice
Regehr, G., & Mylopoulos, M. (2008) · Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · doi:10.1002/chp.203 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Self-citationThe development of expertise in dermatology
Norman, G. R. (1989) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.125.8.1063 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Colliver, J. A., Verhulst, S. J., & Barrows, H. S. (2005) · Teaching and Learning in Medicine · doi:10.1207/s15328015tlm1703_1 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Feeling-of-Knowing Judgments from the Subject's Perspective
Widner, R. L., & Smith, S. M. (1996) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1423012 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
CLINICAL SITUATIONS OF UNCERTAINTY AND ACCESS TO RESOURCES: A STUDY OF COMMUNITY FAMILY PHYSICIANS
Lee, L. L.-W. (2010) · Scholarship@Western (Western University) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guidelines: The do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education.
Lefroy, J., Watling, C., Teunissen, P. W., & Brand, P. (2015) · Perspectives on Medical Education · doi:10.1007/s40037-015-0231-7 · Cited by 347 · see citing works
Yates, N., Gough, S., & Brazil, V. (2022) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2022.2093704 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Colbert, C. Y., Graham, L., West, C., White, B. A., Arroliga, A. C., Myers, J. D., Ogden, P. E., Archer, J., Mohammad, Z. T. A., & Clark, J. (2015) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.11.001 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Eva, K. W., & Regehr, G.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Eva, Kevin W.
- Venue
- Advances in Health Sciences Education
- Published
- 2010-11-30
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 311-329
- ISSN
- 1382-4996 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-1677
- PMC
- PMC3139875
- OpenAlex
- W2167980328
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 26
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 8.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Advances in Health Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- self-assessment, self-monitoring, professional self-regulation, continuing professional development, self-efficacy, confidence judgments, performance evaluation (human resources), health professions education
- MeSH terms
- Analysis of Variance, Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Self Care, Statistics as Topic, Time Factors, Internet, Young Adult, Diagnostic Self Evaluation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
