Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis

  • Paul A Mabe(corresponding author)
    ,
  • Stephen G. West
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Medical U. of South Carolina
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Open access

Abstract

Reviews 55 studies in which self-evaluations of ability were compared with measures of performance to show a low mean validity coefficient (mean r = .29) with high variability (SD = .25). A meta-analysis by the procedures of J. E. Hunter et al (1982) calculated sample-size weighted estimates of - r and SDr and estimated the appropriate adjustments of these values for sampling error and unreliability. Among person variables, high intelligence, high achievement status, and internal locus of control were associated with more accurate evaluations. Much of the variability in the validity coefficients (R = .64) could be accounted for by 9 specific conditions of measurement, notably (a) the rater's expectation that the self-evaluation would be compared with criterion measures, (b) the rater's previous experience with self-evaluation, (c) instructions guaranteeing anonymity of the self-evaluation, and (d) self-evaluation instructions emphasizing comparison with others. It is hypothesized that conditions increasing self-awareness would increase the validity of self-evaluation. (84 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 280-296 (17 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 67, Issue 3)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 06/01/1982

Publication status

Published - 06/01/1982

ISSN

0021-9010

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 34248452761

Publication metrics

Metrics

Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.50
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
0.50
Fractional count
1
Fractional count
1
Scopus
citations

PlumX, opens in new tab

Mentions
1
Citation count
768
Captures
407