Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40417632›Full record

ArticlePsychologica Belgica2025

From a Measure of Confidence to a Measure of the Level of Knowledge.

Daniel Defays

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychologica Belgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Daniel DefaysFaculty of Psychology, Logopedics and Educational Sciences, University of Liège, B4000 Liège, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8173-5188

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Confidence degrees assigned by respondents to their responses are generally taken at their face value. An experiment where respondents were asked to indicate twice their confidence in their (changed or unchanged) response has, however, showed that those confidences can greatly vary over time at the individual level. I propose a model that takes that variation into account and considers confidence as a latent variable - the level of knowledge - to be estimated through a true score approach. The model is defined in the special case of a scale with a given number of confidence degrees. It assumes that when faced with this type of testing requirements, a person experiences uncertainty in a way that can be represented by a finite set of partial knowledge states. It leans mainly on a conditional independence assumption. As the model is intractable under that sole assumption, additional testable and simple constraints must be imposed on the way confidence errors are distributed. The model was applied to data collected in the experiment. The results show that, under a general (population) overestimation bias, very different individual profiles are hidden with different distributions of errors. The model enables also to make predictions about one single individual by only examining his (her) calibration errors. Some errors patterns observed on the replicated data can indeed be anticipated with the proposed models.

Indexed as

calibrationcognitive biasconfidenceerror estimationmeta cognition

Identifiers

PMID40417632
PMCPMC12101119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.