Psychology RootsTable of Contents
Proverbs Matching Test
Here in this post, we are sharing the “Proverbs Matching Test”. You can read psychometric and Author information. We have thousands of Scales and questionnaires in our collection (See Scales and Questionnaires). You can demand us any scale and questionnaires related to psychology through our community, and we will provide you with a short time. Keep visiting Psychology Roots.
About Proverbs Matching Test
Scale Name
Proverbs Matching Test
Author Details
Lazar Stankov (Unpublished, referenced in Stankov et al., 2014)
Translation Availability
English
Background/Description
The Proverbs Matching Test, developed by Lazar Stankov, is an unpublished online, performance-based measure designed to assess confidence in cognitive decision-making, specifically through the ability to match proverbs with similar meanings. Rooted in the study of metacognition and confidence calibration (Stankov, 2000), it evaluates how accurately individuals judge the correctness of their responses to cognitive tasks. Unlike self-report scales, this test captures confidence as a dynamic, task-specific construct, aligning with research on decision-making and judgment accuracy.
The test presents participants with a series of proverbs (e.g., “A full cup must be carried steadily”) and asks them to select a matching proverb from multiple-choice options that conveys a similar meaning (e.g., “A careless watch invites the thief”). After each response, participants rate their confidence in the accuracy of their choice on a percentage scale (20% to 100%, in 10% increments, where 20% reflects chance-level certainty for a 5-option multiple-choice question). The test includes items like those listed in Stankov et al. (2014), such as matching “Still waters run deep” or “Virtue is its own reward” to corresponding proverbs. Scores include accuracy (correct matches) and confidence ratings, with derived measures like bias (over/under-confidence) and discrimination (ability to assign higher confidence to correct vs. incorrect responses). Administered in experimental settings with samples like university students (exact sample sizes not specified in Stankov et al., 2014), it predicts metacognitive accuracy and cognitive performance.
Psychologists and researchers use the Proverbs Matching Test to study confidence calibration, metacognitive monitoring, and decision-making processes, particularly in educational or cognitive psychology contexts. Its strength lies in its task-based approach, which avoids self-report biases, but its unpublished status and lack of standardized norms limit widespread use.
Administration, Scoring and Interpretation
- Obtain the test from Stankov’s unpublished materials or related publications (e.g., Stankov et al., 2014), ensuring ethical permissions.
- Explain to participants that the test involves matching proverbs with similar meanings and rating confidence in their responses, emphasizing anonymity and honest judgments.
- Present each proverb with multiple-choice options (typically 5), instruct participants to select the best match, and rate confidence on a 20%-100% scale after each response.
- Completion time varies (estimated 10-15 minutes for 10-15 items, based on similar tasks), depending on the number of items.
- Administer in controlled settings (e.g., lab, classroom) via paper or digital formats, ensuring a distraction-free environment. Oral administration may be adapted for accessibility.
Reliability and Validity
The Proverbs Matching Test’s psychometric properties are reported in the context of online confidence measures (Stankov et al., 2014). Internal consistency for confidence ratings is high, with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.75 to 0.90, typically closer to 0.90 (Jonsson & Allwood, 2013; Kleitman & Stankov, 2007). Test-retest reliability for confidence judgments over 2-4 weeks ranges from 0.85 to 0.87 (Jonsson & Allwood, 2003; Kleitman & Costa, 2014). For derived bias scores, test-retest reliability is moderate (r = 0.53-0.59 over 2-3 weeks; Jonsson & Allwood, 2003; Buratti & Allwood, 2013), while discrimination scores show poor test-retest reliability (r = 0.00-0.11; Buratti & Allwood, 2013).
Convergent validity is supported by correlations with other cognitive performance measures (r ≈ 0.40-0.60 with accuracy scores; Stankov & Crawford, 1996a,b). Predictive validity is demonstrated by higher confidence scores predicting better academic achievement (e.g., school grades, r ≈ 0.35; Stankov, Lee et al., 2012). The test’s factor structure supports a general confidence factor across cognitive tasks, similar to Spearman’s g (Kleitman & Stankov, 2007). No specific divergent validity data are reported for the test itself, but online confidence measures generally show weaker correlations with unrelated constructs like anxiety (r ≈ -0.39). The Hard/Easy effect (over-confidence on difficult tasks, better calibration on easy tasks) is a consistent finding (Stankov, Lee et al., 2012). Pairing with scales like the Mathematics Self-Efficacy Scale can enhance assessment of task-specific confidence.
Available Versions
Multiple-Items
Reference
Stankov, L., Kleitman, S., & Jackson, S. A. (2015). Measures of the trait of confidence. Measures of personality and social psychological constructs, 158-189.
Important Link
Scale File:
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Proverbs Matching Test measure?
It measures confidence in matching proverbs with similar meanings and the accuracy of those confidence judgments.
Who can use the test?
Psychologists and researchers studying metacognition and confidence calibration.
How long does it take to complete?
Approximately 10-15 minutes, depending on the number of items.
Is the test specific to certain groups?
Primarily used with university students; adaptable to other groups with relevant proverbs.
Can the test inform interventions?
Yes, it can identify over/under-confidence to guide metacognitive training.
Disclaimer
Please note that Psychology Roots does not have the right to grant permission for the use of any psychological scales or assessments listed on its website. To use any scale or assessment, you must obtain permission directly from the author or translator of the tool. Psychology Roots provides information about various tools and their administration procedures, but it is your responsibility to obtain proper permissions before using any scale or assessment. If you need further information about an author’s contact details, please submit a query to the Psychology Roots team.
Help Us Improve This Article
Have you discovered an inaccuracy? We put out great effort to give accurate and scientifically trustworthy information to our readers. Please notify us if you discover any typographical or grammatical errors.
Make a comment. We acknowledge and appreciate your efforts.
Share With Us
If you have any scale or any material related to psychology kindly share it with us at psychologyroots@gmail.com. We help others on behalf of you.
