Assessing the Correlates of Over‐ and Underrating of Academic Competence: A Conceptual Clarification and a Methodological Proposal

The present article addresses 3 issues pertaining to the conceptualization and assessment of the effects of over‐ and underrating academic competence. First, it is shown that it is impossible to separate the effects of over‐ and underrating from the effects of both perceived and actual competence. Second, it is shown that the method used by Connell and Ilardi in a previous article to assess the effect of net overversus underrating is of questionable validity. Finally, a new definition and method for assessing the effects of over‐ and underrating is presented. The new method was applied to Connell and Ilardi's data to retest the hypothesis that overrating is associated with more problematic psychological profiles than accuracy and underrating. Results did not generally support the hypothesis, but did show that the correlates of over‐ and underrating vary as a function of both extremity of over‐ or underrating and the level of children's actual competence.