Metacognition is commonly defined as knowledge about one’s thinking processes and the regulation of those processes through planning, monitoring, and control.
It includes abilities such as accurately judging what one knows, recognising uncertainty, selecting appropriate strategies, and revising them in light of feedback.
Metacognition is not merely descriptive self‑awareness; it is an actionable form of intelligent control over how decisions are framed, what information is gathered, and how trade‑offs are evaluated.
Research shows that metacognition orchestrates how all other cognitive resources are deployed, refined, and improved over time. Empirical evidence show that metacognitive skills outpredict traditional intelligence measures (e.g., IQ) in real‑world learning, decision quality, and adaptive performance.
Individuals with high metacognitive accuracy – realistically appraising what one knows and does not know – are better calibrated in their confidence, adjust study strategies, and seek help when needed, demonstrate the ability to be self-correcting, rather than self-confirming.
When navigating complexity and ambiguity, this “intelligent humility” is more valuable than raw processing power. A person who can notice bias, question first instincts, and deliberately adapt their decision-making are more effective at navigating complexity over time than equally able but poorly calibrated peers.
Our Next Level Decision-Making Assessment measures the five thinking capabilities using the Situational Judgment Test (SJT) methodology.
Click below to find out why SJTs are better than traditional self-report questionnaires.
Ackerman, P. L., Cornoldi, C., Hertzog, C., Lee, F. J., McNeely-White, K., & Son, L. K. (2024). The intersection of metacognition and intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 12(3), Article 84.
Bajaj, B., Jain, S., Singh, A., & Bajaj, A. (2024). Impact of metacognitive ability on the performance of employees working in teams and the moderating role of team characteristics. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective. Advance online publication.
Ohtani, H., & Hisasaka, T. (2018). Beyond intelligence: A meta-analytic review of the relationship among metacognition, intelligence, and academic performance. Metacognition and Learning, 13(2), 179–212.
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student? Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 127–140.
Our assessment is designed using Situational Judgment Test (SJT) methodology, which presents realistic work scenarios and asks people to choose or rank possible responses, revealing their likely judgment in job-relevant situations rather than abstract self-reported preferences.
Compared with traditional self-report questionnaires, SJTs are harder to fake, are more contextualised and behaviourally anchored, and therefore has been empirically supported to have good predictive validity of job performance.
Several peer-reviewed meta-analyses published in tier one journals report robust criterion-related validity across roles, including incremental validity beyond cognitive ability, personality, and strong job-related measures.
Christian, M. S., Edwards, B. D., & Bradley, J. C. (2010). Situational judgment tests: Constructs assessed and a meta-analysis of their criterion-related validities. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 83–117
Lievens, F., Peeters, H., & Schollaert, E. (2008): Situational judgment tests: A review of recent research. Personnel Review, 37(4), 426–441
Motowidlo, S. J., Dunnette, M. D., & Carter, G. W. (1990). An alternative selection procedure: The low-fidelity simulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 640–647
Weekley, J. A., Hawkes, B., Guenole, N., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). Personality and situational judgment tests across applicant and incumbent settings: Evidence for cross-situational consistency. Human Performance, 28(4), 341–363