Do we perform as well as we think we do? A systematic scoping review of self-evaluation of upper-extremity motor performance

Abstract

The ability to self-evaluate motor performance or estimate performance errors is beneficial for motor learning or relearning in the context of neurologic injury. Some evidence suggests those with injury like stroke may be unable to accurately self-evaluate their performance; however, it is unclear if individuals who are absent of injury are accurate in this domain. We aimed to investigate the accuracy of self-evaluation and potential influencing factors by conducting a systematic search to identify literature involving the self- and objective-evaluation of upper-extremity motor tasks. Twenty-three studies satisfied inclusion criteria. Data revealed a moderate positive correlation between self- and objective evaluations across a variety of tasks, from trivial button pressing to specialized surgical suturing. Both under- and overestimation of performance was found across the papers. Key factors identified to influence the accuracy of self-evaluation were the task purpose, familiarity, difficulty, and whether an individual received a demonstration. This review identified some limitations in this field of research. Most notably, we found that very few studies have investigated the accuracy of self-evaluation of motor performance with the primary goal of comparison to objective performance. Many studies reported the data but did not make direct statistical comparisons. Moreover, due to inconsistencies between how self and objective-evaluations were conducted, we argue that in this area of investigation self-evaluation tools need to replicate the objective evaluation method, or at minimum the self-evaluation tool should ask questions specific to the construct of performance that is being measured objectively.