Estimations of competence paradigms offer methods to help us measure how well we track our performance. Bridging across the clinical research and metacognitive research traditions, we identified the Positive Illusory Bias (PIB), metamemory and meta-reasoning paradigms for assessing estimation of competence in neurodevelopmental conditions. Overall, studies from PIB paradigms suggest that individuals with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism, Intellectual Disability and Learning Disability tend to display a positive bias in their performance relative to other informants. In metamemory paradigms, individuals with these neurodevelopmental conditions tend to show more discrepancy between their subjective judgments and their memory performance relative to comparison controls, but these findings have been less consistent than for PIB. Meta-reasoning has been less well-studied across neurodevelopmental conditions. In order to advance our understanding of whether estimation of competence is a significant domain for understanding neurodevelopmental conditions, consideration must be given to conceptual models for each neurodevelopmental condition, methodological issues (paradigm selection and interpretation of self-report and subjective judgment) and developmental considerations.
