In the published article, there was an error. When the feedback conditions were introduced in the methods section of Study 2, they were interchanged. Specifically, the negative condition was labeled as positive, and the positive condition was labeled as negative. This error occurred only once. The feedback conditions were labeled correctly in the other paragraphs and the interpretation of the feedback conditions was clearly pointed out subsequently.
A correction has been made to Study 2, Method, Measures, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“To be able to examine pronounced effects between the feedback valences, we created three distinct categories of feedback instead of observing feedback-performance discrepancy as a continuous variable: participants were randomly assigned to one of three feedback conditions: positive (i.e., performance score minus 2 or a minimum of 0), negative (i.e., performance score plus 2 or a maximum of 5) and correct (i.e., performance score).”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“To be able to examine pronounced effects between the feedback valences, we created three distinct categories of feedback instead of observing feedback-performance discrepancy as a continuous variable: participants were randomly assigned to one of three feedback conditions: negative (i.e., performance score minus 2 or a minimum of 0), positive (i.e., performance score plus 2 or a maximum of 5) and correct (i.e., performance score).”
The original article has been updated.
Statements
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
self-assessment, self-efficacy, feedback, SRL, student teachers, metacognitive monitoring
Citation
Ernst HM, Prinz-Weiß A, Wittwer J and Voss T (2025) Correction: Discrepancy between performance and feedback affects mathematics student teachers' self-efficacy but not their self-assessment accuracy. Front. Psychol. 16:1687589. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1687589
Received
17 August 2025
Accepted
27 August 2025
Published
15 September 2025
Volume
16 - 2025
Edited and reviewed by
Antonio P. Gutierrez de Blume, Georgia Southern University, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Ernst, Prinz-Weiß, Wittwer and Voss.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Helen M. Ernst helen.ernst@ezw.uni-freiburg.de
†ORCID: Anja Prinz-Weiß orcid.org/0000-0002-1097-3442
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.