strong support that the MDMT is a useful research tool that captures a variety of novel decision- making variables, which are both theoretically and psychometrically sound. Specifically, ideal and adequate tendencies captured individuals’ ability to make optimal decisions. Wasteful and fatal decision tendencies captured individual tendencies to make incongruent or congruent decision errors. Finally, congruent tendencies captured individual tendencies to make decisions aligned with their judgements. These variables capture real-life aspects of decision-making, which in this study were not predicted by popular constructs of personality and cognitive styles. Importantly, all MDMT derived indices, including the decision variables, demonstrated very high internal consistency.
Furthermore, the accuracy of the test diverged from the typical cognitive tests, providing evidence for its divergent validity. Thus, the MDMT did not simply measure another cognitive ability, and yet the relative confidence and calibration scores clearly converged across domains. To our knowledge, the MDMT is the first test to explicitly and reliably capture individual differences in the link between judgements, metacognitive confidence and decision-making tendencies. This suggests that the framework of the MDMT may guide future development of valid and reliable decision-making tests. Although more research needs to be conducted (and currently being planned), the test framework (with minor modifications if required) is applicable to real world decision-making scenarios within and outside of the medical paradigm.