I would have been more interested in seeing the raw data from the original Dunning-Kruger study reformatted to avoid auto-correlation. Maybe I've skipped over an important detail in my head, but I don't see why plotting perceived test score vs. actual test score would cause any problems; neither variable is in terms of the other.
The final study discussed is convincing as far as I thought. By using academic rank (Freshman, Sophomore, ...) they can plot the difference between difference in score and predicted score against rank without auto-correlation. Its just that using academic rank seems a possibly unreliable metric and an unnecessary complication - why not just use data about test scores and predictions of scores which already exists in a proper statistical interpretation?
The final study discussed is convincing as far as I thought. By using academic rank (Freshman, Sophomore, ...) they can plot the difference between difference in score and predicted score against rank without auto-correlation. Its just that using academic rank seems a possibly unreliable metric and an unnecessary complication - why not just use data about test scores and predictions of scores which already exists in a proper statistical interpretation?