This study evaluated the validity of self-assessment in a natural setting. It also addressed the possibility of improving the utility of self-assessment by cautioning subjects that their responses could be compared with other existing data on them. Subjects were 357 males, aged 18–19 years, who were being screened for a prestigious military course. During the screening, they participated in small groups for nine days of tests, class exercises, and field simulations supervised by veteran commanders. On the ninth day, ratings were collected from commanders, peer group members, and the subjects themselves on dimensions related to eventual success in the training course. The experimental group was told their reports would be compared with those from other sources; the control group was not. Predictive and convergent validities were examined on three criteria: course success, commander ratings, and peer evaluations. Self-assessments from both experimental and control group were valid; however, those of the experimental group did not yield consistently higher validities. Findings are discussed in regard to their practical ramifications.