The error-speed effect describes the observation that the speed of recognition errors in a first binary recognition task predicts the response accuracy in a subsequent two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) task that comprises the erroneously judged items of the first task. So far, the effect has been primarily explained by the assumption that some error responses result from misleading memory evidence. However, it is also possible that the effect arises because participants remember and use their response times from the binary task to solve the 2AFC task. Furthermore, the phenomenon is quite new and its robustness or generalizability across other recognition tasks (e.g., a confidence-rating task) remains to be demonstrated. The aim of the present study is to address these limitations by introducing a new variant of the error-speed effect, replacing the 2AFC task with a confidence-rating task (Experiment 1), and by reversing task order (Experiment 2) to test whether participants employ a response-time strategy. In both experiments, we collected data using a sequential probability ratio t-test procedure and found evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the speed of binary recognition errors predicts confidence ratings for the same stimulus. These results attest to the robustness and generalizability of the error-speed effect and reveal that at least some errors must be due to systematically misleading memory evidence.