Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Examining the testing effect with open‐ and closed‐book tests

Agarwal, Pooja K., Karpicke, Jeffrey D., Kang, Sean H. K., Roediger, Henry L., McDermott, Kathleen B.·2008·Applied Cognitive Psychology
DOI 10.1002/acp.1391
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Two experiments examined the testing effect with open‐book tests, in which students view notes and textbooks while taking the test, and closed‐book tests, in which students take the test without viewing notes or textbooks. Subjects studied prose passages and then restudied or took an open‐ or closed‐book test. Taking either kind of test, with feedback, enhanced long‐term retention relative to conditions in which subjects restudied material or took a test without feedback. Open‐book testing led to better initial performance than closed‐book testing, but this benefit did not persist and both types of testing produced equivalent retention on a delayed test. Subjects predicted they would recall more after repeated studying, even though testing enhanced long‐term retention more than restudying. These experiments demonstrate that the testing effect occurs with both open‐ and closed‐book tests, and that subjects fail to predict the effectiveness of testing relative to studying in enhancing later recall. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acp.1391

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 342

Metadata

Authors
Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B.
Venue
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-09-19
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
861-876
ISSN
  • 0888-4080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0720
DOI
10.1002/acp.1391
OpenAlex
W2114351818
Cited by
342
References
13
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.