Cited by 59Memory Processes and InfluencesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesCognitive Abilities and Testing

Cognitive Load Theory, Resource Depletion and the Delayed Testing Effect

Leahy, Wayne, Sweller, John·2019·Educational Psychology Review

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10648-019-09476-2

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leahy, W., & Sweller, J.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Leahy, Wayne
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Published
2019-02-12
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
457-478
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
OpenAlex
W2912250207
Cited by
59
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
testing effect, resource recovery, cognitive load theory, working memory capacity, element interactivity

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