CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Memory Processes and InfluencesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Testing the testing effect with advanced materials while accounting for individual differences

Open access
Redifer, Jenni L., Myers, Sarah J., Bae, Christine Lee, Naas, Alexa, Scott, Aimee·2026·Instructional Science
DOI 10.1007/s11251-025-09758-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract Retrieval practice benefits long-term memory performance in a variety of contexts, but its usefulness for retention of more advanced material is less clear. Additionally, evidence of the role of individual differences in retrieval strategy use is mixed. Such evidence is important to determine the usefulness of particular retrieval strategies as a function of cognitive processes, affective characteristics, and aspects of to-be-learned material. With a sample of undergraduate participants ( n = 213), we examined how combining testing strategies (free recall, practice quizzing, and test question generation) could impact learning of a published research article compared to rereading, and how cognitive load, self-efficacy, and working memory capacity influenced these relationships. Although retrieval practice activities did not improve final test performance over rereading, the role of some individual differences varied as a function of assigned strategy. Compared to rereading, using retrieval practice increased cognitive load. Cognitive load then mediated the relationship between assigned strategy and retrieval performance, with higher cognitive load associated with lower final test scores. These results suggest that the memorial benefits of retrieval practice might be limited by cognitive load requirements.

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 · 10.1007/s11251-025-09758-z

Cites

134 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Retrieval practice may fail to confer learning benefits when task demands and cognitive load are high, even in controlled laboratory settings.

    “Recent evidence further suggests that retrieval practice may fail to confer learning benefits when task demands and cognitive load are high, even in controlled laboratory settings.”

    From Testing the testing effect on prolific: when retrieval practice fails to boost learning (2026) · cites this paper as Redifer et al., 2026

  • Redifer et al. (2026) reported no testing advantage when undergraduate students studied a lengthy and conceptually demanding academic text, with higher cognitive load mediating the relationship between retrieval practice and final test performance.

    “For example, Redifer et al. (2026) reported no testing advantage when undergraduate students studied a lengthy and conceptually demanding academic text, with higher cognitive load mediating the relationship between retrieval practice and final test performance, such that increased cognitive load was associated with poorer delayed recall.”

    From Testing the testing effect on prolific: when retrieval practice fails to boost learning (2026) · cites this paper as Redifer et al., 2026

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Arnold, K. M., Umanath, S., Thio, K., Reilly, W. B., McDaniel, M. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2017). Understand- ing the cognitive processes involved in writing to learn. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 115.
  2. Taylor & Francis.
  3. Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In M. A. Gernsbacher, R. W. Pew, L. M. Hough, & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society. Worth.
  4. Cohen, J. (1988). ). The effect size. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (pp. 77-83). Routledge.
  5. Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E., & Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning scales (pp. 734-763). University of Michigan.
  6. Minear, M., Coane, J. H., Boland, S. C., Cooney, L. H., & Albat, M. (2018). The benefits of retrieval practice depend on item difficulty and intelligence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(9), 1474.
  7. Pirozzolo, J. W. (2019). The Testing Effect, Individual Differences, and Transfer: An Investigation of Learn- ing Strategies Using Educational Materials [Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston]. 28182037.
  8. Renkl, A. (2014). Learning from worked examples: How to prepare students for meaningful problem solv- ing. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson, & C. M. Hakala (Eds.), Applying science of learning in educa- tion: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 118-130). Society for the Teaching of Psychology.
  9. Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Harvard University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Redifer, J. L., Myers, S. J., Bae, C. L., Naas, A., & Scott, A.
Affiliations
  • Western Kentucky University (US)
  • Minnesota State University, Mankato (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Redifer, Jenni L.
ORCID
Venue
Instructional Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-12-04
Volume
54
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0020-4277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1952
DOI
10.1007/s11251-025-09758-z
OpenAlex
W4416979420
Cited by
2
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Instructional Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
retrieval practice, individual differences, cognitive load, self-efficacy, working memory capacity, test question generation, free recall, re-reading, advanced materials, long-term memory retention, reading comprehension

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