Cited by 161Memory Processes and InfluencesMemory and Neural MechanismsVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The Testing Effect and the Retention Interval: Questions and Answers

Toppino, Thomas C., Cohen, Michael S.·2009·Experimental Psychology

Abstract

People learn from tests. Providing tests often enhances retention more than additional study opportunities, but is this testing effect mediated by processes related to retrieval that are fundamentally different from study processes? Some previous studies have reported that testing enhances retention relative to additional studying, but only after a relatively long retention interval. To the extent that this interaction with retention interval dissociates the effects of studying and testing, it may provide crucial evidence for different underlying processes. However, these findings can be questioned because of methodological differences between the study and the test conditions. In two experiments, we eliminated or minimized the confounds that rendered the previous findings equivocal and still obtained the critical interaction. Our results strengthen the evidence for the involvement of different processes underlying the effects of studying and testing, and support the hypothesis that the testing effect is grounded in retrieval-related processes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.252

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The benefit of prior testing increases over time.

    “Other studies, too, have suggested that the benefit of prior testing increases over time (Toppino & Cohen 2009), and this pattern can also be seen in a meta-analysis (Rowland 2014), which also demonstrates that a retrieval practice effect often does exist at shorter intervals.”

    From Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Toppino & Cohen 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S.
Affiliations
Villanova University (US)
Venue
Experimental Psychology
Published
2009-01
Volume
56
Issue
4
Pages
252-257
ISSN
  • 0949-3964 (ISSN-L)
  • 1618-3169
  • 2190-5142
OpenAlex
W1684927232
Cited by
160
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
testing effect, retention interval, memory retention, retrieval practice, retrieval processes
MeSH terms
Attention, Educational Measurement, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Paired-Associate Learning, Practice, Psychological, Problem Solving, Retention, Psychology, Vocabulary, Multilingualism

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