CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 228Memory Processes and InfluencesSecond Language Acquisition and LearningReading and Literacy Development

Retention of Spanish vocabulary over 8 years.

Bahrick, Harry P., Phelphs, Elizabeth·1987·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.344
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Thirty-five individuals who had learned and relearaed 50 English-Spanish word pairs were tested for recall and recognition after an interval of 8 years. Two variables, the spacing between successive releaming sessions and the number of presentations required to encode individual word pairs, are excellent predictors of the likelihood of achieving permastore retention. Optimum recall occurs for words encoded in 1 -2 presentations and accessed at intervals of 30 days. Both variables yield monotonic retention functions that account for a range of variation from 0% to 23% recall. These variables also have very significant effects on the recognition of unrecalled words. A recent investigation of the retention of Spanish language learned in school (Bahrick, 1984) shows that a portion of the acquired knowledge has a life span of more than 25 years even if the knowledge is not rehearsed or accessed during that long interval. Another part of the originally acquired knowledge is lost within 5 years after training terminates, and virtually no knowledge is lost during the interval between 5 and 25 years following acquisition. This finding suggests the challenging possibilities of identifying conditions of learning and/or characteristics of material associated with a prospective life span of more than 25 years and of differentiating these conditions and characteristics from those associated with material destined to have a relatively short life span (less than 5 years). Such information wo…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.344

Cites

13 of 13 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?

  • Every study examined here with a retention interval longer than one month demonstrated a benefit from distribution of learning across weeks or months, as opposed to learning across a one-day interval.

    “Every study examined here with a retention interval longer than one month (Bahrick, 1979; Bahrick, et al., 1993; Bahrick & Phelps, 1987; Cepeda et al., 2005) demonstrated a benefit from distribution of learning across weeks or months, as opposed to learning across a one-day interval;”

    From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Bahrick & Phelps, 1987

  • In many studies, participants were trained to a criterion of perfect performance on all items during the second and subsequent learning sessions.

    “In many studies, including some deservedly well-cited research in this area (e.g., Bahrick, 1979; Bahrick & Phelps, 1987), participants were trained to a criterion of perfect performance on all items during the second and subsequent learning sessions.”

    From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Bahrick & Phelps, 1987

  • The Bahrick studies confounded number of relearning trials with ISI; there was more relearning at longer ISIs.

    “These studies confounded number of relearning trials with ISI; that is, there was more relearning at longer ISIs.”

    From Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. (2006) · cites this paper as Bahrick & Phelps, 1987

  • The fixed performance criterion used in Bahrick studies confounds total study time and spacing gap in favor of greater spacing gaps.

    “Another issue in interpreting the Bahrick studies (Bahrick et al., 1993;Bahrick & Phelps, 1987) is the use of a fixed performance criterion.Given the forgetting that takes place during the gap between study sessions, this inevitably means that many more relearning trials will be necessary during most sessions at the longest gap (as compared to the shortest).”

    From Spacing Effects in Learning: A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention (2008) · cites this paper as Bahrick & Phelps, 1987

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 14 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bahrick, H. P., & Phelphs, E.
Affiliations
Ohio Wesleyan University (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1987-04
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
344-349
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
DOI
10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.344
OpenAlex
W2032754114
Cited by
228
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
long-term retention, Spanish vocabulary, word recall, word recognition, relearning, spacing effect, rehearsal, forgetting, second language vocabulary

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