Cited by 494Memory Processes and InfluencesVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Repeated testing produces superior transfer of learning relative to repeated studying.

Butler, Andrew C.·2010·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Abstract

The present research investigated whether test-enhanced learning can be used to promote transfer. More specifically, 4 experiments examined how repeated testing and repeated studying affected retention and transfer of facts and concepts. Subjects studied prose passages and then either repeatedly restudied or took tests on the material. One week later, they took a final test that had either the same questions (Experiment 1a), new inferential questions within the same knowledge domain (Experiments 1b and 2), or new inferential questions from different knowledge domains (Experiment 3). Repeated testing produced superior retention and transfer on the final test relative to repeated studying. This finding indicates that the mnemonic benefits of test-enhanced learning are not limited to the retention of the specific response tested during initial learning but rather extend to the transfer of knowledge in a variety of contexts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0019902

Cites

91 of 91 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?

  • Repeated retrieval sessions with corrective feedback improve long-term retention.

    “Regardless of the spacing, there is evidence to suggest that repeated retrieval sessions with corrective feedback improves long-term retention (Butler, 2010; Karpicke & Roediger, 2007b; Tse et al., 2010); for a review, see (Binks, 2018).”
  • Retrieval practice can enhance near transfer.

    “The phenomenon of retrieval-induced facilitation has ties to the literature on transfer, which has shown that retrieval practice can enhance near transfer (Butler 2010, Kang et al. 2011, Rohrer et al. 2010).”

    From Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Butler 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 92 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Butler, A. C.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Butler, Andrew C.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Published
2010
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
1118-1133
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
OpenAlex
W2115033623
Cited by
492
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 24
FWCI
12.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
James S. McDonnell Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
retrieval practice, retesting, transfer of learning, retention, inferential questions, knowledge domains
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Cues, Humans, Learning, Practice, Psychological, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology

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