Transfer of test- enhanced learning: meta-analytic review and synthesis
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Attempting recall of information from memory, as occurs when taking a practice test, is one of the most potent training techniques known to learning science. However, does testing yield learning that transfers to different contexts? In the present article, we report the findings of the first comprehensive meta-analytic review into that question. Our review encompassed 192 transfer effect sizes extracted from 122 experiments and 67 published and unpublished articles (N = 10,382) that together comprise more than 40 years of research. A random-effects model revealed that testing can yield transferrable learning as measured relative to a nontesting reexposure control condition (d = 0.40, 95% CI [0.31, 0.50]). That transfer of learning is greatest across test formats, to application and inference questions, to problems involving medical diagnoses, and to mediator and related word cues; it is weakest to rearranged stimulus-response items, to untested materials seen during initial study, and to problems involving worked examples. Moderator analyses further indicated that response congruency and elaborated retrieval practice, as well as initial test performance, strongly influence the likelihood of positive transfer. In two assessments for publication bias using PET-PEESE and various selection methods, the moderator effect sizes were minimally affected. However, the intercept predictions were substantially reduced, often indicating no positive transfer when none of the aforementioned moderators are present. Overall, our results motivate a three-factor framework for transfer of test-enhanced learning and have practical implications for the effective use of practice testing in educational and other training contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
There is evidence that such a narrow study-test matching is an unlikely explanation of the testing superiority.
“There is evidence, however, that such a narrow study-test matching is an unlikely explanation of the testing superiority.”
From Neural Correlates of Long-Term Memory Enhancement Following Retrieval Practice (2021) · cites this paper as Pan and Rickard, 2018
Studies examining this question showed that the testing effect was maintained when the test format was changed between training and final test (e.g., from free recall to recognition), or from short-answer questions to multiple-choice questions.
“Studies examining this question showed that the testing effect was maintained when the test format was changed between training and final test (e.g., from free recall to recognition; Carpenter and DeLosh, 2006), or from short-answer questions to multiple-choice questions (Kang et al., 2007; for a review, Pan and Rickard, 2018).”
From Neural Correlates of Long-Term Memory Enhancement Following Retrieval Practice (2021) · cites this paper as Pan and Rickard, 2018
The testing effect tends to be stronger in higher education contexts and when corrective feedback or performance incentives are included.
“The effect tends to be stronger in higher education contexts and when corrective feedback or performance incentives are included (Phelps, 2012; Pan and Rickard, 2018).”
From Testing the testing effect on prolific: when retrieval practice fails to boost learning (2026) · cites this paper as Pan and Rickard, 2018
These methodological conditions (restudy/retrieval, feedback, delayed test) have been shown to amplify the testing effect.
“These methodological conditions have been shown to amplify the testing effect (Roediger and Karpicke, 2006; Pan and Rickard, 2018).”
From Testing the testing effect on prolific: when retrieval practice fails to boost learning (2026) · cites this paper as Pan and Rickard, 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 190 · Cited by 286
- Authors
- Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2018-07
- Volume
- 144
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 710-756
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2801482130
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 190
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 12
- FWCI
- 15.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- American Psychological Association
- National Science Foundation
- 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, transfer of learning, practice tests, test format, worked examples, publication bias
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Cues, Humans, Learning, Memory, Middle Aged, Practice, Psychological, Mental Recall, Students, Transfer, Psychology, Bias, Knowledge
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