Cited by 69Student Assessment and FeedbackInnovative Teaching MethodsEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Frequent testing as a motivating factor in large lecture classes.

Fitch, Mildred L., Drucker, A. J., Norton, J. A.·1951·Journal of Educational Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0056095

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • The indirect benefits of frequent testing improve performance in large lecture classes.

    “These indirect benefits of frequent testing have been shown to improve performance in large lecture classes.7,8”

    From Test-enhanced learning in medical education (2008) · cites this paper as [7]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fitch, M. L., Drucker, A. J., & Norton, J. A.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
1951-01
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
1-20
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2030534169
Cited by
69
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
45.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
frequent testing, large lecture classes, student motivation, assessment frequency, student engagement

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