Cited by 64Memory Processes and InfluencesSecond Language Acquisition and LearningVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

The benefits of retrieval practice depend on item difficulty and intelligence.

Minear, Meredith, Coane, Jennifer H., Boland, Sarah C., Cooney, Leah H., Albat, Marissa·2018·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition

Abstract

The authors examined whether individual differences in fluid intelligence (gF) modulate the testing effect. Participants studied Swahili-English word pairs and repeatedly studied half the pairs or attempted retrieval, with feedback, for the remaining half. Word pairs were easy or difficult to learn. Overall, participants showed a benefit of testing over restudy. However, almost 1/3 of the sample had a negative testing effect and benefitted more from restudy than testing, as well as performing better overall. These individuals self-reported less use of shallower encoding strategies than positive testing effect participants but did not differ in other dimensions. For individuals with a positive testing effect, difficulty had differential effects on participants who scored high or low on a measure of gF, with high gF participants showing larger testing effects for difficult over easy items, whereas low gF participants showed the opposite. Working memory performance was not related to the magnitude of the testing effect; however, vocabulary knowledge revealed a similar pattern as gF, with higher vocabulary associated with a testing effect for difficult but not easy items. This suggests that the benefit of retrieval practice varies with item difficulty and participant abilities. Thus, recommendations to engage in retrieval practice should take into consideration the interactive effects of to-be-learned materials and individual differences in the learners. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/xlm0000486

Cites

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?

  • In retrieval learning literature, differences in both task and item difficulty can affect final performance on a memory task.

    “In retrieval learning literature, there are differences in how both task (the way in which the learning material is presented; (Carpenter & DeLosh, 2006; Kang et al., 2007; Pyc & Rawson, 2009; Stenlund et al., 2016) and item (the learning material itself; de Lima et al., 2020; Minear et al., 2018; Pyke et al., 2023; Vaughn et al., 2013) difficulty can affect final performance on a memory task.”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Minear, M., Coane, J. H., Boland, S. C., Cooney, L. H., & Albat, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Wyoming (US)
  • Colby College (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Published
2018-09
Volume
44
Issue
9
Pages
1474-1486
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
OpenAlex
W2797665395
Cited by
63
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Colby College (01.2222)
  • James McDonnell Foundation (220020426)
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 › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
retrieval practice, testing effect, fluid intelligence, item difficulty, individual differences, restudy, feedback, encoding strategies, working memory, vocabulary knowledge
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Intelligence, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Practice, Psychological, Problem Solving, Mental Recall, Vocabulary, Feedback, Psychological, Young Adult

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