CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 383Memory Processes and InfluencesInnovations in Medical EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Repeated testing improves long‐term retention relative to repeated study: a randomised controlled trial

Larsen, Douglas P, Butler, Andrew C, Roediger III, Henry L·2009·Medical Education
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03518.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Context Laboratory studies in cognitive psychology with relatively brief final recall intervals suggest that repeated retrieval in the form of tests may result in better retention of information compared with repeated study. Objectives Our study evaluates if repeated testing of material taught in a real‐life educational setting (a didactic conference for paediatric and emergency medicine residents) replicates these findings when measured at a more educationally relevant final recall interval of 6 months. Methods Residents participated in an interactive teaching session on two topics: (i) status epilepticus, and (ii) myasthenia gravis. Residents were randomised to two counter‐balanced groups which either took tests on status epilepticus and studied a review sheet on myasthenia gravis (SE‐T/MG‐S group) or took tests on myasthenia gravis and studied a review sheet on status epilepticus (MG‐T/SE‐S group). Testing and studying occurred immediately after teaching and then at two additional times at intervals of about 2 weeks. Residents received feedback after each test. Tests consisted of short‐answer questions and the review sheets consisted of information identical to that on the answer sheets for the tests. At about 6 months residents took a final test on both topics. Results Nineteen residents in the SE‐T/MG‐S group and 21 residents in the MG‐T/SE‐S group completed the study. Collapsing across groups, repeated testing produced final test scores that were an average of 13% higher than those produced by repeated study (39% versus 26%) at > 6 months after the initial teaching session (t[78] = 3.93, standard error of the difference = 0.03, P < 0.001, d = 0.91). Conclusions Repeated testing with feedback appears to result in significantly greater long‐term retention of information taught in a didactic conference than repeated, spaced study. Testing should be considered for its potential impact on learning and not only as an assessment device.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03518.x

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, 2007, Common Program Requirements

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 382

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger III, H. L.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
Larsen, Douglas P
ORCID
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-11-17
Volume
43
Issue
12
Pages
1174-1181
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03518.x
OpenAlex
W2154424209
Cited by
383
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 16
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
retesting, retrieval practice, long-term retention, feedback, medical residents, status epilepticus, myasthenia gravis
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Educational Measurement, Humans, Retention, Psychology, Teaching, Time Factors

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