Investigations of the Testing Effect
Abstract
This paper focuses on methodological problems arising in the study of the testing effect. These problems arise because processes that are correlated with, but logically independent of, the process of testing often differ across the study and test conditions. Carrier and Pashler (1992) recently reviewed these problems and proposed a paired-associate procedure for alleviating them. In this procedure, robust testing effects occurred, suggesting that the processes underlying testing may differ from those in a standard study condition. One potential problem with Carrier and Pashler's procedure is that opportunities to restudy previously tested items may be contributing to the testing effect. We use a modified Brown-Peterson paradigm (Peterson & Peterson, 1959) to provide converging evidence for Carrier and Pashler's (1992) conclusions. The results of Experiment 1 demonstrate testing effects even when there are no opportunities to restudy previously tested items. Experiment 2 examines whether, as suggested by Carrier and Pashler (1992), stronger interitem associations might be producing the testing effect arising from an intervening free recall test. The results demonstrate that testing effects occur even when single item lists are used, ruling out the view that testing effects are due solely to stronger interitem associations.
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?
The testing effect occurs even without corrective feedback.
“The testing effect is observed even when no corrective feedback is given (Allen et al., 1969;Carpenter & DeLosh, 2005, 2006;Kuo & Hirshman, 1996), so it cannot be attributed solely to more efficient processing of feedback in the test condition.”
From The benefit of generating errors during learning (2014) · cites this paper as Kuo & Hirshman, 1996
Cites
Effects of prior free recall testing on final recall and recognition.
Darley, C. F., & Murdock, B. B. (1971) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031836 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x · Cited by 2,037 · see citing works
The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention
Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003 · Cited by 1,796 · see citing works
The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect.
Rowland, C. A. (2014) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0037559 · Cited by 1,066 · see citing works
(2005) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195154054.001.0001 · Cited by 586 · see citing works
Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention
Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007) · European Journal of Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1080/09541440601056620 · Cited by 513 · see citing works
The effect of testing on skills learning
Kromann, C. B., Jensen, M. L., & Ringsted, C. (2009) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03245.x · Cited by 315 · see citing works
The effects of tests on learning and forgetting.
Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., Wixted, J. T., & Vul, E. (2008) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/mc.36.2.438 · Cited by 281 · see citing works
Application of the testing and spacing effects to name learning
Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2005) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1101 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
(2010) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(10)53003-2 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Using tests to enhance 8th grade students' retention of U.S. history facts
Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Cepeda, N. J. (2009) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1507 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
The benefit of generating errors during learning
Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0033194 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
The Testing Effect and the Retention Interval: Questions and Answers
Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S. (2009) · Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.252 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
The testing effect under divided attention.
Buchin, Z. L., & Mulligan, N. W. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000427 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Inductive learning: Does interleaving exemplars affect long‐term retention?
Zulkiply, N., & Burt, J. S. (2013) · Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction · doi:10.32890/mjli.10.2013.7655 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kuo, T.-M., & Hirshman, E.
- ORCID
- Kuo, Tzy-Mey
- Venue
- The American Journal of Psychology
- Publisher
- University of Illinois Press
- Published
- 1996
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 451
- ISSN
- 0002-9556 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2325352378
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- testing effect, Brown-Peterson paradigm, free recall, memory assessment
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
