Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information
Open accessAbstract
Although the testing effect has received a substantial amount of empirical attention, such research has largely focused on the effects of tests given after study. The present research examines the effect of using tests prior to study (i.e., as pretests), focusing particularly on how pretesting influences the subsequent learning of information that is not itself pretested but that is related to the pretested information. In Experiment 1, we found that multiple-choice pretesting was better for the learning of such related information than was cued-recall pretesting or a pre-fact-study control condition. In Experiment 2, we found that the increased learning of non-pretested related information following multiple-choice testing could not be attributed to increased time allocated to that information during subsequent study. Last, in Experiment 3, we showed that the benefits of multiple-choice pretesting over cued-recall pretesting for the learning of related information persist over 48 hours, thus demonstrating the promise of multiple-choice pretesting to potentiate learning in educational contexts. A possible explanation for the observed benefits of multiple-choice pretesting for enhancing the effectiveness with which related nontested information is learned during subsequent study is discussed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Frequent low-stakes quizzes are particularly effective in enhancing long-term retention through the retrieval effect.
“Frequent low-stakes quizzes are particularly effective in enhancing long-term retention through the retrieval effect, thus improving knowledge retention [35][36][37][38].”
From Formative assessment and feedback in medical education: A practical guide: AMEE Guide No. 189 (2026) · cites this paper as [36]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 75
- Authors
- Little, J. L., & Bjork, E. L.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Little, Jeri L.
- Venue
- Memory & Cognition
- Published
- 2016-05-13
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1085-1101
- ISSN
- 0090-502X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5946
- OpenAlex
- W2364974256
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 3.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Memory & Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- James S. McDonnell Foundation (29192G)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- pretesting, multiple-choice tests, testing effect, prior knowledge, retention, study time allocation, learning improvement
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Choice Behavior, Cues, Humans, Learning, Mental Recall, Recognition, Psychology, 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