The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Repeated retrieval practice and item difficulty: Does criterion learning eliminate item difficulty effects?
Open accessAbstract
A wealth of previous research has established that retrieval practice promotes memory, particularly when retrieval is successful. Although successful retrieval promotes memory, it remains unclear whether successful retrieval promotes memory equally well for items of varying difficulty. Will easy items still outperform difficult items on a final test if all items have been correctly recalled equal numbers of times during practice? In two experiments, normatively difficult and easy Lithuanian-English word pairs were learned via test-restudy practice until each item had been correctly recalled a preassigned number of times (from 1 to 11 correct recalls). Despite equating the numbers of successful recalls during practice, performance on a delayed final cued-recall test was lower for difficult than for easy items. Experiment 2 was designed to diagnose whether the disadvantage for difficult items was due to deficits in cue memory, target memory, and/or associative memory. The results revealed a disadvantage for the difficult versus the easy items only on the associative recognition test, with no differences on cue recognition, and even an advantage on target recognition. Although successful retrieval enhanced memory for both difficult and easy items, equating retrieval success during practice did not eliminate normative item difficulty differences.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Studies related to REH typically involve simple, low-element-interactivity material, such as paired associates and word lists.
“Studies related to REH typically involve simple, low-element-interactivity material, such as paired associates (Pyc & Rawson, 2009; Vaughn et al., 2013) and word lists (Karpicke & Roediger, 2007b; Lehman et al., 2014).”
From Does difficulty moderate learning? A comparative analysis of the desirable difficulties framework and cognitive load theory (2025) · cites this paper as Vaughn et al., 2013
Citations
Cites
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004 · Cited by 551
Self-citationMetacognitive control and strategy selection: Deciding to practice retrieval during learning.
Karpicke, J. D. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0017341 · Cited by 310
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Bahrick, H. P., & Hall, L. K. (2005). The importance of retrieval failures to long-term retention: A metacognitive explanation of the spacing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 566–577. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.012 · DOI
- Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977–990. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 · DOI · Paper page
- Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1547–1552. doi: 10.1037/a0024140 · DOI
- Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition, 34, 268–276. doi: 10.3758/BF03193405 · DOI · Paper page
- Cull, W. L., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1994). The learning ability paradox in adult metamemory research: Where are the metamemory differences between good and poor learners? Memory & Cognition, 22, 249–257. · DOI
- Dunlosky, J., Hertzog, C., & Powell-Moman, A. (2005). The contribution of five mediator-based deficiencies to age-related differences in associative learning. Developmental Psychology, 41, 389–400. · DOI
- Finley, J. R., Benjamin, A. S., Hays, M. J., Bjork, R. A., & Kornell, N. (2011). Benefits of accumulating versus diminishing cues in recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 289–298. · DOI
- Grimaldi, P. J., Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Normative multitrial recall performance, metacognitive judgments, and retrieval latencies for Lithuanian–English paired associates. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 634–642. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.3.634 · DOI
- Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2010). Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. Science, 330, 335. doi: 10.1126/science.1191465 · DOI · Paper page
- Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2011). Optimizing schedules of retrieval practice for durable and efficient learning: How much is enough? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 140, 283–302. doi: 10.1037/a0023956 · DOI
- Reder, L. M., Nhouyvanisvong, A., Schunn, C. D., Ayers, M. S., Angstadt, P., & Hiraki, K. (2000). A mechanistic account of the mirror effect for word frequency: A computational model of remember–know judgments in a continuous recognition paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 294–320. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.294 · DOI
- Vaughn, K. E., & Rawson, K. A. (2011). Diagnosing criterion-level effects on memory: What aspects of memory are enhanced by repeated retrieval? Psychological Science, 22, 1127–1131. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417724 · DOI
- Wissman, K. T., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2012). How and when do students use flashcards? Memory, 20, 568–579. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2012.687052 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pyke, W., Lunau, J., & Javadi, A.-H. (2025) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218241308143 · Cited by 15
“Studies related to REH typically involve simple, low-element-interactivity material, such as paired associates (Pyc & Rawson, 2009; Vaughn et al., 2013) and word lists (Karpicke & Roediger, 2007b; Lehman et al., 2014).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Vaughn, K. E., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A.
- Affiliations
- Kent State University (US)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Vaughn, Kalif E.
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2013-04-16
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1239-1245
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W2140100777
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- retrieval practice, item difficulty, cued recall, associative recognition, cue recognition, target recognition, word learning
- MeSH terms
- Cues, Humans, Learning, Practice, Psychological, Mental Recall
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