The magnitude of the testing effect is independent of retrieval practice performance.

IF 3.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-02 DOI:10.1037/xge0001593
Jason C K Chan, Sara D Davis, Aslı Yurtsever, Sarah J Myers
{"title":"The magnitude of the testing effect is independent of retrieval practice performance.","authors":"Jason C K Chan, Sara D Davis, Aslı Yurtsever, Sarah J Myers","doi":"10.1037/xge0001593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Practicing retrieval is a potent learning enhancer. Theoretical accounts of the testing effect generally suggest that the magnitude of the testing effect is dependent on retrieval practice performance, such that conditions that promote better retrieval practice performance should result in a greater testing effect. Empirical evidence, however, has been mixed. Although some studies showed a positive association between retrieval practice performance and the testing effect, others have shown either no relation or the reverse. In the present study, we experimentally manipulated retrieval practice performance using a retrieval-based response deadline manipulation and an encoding-based study trial manipulation. Across six experiments, the magnitude of the testing effect was independent of retrieval practice performance. However, when we aggregated the data across the experiments, participants with superior retrieval practice performance showed a greater testing effect-an individual difference. This dissociation between experimental and correlational outcomes suggests that the positive relation between retrieval practice performance and the testing effect is not causal, and indeed, simulation data showed that the correlation between retrieval practice performance and testing effect was an artifact. We discuss the challenges these findings present to existing accounts of the testing effect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":"1816-1837"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001593","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Practicing retrieval is a potent learning enhancer. Theoretical accounts of the testing effect generally suggest that the magnitude of the testing effect is dependent on retrieval practice performance, such that conditions that promote better retrieval practice performance should result in a greater testing effect. Empirical evidence, however, has been mixed. Although some studies showed a positive association between retrieval practice performance and the testing effect, others have shown either no relation or the reverse. In the present study, we experimentally manipulated retrieval practice performance using a retrieval-based response deadline manipulation and an encoding-based study trial manipulation. Across six experiments, the magnitude of the testing effect was independent of retrieval practice performance. However, when we aggregated the data across the experiments, participants with superior retrieval practice performance showed a greater testing effect-an individual difference. This dissociation between experimental and correlational outcomes suggests that the positive relation between retrieval practice performance and the testing effect is not causal, and indeed, simulation data showed that the correlation between retrieval practice performance and testing effect was an artifact. We discuss the challenges these findings present to existing accounts of the testing effect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
测试效果的大小与检索练习的成绩无关。
检索练习是一种有效的学习促进手段。关于测试效应的理论解释一般认为,测试效应的大小取决于检索练习的表现,因此,促进检索练习表现更好的条件应导致更大的测试效应。然而,经验证据却喜忧参半。虽然有些研究显示检索练习成绩与测试效果之间存在正相关,但其他研究则显示两者之间没有关系或关系相反。在本研究中,我们利用基于检索的反应截止时间操纵和基于编码的学习试验操纵,对检索练习成绩进行了实验操纵。在六次实验中,测试效应的大小与检索练习成绩无关。然而,当我们汇总各实验数据时,检索练习成绩优秀的参与者表现出了更大的测试效应--个体差异。实验结果和相关结果之间的这种分离表明,检索练习成绩和测试效果之间的正相关关系并不是因果关系,事实上,模拟数据表明,检索练习成绩和测试效果之间的相关关系是一种伪现象。我们将讨论这些发现给现有的测试效应理论带来的挑战。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Lay beliefs of willpower shape individuals' propensity to approach or avoid effortful tasks. Explaining gender differences in negotiation: A close replication of Amanatullah and Morris (2010). Distinct temporal dynamics of speech and gesture processing: Insights from event-related potentials across L1 and L2. The relationship between intelligence, working memory capacity, and information processing speed during encoding. Three international studies on pure coordination games: Adaptable solutions when intuitions are presumed to vary.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1