On a one-week delayed test, multiple text reading and rereading both outperform single reading, but on a one-day delayed test the differences are non-significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? On the one-week delayed test, the MTR group differed significantly from the 1R control group (p < 0.001) and the RR group also differed significantly from controls (p = 0.039). → Peter Seban 2025 q3 i? On the one-day delayed test, differences between the experimental reading approaches and the single-reading control were non-significant. → Peter Seban 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Peter Seban 2025¶

Peter Seban, Kamila Urban, Radovan Sikl. (2025). Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy. Instructional Science, 53, 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09686-4

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Tukey HSD post-hoc comparisons from the two-way ANOVA on the one-week delayed test. Both experimental approaches significantly beat single reading: MTR vs 1R at "p < 0.001" and RR vs 1R at "p = 0.039", each with printed 95% CIs. No standardised effect size is printed for these pairwise contrasts.

"For differences between MTR group and control group, it was p < 0.001, 95% C.I. = [− 14.25, − 2.95] and for differences between RR group and control group, it was p = 0.039, 95% C.I. = [− 11.48, − 0.18]."

Peter Seban 2025 (2)¶

Peter Seban, Kamila Urban, Radovan Sikl. (2025). Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy. Instructional Science, 53, 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09686-4

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Same post-hoc analysis reported in the Results section: on the one-day delayed test the article found "nonsignificant differences in the means between the reading approaches and the control group"; equivalence was not tested.

"we found nonsignificant differences in the means between the reading approaches and the control group on the one-day delayed test, while on the one-week delayed test, differences between the experimental groups and the control group were significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading approach and test delay each significantly affect knowledge-test performance, with no significant interaction (ηp2 = 0.02) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Multiple text reading shows more stable retention than rereading: non-significantly higher one-week scores and a smaller decline from one day to one week — related
• Delayed JOL bias: multiple text readers are underconfident, rereaders overconfident at one day, and single readers overconfident at one week — related
• Rereading Is A Low Utility Study Strategy — related
• Rereading raises judgements of learning after each reading while multiple text reading raises them only after the second reading (significant interaction, ηp2 = 0.07) — related