Taking a fill-in-the-blank test is more time-consuming than restudying the same material¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-10-22 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i3 In Experiment 1, the testing condition completed significantly fewer cycles than the restudy condition in the second learning block. → de Jonge 2015 q3 i3 In Experiment 2, the testing condition likewise completed significantly fewer cycles than the restudy condition. → de Jonge 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

de Jonge 2015¶

de Jonge, M., Tabbers, H. K., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2015). The Effect of Testing on the Retention of Coherent and Incoherent Text Material. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9300-z

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Experiment 1 learning-phase cycle counts: restudy 2.85 cycles versus testing 1.60 cycles, "F(1, 62)=39.52, p<.0 01, ηp2=.39", indicating the test was more time consuming.

"During the second block, participants in the restudy condition studied the text 2.85 times ( SD=.85), while participants in the testing condition went through the test 1.60 times ( SD=.73). Analysis showed that, for the second block, the difference in number of cycles was significant, F(1, 62)=39.52, p<.0 01, ηp2=.39,"

de Jonge 2015 (2)¶

q3 · i3 · causal · r1

Experiment 2 learning-phase cycle counts: restudy 2.29 versus testing 1.45 cycles, "F(1, 62)=21.0, p<.001, ηp2 =.25". Testing-condition participants scored 54% correct on the practice test.

"During the second block, participants in the restudy condition studied the list of facts 2.29 times (SD=.94), while participants in the testing condition went through the test 1.45 times (SD=.44). As in Experiment 1, taking the test was more time consuming compared to simply restudying the list of facts, F(1, 62)=21.0, p<.001, ηp2 =.25."

Discussion¶

For a highly coherent text, taking a fill-in-the-blank practice test yields no retention benefit and does not slow forgetting compared to restudy — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`fill-in-blank-testing-more-time-consuming-than-restudy`
`title`	`Taking a fill-in-the-blank test is more time-consuming than restudying the same material`
`description`	`Taking a fill-in-the-blank test is more time-consuming than restudying the same material`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2015`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-22`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-22`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `de-jonge-2015`, `de-jonge-2015-2`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.