Relationships between individual differences and final test performance were nonsignificant in retrieval practice conditions but significant in the rereading condition¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Correlations of both working memory and self-efficacy with final test performance were positive and significant only in the rereading condition and not significant in any retrieval condition. → Redifer 2026

Evidence¶

Redifer 2026¶

Redifer, J. L., Myers, S. J., Bae, C. L., Naas, A., & Scott, A. (2026). Testing the testing effect with advanced materials while accounting for individual differences. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09758-z

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Exploratory condition-wise correlations (ANCOVA interaction tests were not possible because the condition effect was non-significant). In the reread condition, correlations were significant for working memory, "r(46) = 0.29, p =.04", and self-efficacy, r(48) = 0.33, p =.02; all retrieval-condition correlations were nonsignificant.

"For all other conditions, the correlations between working memory and test performance and between self-efficacy and test performance were not significant, r's = − 0.23–0.25, p's > 0.05"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Reading comprehension ability predicts monitoring accuracy after a single reading but not after rereading (Experiments 1 and 2) — related
• A self-explanation instruction during rereading improves monitoring accuracy for all readers above mere rereading (Experiment 2) — related