Several candidate moderators show no reliable effects: retention interval, test type, presentation mode, and publication status¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q4
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i? The meta-regression found no moderating effect of retention interval, retention vs. transfer test format, simultaneous vs. successive presentation, or publication status on the interleaving effect. → Brunmair 2019 q4 i? In a follow-up analysis of 31 studies assessing both test types, retention and transfer effects did not differ (QM = 0.56, p = .45). → Brunmair 2019 (2) q4 i? Simultaneous presentation tended to yield a higher interleaving effect than successive presentation, but the difference was not significant. → Brunmair 2019 (3)

Evidence¶

Brunmair 2019¶

Brunmair, M., & Richter, T. (2019). Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000209

q4 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Meta-regression moderator tests in the full multilevel models (Table 3); the article reports no moderating effects for retention interval, presentation mode, test type, or publication status, without printed effect sizes for these null findings.

"We found no evidence for a moderating effect of retention interval in the meta-regression analysis."

Brunmair 2019 (2)¶

Brunmair, M., & Richter, T. (2019). Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000209

q4 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Follow-up meta-regression on effects from 31 studies that assessed both retention (old items) and transfer (new items) within the same sample; no difference between test types.

"In a meta-regression of these studies, we found no overall effect of retention vs. transfer ( k = 64, QM = 0.56, p = .45)."

Brunmair 2019 (3)¶

Brunmair, M., & Richter, T. (2019). Similarity matters: A meta-analysis of interleaved learning and its moderators. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000209

q4 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Follow-up analysis restricted to studies operationalizing both presentation styles (k = 26); both modes showed positive interleaving effects and the between-mode difference was not significant.

"The interleaving effect tended to be higher in simultaneously presented items (g = 0.44, p < .001, 95% CI [0.24, 0.64]) than in successively presented items ( g = 0.29, p = .005, 95% CI [0.09, 0.50]), but the difference was not significant ( k = 26, QM = 1.0 p = 0.31)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The training-by-content interaction did not vary with retention interval duration in the human experiment — related
• Interleaving category examples improves inductive category learning for visual and mathematical materials, but not for expository texts or word categories — a broader claim this one bears on
• Seven moderators did not significantly affect CALL feedback: intervention length, modeling, status, language proficiency, measures of proficiency, publication type, and research setting — related
• Retention interval moderates the testing effect: effects are larger after a day or more than at shorter intervals, where individual studies vary from reliable to null or reversed — related
• The effect of cooperative learning did not differ statistically by teaching style, outcome type, publication quality, bias status, or report type — related
• Interleaving benefits transfer to novel items from a learned category, with effect sizes of up to 0.66 — related
• Review findings are consistent across study design features; no moderator showed meaningful relationships — related
• Interleaving during concept learning benefits memory of studied items, with effect sizes (Hedges' g) of up to 0.65 — related
• The retrieval (TTST) advantage appeared at both short (5 min) and long (24 h) retention delays, with no reliable evidence that it differed between them — related
• The effect of retrieval practice format on reading comprehension does not differ significantly between an immediate and a three-week-delayed final test — related
• Sample characteristics (immigrant/minority status, L2 status, age) show no significant moderator effects, and several program and delivery features are also nonsignificant — related
• Longer retention intervals between pre- and post-test weaken the effect of mental simulation — related
• Most study characteristics (publication year, mean age, sampling, target language, L2 major, proficiency, measure, mode) do not significantly moderate the gender gap — related