Multiple-choice testing increases the later production of multiple-choice lures as answers on cued recall tests, even under warning against guessing¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2–r3 · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Testing increased use of specific multiple-choice lures as answers on a later cued recall test, from 5% of questions when not previously tested to 12% when tested. → Marsh 2007 q3 i? Taking the SAT II boosted lure production on the final cued recall test from 7% to 16%, though the overall error rate was not higher following testing. → Marsh 2007 (2)

Evidence¶

Marsh 2007¶

Marsh, E. J., Roediger, H. L., III, Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2007). The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 194-199. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194051

q3 · i? · review · r2

In the multiple-choice experiments described (Roediger & Marsh, 2005), testing increased production of multiple-choice lures on later cued recall questions even when students were strictly warned against guessing, rising from 5% to 12% of answers; these are descriptive percentages with no printed effect size.

"multiple-choice lures were used to answer 5% of questions when subjects had not been previously tested; testing increased the use of these specific wrong answers to 12% on the later cued recall test."

Marsh 2007 (2)¶

Marsh, E. J., Roediger, H. L., III, Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (2007). The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 194-199. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194051

q2 · i? · review · r3

In the SAT II experiment, lure production on the final cued recall test rose from 7% to 16% after testing; the article notes students also produced fewer other wrong answers after testing, so the overall error rate was not higher; no standardized effect size is printed.

"Taking the SAT II also boosted production of the multiple-choice lures on the final test from a baseline of 7% of responses (when students had not taken the SAT prior to the cued recall test) to 16% (when they had)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Incorrect information learned from a multiple-choice test is applied and reasoned with on conceptually related transfer questions — related
• Taking initial multiple-choice tests without feedback can lead students to later produce the incorrect lure answers they selected, even when an overall retrieval practice benefit occurs — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Providing feedback after initial multiple-choice tests cut lure intrusions on final short-answer tests roughly in half, with immediate and delayed feedback equally effective — related
• Feedback on a multiple-choice test sharply reduces lure intrusions on a later cued recall test, with immediate and delayed schedules equally effective — related
• Taking a multiple-choice test produces a testing effect on later cued recall, but testing without study or feedback can be net harmful — related
• Multiple-choice testing improves later cued recall of prose facts, a benefit that persists though reduced after a one-week delay — related
• Positive and negative testing effects occur for questions tapping higher levels of Bloom's taxonomy, and question level does not change the memorial consequences of testing — related
• Cued-recall testing can impair later memory for competitive, related but non-practiced information (retrieval-induced forgetting) — related
• Pretesting before instruction enhances learning of subsequently presented material even when pretest answers are wrong, with multiple-choice pretesting more effective than cued-recall pretesting — related
• Taking a multiple-choice test boosts performance on later tests compared with nontested control conditions, including with complex SAT II materials — related
• Retrieval practice mostly increases susceptibility to misinformation (retrieval-enhanced suggestibility) — related
• Contrasting orthographically similar L2 words during multiple-choice learning improves their subsequent recall in the productive direction — related