Longer retention intervals between pre- and post-test weaken the effect of mental simulation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? One reviewed meta-analysis reports a significant negative relationship between retention interval and MS effect: the longer the time span between pre- and post-test, the weaker the effect. → Meer 2009

Evidence¶

Meer 2009¶

Meer, J.P. van & Theunissen, N.C.M. (2009). Prospective educational applications of mental simulation: A meta-review. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9097-8

q2 · i? · review · r2

Finding attributed to Driskell et al. (1994) within the reviewed literature; the same review context notes fifty years of research indicate distributed MS is better than massed MS, suggesting an optimum inter-session span could be determined.

"One review reports a significant negative relationship between retention interval and effect of MS, indicating that the longer the time span between pre- and post-test, the weaker the effect of MS"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Mental simulation benefits cognitive tasks more than motor or strength tasks — related
• The optimal interstudy interval increases as the retention interval increases — related
• The testing effect is largest at a retention interval of 1–6 days (g = 0.82) and robust across all intervals — related
• Several candidate moderators show no reliable effects: retention interval, test type, presentation mode, and publication status — related
• Memory recall declines over the 12-hour retention interval between encoding and retrieval — related