Multiple text reading shows more stable retention than rereading: non-significantly higher one-week scores and a smaller decline from one day to one week¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? MTR scored descriptively higher than RR on the one-week delayed test, but the difference was not formally significant (H1 not confirmed). → Peter Seban 2025 q3 i? The decline in scores between the one-day and one-week delayed tests was smaller in the MTR group than in the RR group. → Peter Seban 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Peter Seban 2025¶

Peter Seban, Kamila Urban, Radovan Sikl. (2025). Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy. Instructional Science, 53, 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09686-4

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Post-hoc pairwise contrast from the experiment's Results section (descriptive means: MTR WD 12.9 vs RR WD 10.1). The article states participants in the multiple text reading group "achieved higher scores, but this difference was not formally significant"; equivalence was not tested.

"A comparison between the performance of the multiple text reading and rereading group in the one-week delayed test showed that participants in the multiple text reading group achieved higher scores, but this difference was not formally significant."

Peter Seban 2025 (2)¶

Peter Seban, Kamila Urban, Radovan Sikl. (2025). Comparing the effectiveness of multiple text reading and rereading on knowledge retention and metacognitive accuracy. Instructional Science, 53, 337–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09686-4

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Within-approach comparisons across test delays showed no significant differences (Hypothesis 3), yet the article reports the descriptive pattern that "the decline in scores between the one-day and one-week delayed tests was smaller in the multiple text reading group" — an untested descriptive difference.

"the decline in scores between the one-day and one-week delayed tests was smaller in the multiple text reading group."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• On a one-week delayed test, multiple text reading and rereading both outperform single reading, but on a one-day delayed test the differences are non-significant — related
• Quiz accuracy declines from immediate to 1-week delayed testing regardless of text medium — related
• Delayed JOL bias: multiple text readers are underconfident, rereaders overconfident at one day, and single readers overconfident at one week — related
• Reading approach and test delay each significantly affect knowledge-test performance, with no significant interaction (ηp2 = 0.02) — related
• Rereading raises judgements of learning after each reading while multiple text reading raises them only after the second reading (significant interaction, ηp2 = 0.07) — related