The training-by-content interaction did not vary with retention interval duration in the human experiment¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i0negligible
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i0 No interaction between type of training and retention interval was found, and accuracy on fact vs. skill questions did not vary with retention interval duration. → Rachatasumrit 2023
Evidence¶
Rachatasumrit 2023¶
Rachatasumrit, N., Koedinger, K. R., & Carvalho, P. F. (2023). Evidence and theory for why the best example-problem ratio to optimize learning gain depends on knowledge content. https://osf.io/29wpe doi:10.31234/osf.io/eyxfw
q3 · i0 · causal · r2
In Experiment 1's mixed-effects model, retention interval (uncontrolled trivia-task duration) did not moderate the training-by-KC interaction (d = 0.15, p = .410). Equivalence was not tested; the article notes prior research suggested retention interval could moderate practice benefits.
"we found no interaction between type of training and retention interval, β = 0.01, t (124.52) = 0.834, p = .410, d = 0.15, and participants’ accuracy responding to fact vs. skill test questions did not vary with retention interval duration"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- In a human experiment, verbatim facts are learned better from practice-only training while general skills are learned better from example-integrated training (cross-over content-treatment interaction) — related
- The training-by-content interaction is not specific to test question type, indicating transfer between skill and fact learning — 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
- Several candidate moderators show no reliable effects: retention interval, test type, presentation mode, and publication status — related
- Retrieval practice format, levels of thinking and retention interval show no significant three-way interaction on undergraduates' reading comprehension — related
- No testing effect was found for acquiring problem-solving skills through worked example study across eight experiments — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
no-training-retention-interval-interaction |
title |
The training-by-content interaction did not vary with retention interval duration in the human experiment |
description |
The training-by-content interaction did not vary with retention interval duration in the human experiment |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2023 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-12 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — rachatasumrit-2023 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.