The retention-interval main effect shows forgetting occurred over one week in both experiments¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2·q3·i2–i3
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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 i3 In Experiment 1, participants tested after 5 min outperformed those tested after 1 week. → de Jonge 2015
q3 i2 In Experiment 2, the retention-interval main effect was also significant, with lower recall after one week. → de Jonge 2015 (2)
Evidence¶
de Jonge 2015¶
de Jonge, M., Tabbers, H. K., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2015). The Effect of Testing on the Retention of Coherent and Incoherent Text Material. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9300-z
q3 · i3 · causal · r2
Experiment 1 main effect of retention interval: 70% versus 50% recall, "F(1, 60)=27.48, p<.001, ηp2=.31".
"Participants in the 5-min group outperformed the participants in the 1-week group (70 vs. 50 %), F(1, 60)=27.48, p<.001, ηp2=.31, suggesting that forgetting occurred during the 1-week interval."
de Jonge 2015 (2)¶
de Jonge, M., Tabbers, H. K., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2015). The Effect of Testing on the Retention of Coherent and Incoherent Text Material. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9300-z
q3 · i2 · causal · r2
Experiment 2 main effect of retention interval: 54% versus 45% recall, "F(1, 60) = 6.42,p<.05, ηp2=.10".
"There was a significant main effect of retention interval, F(1, 60) = 6.42,p<.05, ηp2=.10. Participants in the 5-min group recalled more on the final test (54 %) compared to participants in the 1-week group (45 %)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- For a highly coherent text, taking a fill-in-the-blank practice test yields no retention benefit and does not slow forgetting compared to restudy — related
- For incoherent text presented as a list of facts, testing slows the rate of forgetting compared to restudy — related
- Time-based forgetting occurs across presentation methods, with rate determined by consolidation time — a broader claim this one bears on
- Sequential presentation of memory items produces less time-based forgetting than simultaneous presentation (Experiment 1) — 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
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
one-week-forgetting-main-effect-both-experiments |
title |
The retention-interval main effect shows forgetting occurred over one week in both experiments |
description |
The retention-interval main effect shows forgetting occurred over one week in both experiments |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-22 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — de-jonge-2015, de-jonge-2015-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.