Past-test correlations exceed concurrent resolution scores, and JOLs rise for previously recalled items while falling for nonrecalled items¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Past-test correlations were significantly higher than corresponding resolution scores for both encoding types. → Kubik 2022 q3 i? JOLs increased from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2 for previously recalled items but decreased for nonrecalled items, a pattern the authors argue is inconsistent with the MPT account. → Kubik 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Kubik 2022¶

Kubik, V., Jemstedt, A., Mahjub Eshratabadi, H., Schwartz, B. L., & Jönsson, F. U. (2022). The underconfidence-with-practice effect in action memory: The contribution of retrieval practice to metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09288-2

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Mixed ANOVA comparing resolution and past-test correlations in the experiment showed "past-test correlations ( M = 0.85, SE = 0.04) were significantly higher than the corresponding resolution scores", and both were lower for enactive than verbal encoding.

"past-test correlations ( M = 0.85, SE = 0.04) were significantly higher than the corresponding resolution scores ( M = 0.65, SE = 0.04), F(1, 47) = 20.02, p < 0.001, ω 2 = 0.124"

Kubik 2022 (2)¶

Kubik, V., Jemstedt, A., Mahjub Eshratabadi, H., Schwartz, B. L., & Jönsson, F. U. (2022). The underconfidence-with-practice effect in action memory: The contribution of retrieval practice to metacognitive monitoring. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09288-2

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Anchoring analysis of study–test items by Cycle-1 recall status found the "Recall Status × Cycle Interaction" was significant; the authors argue increased underconfidence for previously recalled items contradicts the MPT account and fits anchoring-and-adjustment.

"JOL magnitude increased from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2 for previously recalled items, whereas they decreased for nonrecalled items, as indicated by the Recall Status × Cycle Interaction, F(1, 57) = 90.67, p < 0.001, ω2 = 0.107"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Resolution of JOLs increases across study–test cycles, improving between Cycles 1 and 2 but not from Cycle 2 to Cycle 3 — related
• Enactment impairs resolution of JOLs relative to verbal encoding of action phrases — related