Presentation format (sequential vs. simultaneous) does not reliably affect EOL accuracy¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In Experiment 3, EOL accuracy was the same whether judgments were made sequentially (M = .63) or simultaneously (M = .60), p = .491. → Jemstedt 2017

Evidence¶

Jemstedt 2017¶

Jemstedt, A., Kubik, V., & Jönsson, F. U. (2017). What moderates the accuracy of ease of learning judgments? Metacognition and Learning, 12, 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-017-9172-3

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 3 mixed-design study with 64 psychology students compared sequential and simultaneous EOL judgment conditions; the hypothesis that simultaneous presentation would improve accuracy was not supported, F(1, 56) = .48, p = .491. Absolute accuracy also did not differ by format.

"There was no main effect of presentation format, that is, EOL accuracy was the same independent of whether judgments were made with items presented sequentially (M = .63,SD = .18) or simultaneously (M = .60,SD =. 2 8 ) , F(1, 56) = .48,p = .491, mean difference = .03, 95% CI = [−.05, .10],d = .12."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The type of EOL task (difficulty vs. trials-to-learn scale) does not reliably affect EOL accuracy — a broader claim this one bears on
• Older adults show no reliable deficit in assessing item difficulty (EOL accuracy) — a broader claim this one bears on
• Equating total consolidation time across presentation methods equalizes forgetting rates (Experiment 3) — related
• Lengthening consolidation time in the simultaneous condition reduces forgetting to a rate comparable to sequential presentation (Experiment 4) — related
• Equating encoding time across presentation methods does not eliminate the forgetting-rate difference (Experiment 2) — related