Reading approach and test delay each significantly affect knowledge-test performance, with no significant interaction (ηp2 = 0.02)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r3 · q3 · i1–i2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 A significant main effect of reading approach on knowledge-test score (F(2, 180) = 9.81, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.10). → Peter Seban 2025 q3 i2 A significant main effect of time of test on knowledge-test score (F(1, 180) = 18.03, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.09). → Peter Seban 2025 q3 i1 No significant interaction between reading approach and time of test on performance (F(2, 180) = 1.90, p = 0.15, ηp2 = 0.02). → 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 · i2 · causal · r3

Two-way ANOVA in the pre-registered experiment (186 psychology students, 3 reading approaches × 2 test delays) with knowledge-test score as outcome. The article reports the two main effects as significant: reading approach with "F(2, 180) = 9.81, p < 0.001, ηp2. = 0.10" and test time with ηp2 = 0.09.

"There was a significant main effect of the reading approach that was used during the learning phase on the performance on the knowledge test, F(2, 180) = 9.81, p < 0.001, ηp2. = 0.10, and also there was a significant main effect of the time of the test on the performance on the knowledge test, F(1, 180) = 18.03, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.09."

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 · i1 · causal · r3

Same two-way ANOVA of the experimental study: the omnibus reading approach × time of test interaction was not significant, with the article's printed values "F(2, 180) = 1.90, p = 0.15, ηp2 = 0.02"; equivalence was not tested.

"There was not a significant interaction between the reading approach and a time of the test on the performance on the knowledge test, F(2, 180) = 1.90, p = 0.15, ηp2 = 0.02."

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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Delayed JOL bias: multiple text readers are underconfident, rereaders overconfident at one day, and single readers overconfident at one week — 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
• 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 — related