Claims

Shorter retention intervals predict higher quiz grades, and the spacing benefit holds even at short retention intervals

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2020 · checked against its sources 2026-10-26 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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.

q2 i0 There is a significant negative main effect of retention interval on quiz grades, and no significant spacing by retention interval interaction. → Paulo F. Carvalho 2020

Evidence

Paulo F. Carvalho 2020

Paulo F. Carvalho, Faria Sana and Veronica X. Yan. (2020). Self-regulated spacing in a massive open online course is related to better learning. npj Science of Learning 5:2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0061-1

q2 · i0 · associational · r2

From the same mixed regression on MOOC log data: "shorter retention intervals being associated with higher quiz grades, β = −0.07", while the spacing-by-retention-interval interaction was not significant (β = 0.02, p > 0.20).

"although there was also a significant main effect of retention interval with shorter retention intervals being associated with higher quiz grades, β = −0.07, SE = 0.01, t(6664.91) = −5.19, p < 0.001, there was not a significant spacing by retention interval effect, β = 0.02, SE = 0.01, t(6512) = 1.28, p > 0.20."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-26
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.