The effect of retrieval practice format on reading comprehension does not differ significantly between an immediate and a three-week-delayed final test¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? No statistically significant interaction was found between type of retrieval practice and retention interval (F(1, 98) = 0.06, p = .804). → Nero 2021

Evidence¶

Nero 2021¶

Nero, C. A., & Zulkiply, N. (2021). The Effects of Retrieval Practice Across Levels of Thinking and Retention Interval on Reading Comprehension. Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE), 17(4). https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i4.16222

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Classroom experiment with 100 first-year Cognitive Psychology undergraduates in a 2 x 2 x 2 mixed-subjects design, analysed with a three-way mixed ANOVA on final multiple-choice test scores. The article reports "no significant interaction between types of retrieval practice and retention interval", F(1, 98) = 0.06, p = .804.

"The results also revealed that there was no significant interaction between types of retrieval practice and retention interval, F(1, 98) = 0.06, p = .804, indicating that the effect of different types of retrieval practice on reading comprehension was almost similar for both short - and long -retention intervals."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Evidence on whether initial short-answer questions produce more learning than initial multiple-choice questions is mixed, with recent studies finding little or no difference — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Retention interval moderates the testing effect: effects are larger after a day or more than at shorter intervals, where individual studies vary from reliable to null or reversed — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it

• Short-answer (production) and multiple-choice (recognition) retrieval practice produce no statistically significant difference in undergraduates' reading comprehension on a final MCQ test — related
• The effect of retrieval practice format on reading comprehension does not differ significantly between lower-order and higher-order thinking questions — related
• Final-test reading comprehension after retrieval practice does not differ significantly between an immediate test and a test delayed by three weeks — related
• Retrieval practice format, levels of thinking and retention interval show no significant three-way interaction on undergraduates' reading comprehension — related
• The training-by-content interaction did not vary with retention interval duration in the human experiment — related
• The effect of retention interval on reading comprehension after retrieval practice does not differ significantly between lower-order and higher-order thinking questions — related
• Several candidate moderators show no reliable effects: retention interval, test type, presentation mode, and publication status — related
• Study design and post-test timing show only borderline moderating effects in between-subject analyses, not significant in within-subject analyses — related