JOLs for study–test items increase faster across cycles than JOLs for study–study items, reducing underconfidence relative to restudy practice¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 JOL magnitude did not differ between study types in Cycle 1 but diverged in favor of study–test items in Cycles 2 and 3. → Kubik 2022

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 · i2 · causal · r2

Mixed 2×2×3 experiment comparing study–test (ST ST ST) and study–study (SS SS SS) items within participants. The "Study Type × Cycle interaction" was significant, with Cycle 2 d = 0.57 and Cycle 3 d = 0.83 favoring study–test items.

"there was a significant Study Type × Cycle interaction, F(1.49, 84.66) = 26.34, p < 0.001, ω2 = 0.013, indicating that JOL magnitude did not differ in Cycle 1 between both study types, t(58) = 0.92, p = 0.359, d = 0.12, but then diverged in favor of study–test items across cycles"

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
• Calibration of JOLs shifts toward underconfidence across learning cycles for action phrases under both verbal and enactive encoding, without first-cycle overconfidence — related