Across eight delayed-test comparisons, testing showed a small numerical advantage over restudy, but confidence intervals were wide and the combined effect imprecise¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-10-21 (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.
q3 i? Seven of eight comparisons yielded a numerical testing effect and one a numerical reversed effect, but the CIs were very wide, implying imprecise estimates. → Tamara van Gog & Liesbeth Kester & Kim Dirkx & Vincent Hoogerheide & Joris Boerboom & Peter P. J. L. Verkoeijen 2015
Evidence¶
Tamara van Gog & Liesbeth Kester & Kim Dirkx & Vincent Hoogerheide & Joris Boerboom & Peter P. J. L. Verkoeijen 2015¶
Tamara van Gog & Liesbeth Kester & Kim Dirkx & Vincent Hoogerheide & Joris Boerboom & Peter P. J. L. Verkoeijen. (2015). Testing After Worked Example Study Does Not Enhance Delayed Problem-Solving Performance Compared to Restudy. Educ Psychol Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9297-3
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Small-scale random-effects meta-analysis of the study's eight delayed final test comparisons between restudy and testing, based on 180 restudy and 173 testing participants, conducted in Cumming's ESCI software. "seven comparisons yielded a numerical testing effect, whereas one comparison showed a numerical reversed testing effect"; the combined effect indicated mean performance was somewhat higher under testing.
"seven comparisons yielded a numerical testing effect, whereas one comparison showed a numerical reversed testing effect. However, the CIs are very wide, which implies that each of the comparisons provides a rather imprecise estimate of the testing effect parameter"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Testing via identical problem solving after studying identical worked examples did not significantly improve delayed test performance compared with restudying identical examples (Experiment 2) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Testing after studying four worked examples does not enhance delayed test performance compared with restudy among vocational education students in probability calculation (Experiment 4) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Testing benefits retention over a conservative restudy control, establishing the testing effect as robust — a broader claim this one bears on
- Retrieval practice improves long-term retention — a broader claim this one bears on
- No testing effect was found for acquiring problem-solving skills through worked example study across eight experiments — related
- Retrieval practice yields better delayed test performance than restudy (the testing effect) in both experiments — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
small-scale-meta-analysis-testing-restudy-imprecise |
title |
Across eight delayed-test comparisons, testing showed a small numerical advantage over restudy, but confidence intervals were wide and the combined effect imprecise |
description |
Across eight delayed-test comparisons, testing showed a small numerical advantage over restudy, but confidence intervals were wide and the combined effect imprecise |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
source_checked |
2026-10-21 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — tamara-van-gog-liesbeth-kester-kim-dirkx-vincent-hoogerheide-joris-boerboom-peter-p-j-l-verkoeijen-2015 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.