Repeated test-restudy trials produced higher final cued recall than study-only or single test-restudy controls across both experiments¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2007 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · 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? In Experiment 1, test-restudy items significantly outperformed study-only control items. → Pyc 2007 q3 i? In Experiment 2, repeated test-restudy trials significantly outperformed a single test-restudy trial. → Pyc 2007 (2)

Evidence¶

Pyc 2007¶

Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2007). Examining the efficiency of schedules of distributed retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 35(8), 1917-1927. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03193420

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 1 mixed-factor ANOVA showed a main effect of activity, F(1,156) = 767.03, p < .001; test–restudy items had significantly higher final test performance than study-only items, replicating prior research with study-only controls.

"The finding that test–restudy items had significantly higher performance than did study-only items is not surprising and replicates previous research that has used study-only control conditions"

Pyc 2007 (2)¶

Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2007). Examining the efficiency of schedules of distributed retrieval practice. Memory & Cognition, 35(8), 1917-1927. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03193420

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 2 mixed-factor ANOVA, F(1,63) = 96.2, p < .001; schedule main effect and interaction were not significant, F(2,63) = 2.69, p = .076 and F(2,63) = 2.06, p = .137; an ANCOVA using single-condition performance as covariate also showed no group difference, F(2,62) = 2.03, p = .14.

"indicating that repeated test-restudy trials resulted in significantly higher final test performance than did a single test-restudy trial"

Discussion¶

A 23-item-ISI dropout schedule achieved final cued-recall performance similar to conventional schedules while using significantly fewer test-restudy trials in two experiments — related
Retrieval practice improves long-term retention — a broader claim this one bears on
Retrieval practice produces reliable positive effects at short delays, although some forgetting must set in so that the final test is not at ceiling — related
Both overt and covert retrieval practice outperform restudy when practice and test match (the testing effect) — a broader claim this one bears on
Retrieval practice yields better delayed test performance than restudy (the testing effect) in both experiments — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`test-restudy-beats-controls`
`title`	`Repeated test-restudy trials produced higher final cued recall than study-only or single test-restudy controls across both experiments`
`description`	`Repeated test-restudy trials produced higher final cued recall than study-only or single test-restudy controls across both experiments`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2007`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-20`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-16`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	2 — `pyc-2007`, `pyc-2007-2`

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