Retrieval practice yields better delayed test performance than restudy (the testing effect) in both experiments¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causalr2·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2021 · checked against its sources 2026-10-21 (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 i1 Students performed significantly better on a 7-day delayed test after retrieval practice than after restudy in Experiment 1 (d = .25). → Luotong Hui 2021
q3 i1 The testing effect was replicated in Experiment 2 with a larger sample (t(120) = 3.53, p < .001, d = .36). → Luotong Hui 2021 (2)
Evidence¶
Luotong Hui 2021¶
Luotong Hui, Anique B. H. de Bruin, Jeroen Donkers, & Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer. (2021). Does Individual Performance Feedback Increase the Use of Retrieval Practice? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09604-x
q3 · i1 · causal · r2
Experiment 1, a single-factor within-subjects experiment with 68 university students studying anatomical image-name pairs, compared delayed recall after retrieval practice versus restudy. The paired-samples t-test showed students "performed significantly better after retrieval practice than after restudy" with d = .25.
"A paired-samples t-test revealed that students indeed performed significantly better after retrieval practice than after restudy (t(59) = 1.99, p =. 0 5 ,d = .25) (see Table 1), confirming the testing effect."
Luotong Hui 2021 (2)¶
Luotong Hui, Anique B. H. de Bruin, Jeroen Donkers, & Jeroen J. G. van Merriënboer. (2021). Does Individual Performance Feedback Increase the Use of Retrieval Practice? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09604-x
q3 · i1 · causal · r2
Experiment 2, a mixed two-factor design with 124 university students (individual vs. general feedback between subjects), replicated the delayed-test advantage of retrieval practice over restudy, "confirmed again" with t(120) = 3.53 and d = .36.
"As in Experiment 1, Hypothesis 1 predicted the testing effect which was confirmed again (t(120) = 3.53, p <. 0 0 1 ,d= .36)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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
- Across eight delayed-test comparisons, testing showed a small numerical advantage over restudy, but confidence intervals were wide and the combined effect imprecise — related
- Retrieval practice improves long-term retention — a broader claim this one bears on
- Repeated test-restudy trials produced higher final cued recall than study-only or single test-restudy controls across both experiments — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
testing-effect-confirmed-anatomical-image-name-pairs |
title |
Retrieval practice yields better delayed test performance than restudy (the testing effect) in both experiments |
description |
Retrieval practice yields better delayed test performance than restudy (the testing effect) in both experiments |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
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 |
2 — luotong-hui-2021, luotong-hui-2021-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.