Retrieval practice with feedback improves 24-hour cued recall more than restudy, and high semantic relatedness raises overall accuracy, but the Training Task × Relatedness ANOVA interaction is non-significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-27 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Testing with feedback produced higher final cued-recall than restudy, F(1, 229) = 514.1, p < 0.0001, ηp2 = 0.69. → Gupta 2026 (2) q3 i? High relatedness produced higher final cued-recall than low relatedness, F(1, 229) = 126.6, p < 0.0001, ηp2 = 0.36. → Gupta 2026 q3 i? The Training Task × Relatedness interaction on observed proportion correct was non-significant (F(1, 229) = 0.108, p = 0.74, ηp2 = 0.0005). → Gupta 2026

Evidence¶

Gupta 2026¶

Gupta, M.W., Pan, S.C., & Rickard, T.C. (2026). Semantic relatedness and the efficacy of retrieval practice. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00416-8

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Mixed-factors ANOVA on final test proportion correct from the laboratory cued-recall experiment (231 UCSD participants analyzed; training task within, relatedness between). The article reports "a significant main effect of Relatedness" with F(1, 229) = 126.6 and a non-significant interaction with p = 0.74.

"a significant main effect of Relatedness, F(1, 229) = 126.6, p < 0.0001, 𝜂p2 = 0.36, BF10 = 3.01e20, and a non-significant interaction, F(1, 229) = 0.108, p = 0.74, 𝜂p2 = 0.0005, BF01 = 6.86"

Gupta 2026 (2)¶

Gupta, M.W., Pan, S.C., & Rickard, T.C. (2026). Semantic relatedness and the efficacy of retrieval practice. npj Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-026-00416-8

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Same mixed-factors ANOVA on final test proportion correct. The article reports "a significant (at α = .05) main effect of Training Task" with F(1, 229) = 514.1 and BF10 = 5.91e56, confirming the testing effect in both relatedness groups.

"a significant (at α = .05) main effect of Training Task, F(1, 229) = 514.1, p < 0.0001, 𝜂p2 = 0.69, BF10 = 5.91e56"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Long-Term Memory — outcome: instruction changes it

Related Claims¶

• Item-level generalized linear mixed model finds no Testing Condition × Semantic Relatedness interaction, and item-level proportions correct show no pervasive ceiling effect — related
• The quadratic relation between restudy and test performance masks the relatedness effect in mean testing-effect magnitudes, because more high-relatedness participants fall in the PCR range where testing effects are largest — related
• Model-based analysis shows the relative efficacy of testing is reduced for highly related word pairs, with the dual-memory model overpredicting test performance only in the high-relatedness group — related
• Cumulative distribution analysis shows the dual-memory model systematically overpredicts test performance at all restudy levels for high-relatedness pairs, ruling out a participant-level ceiling effect — related
• Cued recall testing with correct-answer feedback significantly enhances vocabulary learning across three consecutive tests — related
• Repeated test-restudy trials produced higher final cued recall than study-only or single test-restudy controls across both experiments — a broader claim this one bears on
• Nap benefits for no-feedback retrieval-practice items appear at both 90-minute immediate and 24-hour delayed tests — related