The retrieval (TTST) advantage appeared at both short (5 min) and long (24 h) retention delays, with no reliable evidence that it differed between them¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1992 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The presentation condition x testing day interaction was not reliable (F < 1) in Experiments 1 and 2, so the data give no evidence that the TTST advantage differed across the 5-min and 24-h tests; equivalence was not tested. → Carrier 1992

Evidence¶

Carrier 1992¶

Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory & Cognition, 20(6), 633-642. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202713

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Omnibus interaction test from the ANOVAs in Experiments 1 and 2, in which cued recall was tested after 5 min on Day 1 and after 21-27 h on Day 2. The article reports the interaction was "not reliable (F < 1)" in both experiments, while testing-day main effects showed forgetting. Mean pairs recalled (pure ST vs TTST) were 5.8 vs 6.4 on Day 1 and 3.7 vs 4.1 on Day 2 in Experiment 1, and 5.7 vs 6.4 and 3.9 vs 4.6 in Experiment 2. A non-reliable interaction shows no detected difference in the advantage between delays, not that the advantages were equal.

"The interaction of presentation con dition x testing day was not reliable (F < 1). As in the analysis of the results of Experiment 1, we performed a sign test on the number of subjects showing an advantage at cued recall for the TTST condition."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The testing benefit for map learning holds under both quadrant-based and relative-position-based scoring, liberal and stringent — related
• 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
• Retention interval moderates the testing effect: effects are larger after a day or more than at shorter intervals, where individual studies vary from reliable to null or reversed — reports the opposite
• Repeated retrieval practice alters the rate at which learned items are forgotten, according to learn-to-criterion studies and forgetting-curve analyses the chapter reviews — related
• The TTST advantage persists in a pure-list design, ruling out differential rehearsal (Experiment 4) — related
• The TTST advantage replicates with meaningful Eskimo/English word pairs (Experiment 2) — related
• Sequential presentation of memory items produces less time-based forgetting than simultaneous presentation (Experiment 1) — related
• The retention gap persisted at 48 hours with no differential forgetting between groups (39% vs 52%) — related
• Map drawing after 30 min is more accurate for maps learned through covert-retrieval tests than for maps learned through equal conventional study time — related
• Time-based forgetting occurs across presentation methods, with rate determined by consolidation time — related
• Retrieval before re-presentation (TTST) improves final cued recall of nonsense-syllable/number pairs relative to pure study (Experiment 1) — related
• In Experiment 3, individual learners showed greater forgetting over 24 hours than paired learners — related
• The retrieval benefit occurs at the level of individual items, not through general practice at retrieval — related
• Several candidate moderators show no reliable effects: retention interval, test type, presentation mode, and publication status — related
• The retention-interval main effect shows forgetting occurred over one week in both experiments — related
• Retrieval practice takes more learning time than worked examples, and variability slows improvement during practice — related