Multiple-choice retrieval practice questions with competitive alternatives

Element · All elements
Evidence · 10 claims (4 for, 4 mixed, 2 against) · 10 studies (4 causal, 2 quant-synthesis, 2 review, 1 associational, 1 theoretical), q2–q4 · 4 of 10 report an effect size · 9 claims rest on one study

Description

A recognition-format retrieval practice item: a multiple-choice question whose incorrect options are competitive alternatives, intended to make recognition practice demand retrieval comparable to short-answer production. The study built its MCQs this way, "by including competitive alternatives in the MCQs to ensure that the MCQs cannot be attributed to being relatively easier than short-answer questions", scoring one point per correct response.

Design Implications

Context

Requirements

• Incorrect options are competitive alternatives rather than easily dismissed distractors, following the method the article adopts from Little et al. (2012).
• Items were validated by the course instructor to match the intended level of thinking (lower-order vs higher-order).

Constraints

• The authors' claim that the MCQs were almost as difficult as the production questions is offered as a plausible explanation for the null format difference, not as a measured result.
• Evaluated with a single 980-word passage on Problem Solving in one course.

Target Learners

• First-year undergraduates enrolled in a Cognitive Psychology course with MUET Band 3 or above English proficiency

Target Learning Goals

• Reading comprehension of a studied course passage, at lower-order and higher-order levels of thinking

Affordances

• Blooms Taxonomy

Claims

• The effect of retrieval practice format on reading comprehension does not differ significantly between lower-order and higher-order thinking questions [~W]
• Recognition was not associated with item difficulty [~W]
• MCQ accuracy was high (above 87%) across all conditions with no significant difference between diverse and generic explanations [~W]
• Incorrect information learned from a multiple-choice test is applied and reasoned with on conceptually related transfer questions [-W]
• Multiple-choice testing increases the later production of multiple-choice lures as answers on cued recall tests, even under warning against guessing [-W]
• Competitive true-false questions can produce benefits similar to competitive multiple-choice questions for previously asked and related questions [+W]
• Contrasting orthographically similar L2 words during multiple-choice learning improves their subsequent recall in the productive direction [+W]

The evidence by question

• Which practice format: short answer, multiple choice, or matching the final test? Evidence on whether initial short-answer questions produce more learning than initial multiple-choice questions is mixed, with recent studies finding little or no difference [+M]
• Can taking a multiple-choice test teach learners the wrong answers it shows them, and does feedback prevent that? Taking initial multiple-choice tests without feedback can lead students to later produce the incorrect lure answers they selected, even when an overall retrieval practice benefit occurs [~M]

Related Elements

• Retrieval Practice
• Retrieval practice improves long-term retention [+M]: the general testing effect these questions draw on; it is smallest when an initial test gives no feedback and learners answer half or fewer correctly

Examples

-

Key Sources

• Nero, C. A., & Zulkiply, N. (2021). The Effects of Retrieval Practice Across Levels of Thinking and Retention Interval on Reading Comprehension. Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE), 17(4). https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i4.16222

Page metadata

Field	Value
type	element
id	multiple-choice-retrieval-questions-with-competitive-alternatives
title	Multiple-choice retrieval practice questions with competitive alternatives
description	A recognition-format retrieval practice item: a multiple-choice question whose incorrect options are competitive alternatives, intended to make recognition practice demand retrieval comparable to short-answer production.
status	review
canonical	True
generated	by claude/unspecified on 2026-09-24
trust	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources	1 — nero-2021

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