umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
How crucial is the response format for the testing effect?
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden and Stockholm Brain Institute, Stockholm, Sweden .
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden and Stockholm Brain Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden and Stockholm Brain Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden and Stockholm Brain Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2014 (English)In: Psychological Research, ISSN 0340-0727, E-ISSN 1430-2772, Vol. 78, no 5, 623-633 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Combining study and test trials during learning is more beneficial for long-term retention than repeated study without testing (i.e., the testing effect). Less is known about the relative efficacy of different response formats during testing. We tested the hypothesis that overt testing (typing responses on a keyboard) during a practice phase benefits later memory more than covert testing (only pressing a button to indicate successful retrieval). In Experiment 1, three groups learned 40 word pairs either by repeatedly studying them, by studying and overtly testing them, or by studying and covertly testing them. In Experiment 2, only the two testing conditions were manipulated in a within-subjects design. In both experiments, participants received cued recall tests after a short (~19 min) and a long (1 week) retention interval. In Experiment 1, all groups performed equally well at the short retention interval. The overt testing group reliably outperformed the repeated study group after 1 week, whereas the covert testing group performed insignificantly different from both these groups. Hence, the testing effect was demonstrated for overt, but failed to show for covert testing. In Experiment 2, overtly tested items were better and more quickly retrieved than those covertly tested. Further, this does not seem to be due to any differences in retrieval effort during learning. To conclude, overt testing was more beneficial for later retention than covert testing, but the effect size was small. Possible explanations are discussed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 78, no 5, 623-633 p.
National Category
Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-82771DOI: 10.1007/s00426-013-0522-8ISI: 000340585000002PubMedID: 24173813OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-82771DiVA: diva2:663039
Available from: 2013-11-08 Created: 2013-11-08 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Jonsson, Bert
By organisation
Department of Psychology
In the same journal
Psychological Research
Psychology (excluding Applied Psychology)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 102 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf