测试效应是过程依赖还是内容依赖?

测试效应是指复习时对所学习材料进行提取比重学能更好地促进记忆。本研究利用低关联度名词词对作为实验材料来探讨测试效应的作用机制是过程依赖还是内容依赖。实验1的目的是考察记忆时程对测试效应的影响。实验采用2（复习条件：测试、重学）×3（测验间隔：5分钟、2天、1周）混合设计探究测试效应产生的时程。实验结果：间隔5分钟和2天时,没有出现测试效应;间隔1周时出现了测试效应。可见1周是本实验条件下测试效应比较敏感的时程条件。实验2的目的是考察测试效应是过程依赖还是内容依赖。根据实验1的结果,选择1周时程,采用2（复习条件：测试、重学）×2（测验方式：A→B、A←B）被试间设计,探索测试效应的产生依赖于测试的过程还是内容。研究的基本假设：如果测试效应依赖于测试的内容,那么在测试方式为A→B与A←B两种条件下,其测试效应大小应有所不同;如果测试效应依赖于测试过程,那么测试方式为A→B与A←B条件下,测试效应的大小应该没有差异。结果发现：无论测试时是A→B还是A←B,其测试效应的大小没有区别。说明测试效应是有赖于复习时测试的过程。     

Psychological factors in hiv testing among sexually transmitted disease clinic patients: An exploratory study

Abstract

Substantial numbers of persons at risk for HIV infection do not seek HIV testing and factors influencing testing decisions are not well understood. To identify psychological characteristics of persons who remain unwilling to receive HIV testing, we surveyed patients of an inner-city sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic (n = 181). Participants completed an anonymous survey and were grouped on the basis of HIV testing history and compared on measures of testing perceptions, attitudes, and decision making influences. Results showed that untested participants feared testing and had a sense of not knowing if they needed to be tested. In contrast, participants who were getting tested believed that testing would help them feel better about their health. Results also showed that participants lacked accurate information about some HIV testing procedures. We conclude that identifying concerns which inhibit seeking HIV testing can be useful in developing effective methods of promoting HIV testing.     

COLLEGE STUDENTS'ATTITUDES TOWARD EMPLOYEE DRUG TESTING PROGRAMS

Drug testing programs are becoming increasingly popular, but little is known about attitudes toward various aspects of common testing programs. This study examined college students'attitudes toward several aspects of drug testing programs. Results indicate that testing is seen, under some circumstances, as appropriate and necessary. However, attitudes toward most aspects of testing were characterized by extreme variability. Virtually all aspects of drug testing programs are strongly accepted by some individuals and strongly rejected by others. Furthermore, attitudes toward employee drug testing do not appear to vary as a function of employment experience, qualifications, or political inclinations, and are not strongly related to the individual's exposure to others'drug use. One of the few consistent correlates of approval of employee drug testing was the individual's drug use; self-report frequency of drug use was negatively correlated with the acceptability of employee drug testing.     

Predictors of interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing is an increasingly available option among individuals searching for information about their health risk factors and ancestry. This study is one of the first to examine predictors of interest in DTC genetic testing. Participants read one of the three types of information about DTC genetic testing (positive only, negative only or both) and reported perceptions of and intentions to pursue testing. The information which people read, their perceptions of the benefits of testing, their perceptions of the barriers to testing and anticipated regret predicted intentions to undergo testing. Interestingly, people who read both positive and negative information did not differ from people who read only negative information in their intentions to pursue testing. We discuss the implications of these findings for predicting interest in this relatively new type of genetic testing and for designing interventions to encourage (or discourage) testing.     

Predictors of interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing is an increasingly available option among individuals searching for information about their health risk factors and ancestry. This study is one of the first to examine predictors of interest in DTC genetic testing. Participants read one of the three types of information about DTC genetic testing (positive only, negative only or both) and reported perceptions of and intentions to pursue testing. The information which people read, their perceptions of the benefits of testing, their perceptions of the barriers to testing and anticipated regret predicted intentions to undergo testing. Interestingly, people who read both positive and negative information did not differ from people who read only negative information in their intentions to pursue testing. We discuss the implications of these findings for predicting interest in this relatively new type of genetic testing and for designing interventions to encourage (or discourage) testing.     

Free the animals? Investigating attitudes toward animal testing in Britain and the United States

In this study, 185 British and 143 American undergraduates completed a battery of tests that measured attitudes toward animal testing and various individual difference variables. Attitudes toward animal testing factored into two interpretable factors: general attitudes toward animal testing, and animal welfare and conditions of testing. Overall, there was support for animal testing under the right conditions, although there was also concern for the welfare of animals and the conditions under which testing takes place. There were small but significant national difference on both factors (with Americans more positive about testing and less positive about animal welfare), and a significant sex difference on the first factor (women were more negative about testing). Correlation and regression analyses showed that there were few significant individual difference predictors of both factors. These results are discussed in relation to past and future work on attitudes toward animal testing.     

How crucial is the response format for the testing effect?

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.     

Risk perceptions, worry, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility

This study assessed the unique associations of risk perceptions and worry with attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Women (general practitioner clinic attenders, university students, and first-degree relatives of breast cancer survivors; N?=?303) read information about genetic testing and completed measures assessing perceived cancer risk, cancer worry, and genetic testing attitudes and beliefs. Worry was associated with greater interest in genetic testing, stronger beliefs that testing has detrimental emotional consequences, and positive beliefs about benefits of testing and risk-reducing surgeries. Perceived risk was unrelated to interest and associated with more skeptical beliefs about emotional consequences and benefits of testing and risk-reducing surgeries. At low worry levels, testing interest increased with more positive beliefs about testing benefits; at high worry levels, interest was high regardless of benefits beliefs. The findings support Leventhal's Common-Sense Model of self-regulation delineating interactive influences of risk-related cognitions and emotions on information processing and behavior.     

Risk perceptions,worry, and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility

This study assessed the unique associations of risk perceptions and worry with attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. Women (general practitioner clinic attenders, university students, and first-degree relatives of breast cancer survivors; N?=?303) read information about genetic testing and completed measures assessing perceived cancer risk, cancer worry, and genetic testing attitudes and beliefs. Worry was associated with greater interest in genetic testing, stronger beliefs that testing has detrimental emotional consequences, and positive beliefs about benefits of testing and risk-reducing surgeries. Perceived risk was unrelated to interest and associated with more skeptical beliefs about emotional consequences and benefits of testing and risk-reducing surgeries. At low worry levels, testing interest increased with more positive beliefs about testing benefits; at high worry levels, interest was high regardless of benefits beliefs. The findings support Leventhal's Common-Sense Model of self-regulation delineating interactive influences of risk-related cognitions and emotions on information processing and behavior.     

An Investigation of Genetic Counselors’ Testing Recommendations: Pedigree Analysis and the Use of Multiplex Breast Cancer Panel Testing

Genetic testing recommendations for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer involve pedigree analysis and consultation of testing guidelines. The testing landscape for hereditary cancer syndromes is shifting as multiplex panel tests become more widely integrated into clinical practice. The purpose of the current study was to assess how genetic counselors utilize pedigrees to make recommendations for genetic testing, to determine consistency of these recommendations with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines and to explore current use of multiplex panel testing. Sixty-nine genetic counselors were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors Cancer Special Interest Group’s Discussion Forum. Participation involved pedigree analysis and completion of an online questionnaire assessing testing recommendations and use of multiplex panel testing. Pedigree analysis and test recommendations were scored for consistency with NCCN guidelines. The average score was 12.83/15 indicating strong consistency with NCCN guidelines. Participants were more likely to consider multiplex testing when pedigrees demonstrated highly penetrant dominant inheritance but were not indicative of a particular syndrome. Participant concerns about multiplex panel testing include limited guidelines for both testing eligibility and medical management. This study demonstrates high utilization of pedigree analysis and raises new questions about its use in multiplex genetic testing.     

Ethnic Differences in Parental Perceptions of Genetic Testing for Deaf Infants

As genetic testing becomes an integral part of the evaluation of deaf infants and children, it is important to understand parental views on genetic testing. The purpose of this study is to examine parental reasons for, and beliefs about, genetic testing for deafness in early-identified infants, and to determine if they differ as a function of ethnicity. We present baseline data collected from 56 Caucasian, 59 Hispanic, and 24 Asian parents of deaf children participating in a longitudinal, prospective study on genetic testing for connexin-related deafness. The overall finding is that reasons for, and beliefs about, genetic testing for deafness varied as a function of ethnicity. Virtually all parents sought genetic testing to understand why their child is deaf. However, Asian and/or Hispanic parents were more likely than Caucasian parents to view family planning, helping with their child's medical care, and helping the family as other important reasons for testing, and were more likely than Caucasian parents to perceive genetic testing to be useful for these purposes. Asian and Hispanic parents were more likely than Caucasian parents to perceive genetic testing in harmful terms. Genetic testing fulfills a cognitive need for parents to understand why their child is deaf, yet differences in responses suggest that Asian and Hispanic parents may seek testing for other purposes. Understanding different perspectives on genetic testing for deafness will enhance genetic counselors' cultural competence and facilitate the pre-test genetic counseling session.     

Duty to Re-Contact: A Study of Families at Risk for Fragile X

DNA testing for Fragile X syndrome is now routinely available through a large number of diagnostic laboratories. We have surveyed individuals from British Columbia Fragile X families identified prior to the availability of DNA testing for FMR1 to determine if they are subsequently receiving information about DNA testing. Of the 78 individuals first seen before the cloning of the FMR1 gene, 39 (50%) had not been seen in the clinic to discuss DNA testing. We initiated a contact program with these 39 patients to determine their interest in DNA testing. Contact was made with 28 individuals, 20 of whom stated interest in testing either for themselves or for a relative. Patient opinions about DNA testing were assessed through questionnaires. In those individuals who stated an interest in DNA testing, the most common reason for wishing testing was to provide information to children or grandchildren. The most common disadvantages of testing indicated by this group were that they had finished their families and that they felt the test would not have a direct impact. The most common reasons individuals were not interested in DNA testing were that there were no family members appropriate to test and that the respondent had completed his or her family. DNA testing has been performed for 13 of the 28 (46%) contacted individuals and/or at least one relative. In view of the high level of interest for testing in families who had not been seen since the cloning of the FMR1 gene, we feel that FMR1 screening programs should include actively contacting previously seen individuals.     

Policy Recommendations for Carrier Testing and Predictive Testing in Childhood: A Distinction That Makes a Real Difference

The genetic testing of children raises many ethical concerns. This paper examines how five position statements from Canada, UK and USA, which present guidelines for good practice in this area produce different recommendations for carrier testing and predictive testing. We find that the genetic information generated through carrier testing is routinely presented as less serious than that generated from predictive testing. Additionally, the reproductive implications of predictive testing are also routinely erased. Consequently, the papers argue strongly against predictive testing but advise caution against carrier testing in somewhat weaker terms. We argue that these differences rest on assumptions about the status of reproduction in people’s lives and on an ethical stance that foregrounds the self over others. We propose that questioning the crude and sharp distinction between carrier and predictive testing in principle may enable practitioners and parents/families to make more nuanced decisions in practice. Parts of this work have been presented in the 1st International CESAGen Conference, London, 2004, and Genetics and Society Meetings, Wales.     

线索强度对测试效应的调节:时间间隔上的差异

本研究采用不同线索强度(强/弱)的中文词对, 选取大学生被试126人, 考察了不同学习方式(重学/测试)在不同时间间隔(5分钟/2天)最终自由回忆测试成绩上的差异。结果发现:在强线索强度词对上, 学习方式主效应显著, 测试条件的回忆成绩在5分钟以及2天后均高于重学条件;而在弱线索强度词对上, 学习方式与间隔时间交互作用显著, 5分钟时重学条件与测试条件的记忆成绩差异不显著, 而2天后测试条件的记忆成绩却显著高于重学条件。结果表明词对的线索强度能够调节测试对不同时间间隔记忆保持的促进作用, 支持了精细提取假设。     

测验与反馈在分段视频学习中的作用

分段原则是多媒体和视频学习中通过分段促进学习的重要原则。本研究探讨了测验和反馈对分段的影响。实验1对比了观看分段视频和在分段中进行测验两种情境,结果表明分段中测验会提高学习表现。实验2对比了分段视频、分段中测验和分段中测验并提供反馈三种情境。结果发现分段组与分段测验组之间没有差异,接受反馈的学习者学习表现最好。结果表明在分段视频中测验和反馈具有积极效应,对多媒体和线上学习具有潜在的意义。     

How do students implement collaborative testing in real-world contexts?

Recent research has explored the effects of collaborative testing, showing costs and benefits during learning and for subsequent memory. However, no prior research is informative about whether and how students use collaborative testing in real-world contexts. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the current research was to explore the extent to which students use collaborative testing during self-regulated learning. We conducted three surveys (n = 692 across three samples) asking students about their use of collaborative testing, with a particular interest in conditions under which students report implementing collaborative testing. Among the key outcomes, a majority of students reported using collaborative testing when studying in a group. Additionally, students reported that key term definitions are the material most often used during collaborative testing. Students are also more motivated to use testing and believe testing is more effective and more fun when implemented in a group versus alone. Outcomes also shed light on metacognitive components of collaborative testing, with the student asking (versus answering) the question making the monitoring judgement whereas both students make the control decision about when to terminate practice. We discuss ways in which the collaborative memory literature can be extended to support more successful student learning.     

国外关于测试效应的研究概述

测试效应的研究表明,“学习”并非只发生在编码阶段,测试或提取练习除了可评估知识掌握程度之外,在某些情况下它比再次学习能更好地促进长时记忆保持。文章从如下方面概述了国外关于测试效应的研究：（1）在自由回忆、配对联想学习、再认和模拟教育情境等不同性质的实验任务下测试对学习的积极作用;（2）测试可能导致的消极作用,介绍有关提取导致遗忘,测试的消极暗示效应,测试与错误记忆等方面的研究;（3）介绍信息额外呈现理论,过度学习理论,提取努力理论,必要难度理论,迁移适当加工理论等测试效应的有关理论及其发展沿革。最后,结合研究中的争议及教学应用做了思考,并指出有待进一步研究的问题     

Reality Testing and Testing Reality in Group TreatmentPart I: Reality and Reality Testing

This two-part contribution addresses reality, reality testing, and testing reality—how we think about and may technically approach these concepts. Part I provides a topic overview and focuses on reality testing. Part II (in an upcoming issue) focuses on testing reality and how it promotes emergence of new or previously inhibited forms of engagement.

Reality testing and testing reality represent two fundamental, reciprocal manifestations of the drive to know and of tasks of learning: approaching problems and solving them. While testing reality involves approaching reality without necessarily looking for or coming to definition or clarity, reality testing centers on a particular theme or object. It evolves towards organization and rationality, with a goal to define and solve problems—or to avoid them.

Engaging the group and supporting individuals in these two types of approaches to learning requires a well-defined therapeutic focus on process and purpose; at times, different tactics and techniques are appropriate.     

Testing enhances both encoding and retrieval for both tested and untested items

In forward testing effects, taking a test enhances memory for subsequently studied material. These effects have been observed for previously studied and tested items, a potentially item-specific testing effect, and newly studied untested items, a purely generalized testing effect. We directly compared item-specific and generalized forward testing effects using procedures to separate testing benefits due to encoding versus retrieval. Participants studied two lists of Swahili–English word pairs, with the second study list containing “new” pairs intermixed with the previously studied “old” pairs. Participants completed a review phase in which they took a cued-recall test on only the “old” pairs or restudied them. In Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2, the review phase was given either before or after the second study list. Testing benefited memory to the same degree for both “new” and “old” pairs, suggesting that there were no pair-specific benefits of testing. The larger benefit from testing when review was given before rather than after the second study list suggests that the memory enhancement was due to both testing-enhanced encoding and testing-enhanced retrieval. To better equate generalized testing effects for “new” and “old” pairs, Experiment 3 intermixed them in the review phase. A statistically significant pair-specific testing effect for “old” items was now observed. Overall, these results show that forward testing effects are due to both testing-enhanced encoding and retrieval effects and that direct, pair-specific forward testing benefits are considerably smaller than indirect, generalized forward testing benefits.     

触屏手机与传统键盘手机的可用性之比较

以24名大学生为测试对象,结合基于视频的用户绩效测试方法和问卷调查法,比较了测试对象使用触屏手机和传统键盘手机完成测试任务时的绩效及主观满意度。绩效测试的结果显示：在完成测试任务的时间和按键效率方面,两款手机在不同测试任务上各有优势;在按键敏感性方面,传统键盘手机在各项测试任务上均优于触屏手机。主观满意度评价的结果显示：在速度、按键效率Y2．易学性方面,被试认为传统键盘手机基本上都优于触屏手机;在舒适度、愉悦度和灵活性方面,选择购买触屏手机的被试认为触屏手机优于传统键盘手机,而选择传统键盘手机的被试认为两者没有显著差异。