Diminished testing benefits in young adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

Memory retrieval has been shown to enhance the long-term retention of tested material; however, recent research suggests that limiting attention during retrieval can decrease the benefits of testing memory. The present study examined whether testing benefits are reduced in young adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). College students with and without ADHD read three short prose passages, each followed by a free recall test, a restudy period or a distractor task. Two days later participants recalled the passages. Although participants without ADHD did not show a significant benefit of testing over restudying, testing did produce recall benefits relative to not taking a test. These testing benefits were diminished in participants with ADHD, who did not show any advantage of testing over either restudying or no test. The absence of testing benefits in the ADHD group is likely due in part to decreased recall on the initial test. These findings have implications for improving educational practices among individuals with ADHD and also speak to the need to examine individual differences in the effectiveness of testing as a learning strategy.     

All of the above: When multiple correct response options enhance the testing effect

Previous research has shown that multiple choice tests often improve memory retention. However, the presence of incorrect lures often attenuates this memory benefit. The current research examined the effects of “all of the above” (AOTA) options. When such options are correct, no incorrect lures are present. In the first three experiments, a correct AOTA option on an initial test led to a larger memory benefit than no test and standard multiple choice test conditions. The benefits of a correct AOTA option occurred even without feedback on the initial test; for both 5-minute and 48-hour retention delays; and for both cued recall and multiple choice final test formats. In the final experiment, an AOTA question led to better memory retention than did a control condition that had identical timing and exposure to response options. However, the benefits relative to this control condition were similar regardless of the type of multiple choice test (AOTA or not). Results suggest that retrieval contributes to multiple choice testing effects. However, the extra testing effect from a correct AOTA option, rather than being due to more retrieval, might be due simply to more exposure to correct information.     

Retrieval practice and retention of course content in a middle school science classroom

We investigated the effect of retrieval practice (i.e., the use of testing to enhance learning) by middle school students on science learning in an authentic educational setting. For initial study, all students (n = 39) read a science text and made study notes about the text, a regular study activity in their course. For restudy (2 days later), students either copied their notes or did retrieval practice. For the final test (an additional 2 days later), all students did a recall task from memory. Students in the retrieval practice condition showed better retention of information than students in the copy condition. These results add to a growing body of research on the use of retrieval practice as an effective learning tool for retention within authentic school settings.     

Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity

We examined the effects of retrieval practice for students who varied in working memory capacity as a function of the lag between study of material and its initial test, whether or not feedback was given after the test, and the retention interval of the final test. We sought to determine whether a blend of these conditions exists that maximises benefits from retrieval practice for lower and higher working memory capacity students. College students learned general knowledge facts and then restudied the facts or were tested on them (with or without feedback) at lags of 0–9 intervening items. Final cued recall performance was better for tested items than for restudied items after both 10 minutes and 2 days, particularly for longer study–test lags. Furthermore, on the 2-day delayed test the benefits from retrieval practice with feedback were significantly greater for students with lower working memory capacity than for students with higher working memory capacity (r?=??.42). Retrieval practice may be an especially effective learning strategy for lower ability students.     

Retrieval latency and “at-risk” memories

Does retrieval latency reflect variations in the strength of associations in episodic memory? In three experiments, subjects were given a single study and test trial on each of five lists of 10 paired associates. Spoken recall latencies were measured. When the subjects were later given a second test, initial recall latency was systematically related tointertest retention—that is, the faster the initial correct recall of a pair, the more likely a pair was to be recalled at the second test. This effect occurred at retention intervals of 5 min, 30 min, and 24 h and was present in the data for individual subjects. The results are consistent with the classical view of latency as a measure of trace strength and stand in sharp contrast with results reported by Benjamin, Bjork, and Schwartz (1998) that showed that fast retrievals from semantic memory were more poorly retained than slower ones.     

Testing the limits of testing effects using completion tests

Recent work on testing effects has shown that retrieval practice can facilitate memory even for complex prose materials (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a, 2006b). In three experiments the current study explores the effectiveness of retrieval practice on fill-in-the-blank (FITB) tests requiring the recall of specific words or phrases from a text. Final tests included both repeated items that were directly taken from initial tests, and related items. In Experiment 1, with a 2-day delay between initial and final tests, FITB testing benefited performance only on repeated items. In Experiment 2 a 7-day delay between testing sessions led to more robust effects on repeated items. However, once again no benefits were seen for related items. In Experiment 3 the scope of retrieval was varied by comparing FITB tests to paragraph recall tests requiring retrieval of all sentences following a topic sentence. Only the more open-ended recall practice demonstrated improvements in transfer to novel questions. The results suggest that scope or type of processing required during retrieval practice is likely a critical factor in whether testing will have specific or robust benefits.     

Testing the limits of testing effects using completion tests

Recent work on testing effects has shown that retrieval practice can facilitate memory even for complex prose materials (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a, 2006b). In three experiments the current study explores the effectiveness of retrieval practice on fill-in-the-blank (FITB) tests requiring the recall of specific words or phrases from a text. Final tests included both repeated items that were directly taken from initial tests, and related items. In Experiment 1, with a 2-day delay between initial and final tests, FITB testing benefited performance only on repeated items. In Experiment 2 a 7-day delay between testing sessions led to more robust effects on repeated items. However, once again no benefits were seen for related items. In Experiment 3 the scope of retrieval was varied by comparing FITB tests to paragraph recall tests requiring retrieval of all sentences following a topic sentence. Only the more open-ended recall practice demonstrated improvements in transfer to novel questions. The results suggest that scope or type of processing required during retrieval practice is likely a critical factor in whether testing will have specific or robust benefits.     

When does testing enhance retention? A distribution-based interpretation of retrieval as a memory modifier

Tests, as learning events, can enhance subsequent recall more than do additional study opportunities, even without feedback. Such advantages of testing tend to appear, however, only at long retention intervals and/or when criterion tests stress recall, rather than recognition, processes. We propose that the interaction of the benefits of testing versus restudying with final-test delay and format reflects not only that successful retrievals are more powerful learning events than are re-presentations but also that the distribution of memory strengths across items is shifted differentially by testing and restudying. The benefits of initial testing over restudying, in this view, should increase as the delay or format of the final test makes that test more difficult. Final-test difficulty, not the similarity of initial-test and final-test conditions, should determine the benefits of testing. In Experiments 1 and 2 we indeed found that initial cued-recall testing enhanced subsequent recall more than did restudying when the final test was a difficult (free-recall) test but not when it was an easier (cued-recall) test that matched the initial test. The results of Experiment 3 supported a new prediction of the distribution framework: namely, that the final cued-recall test that did not show a benefit of testing in Experiment 1 should show such a benefit when that test was made more difficult by introducing retroactive interference. Overall, our results suggest that the differential consequences of initial testing versus restudying reflect, in part, differences in how items distributions are shifted by testing and studying.     

Expanded vs. equal interval spaced retrieval practice: exploring different schedules of spacing and retention interval in younger and older adults

The present study was designed to help answer several questions regarding the impact of spacing and expanded retrieval on memory performance in younger and older adults. Three expanded/equal interval schedule pairings, matched in average spacing (1-2-3/2-2-2; 1-3-5/3-3-3; and 1-3-8/4-4-4), were compared, and the effect of retention interval on spaced retrieval benefits was examined by comparing performance on a same day test to a test delayed by 24 h. Both age groups showed a learning phase retrieval success advantage for expanded items compared to equal interval items. Only older adults in the same day test condition showed a significant expansion effect in final recall. After a 24-h delay, the final recall advantage for items in the expanded condition was lost in both groups, and in fact these items were at a significant recall disadvantage for younger adults. Results indicate that younger and older adults benefit from a rehearsal technique that incorporated any type of spaced retrieval whether it is distributed as an expanding schedule or not. Although we did not find robust advantages for expanded retrieval compared to equal interval practice, there could be certain advantages (such as reinforcement due to high success rates) to using expanded retrieval depending on the ultimate goals of an individual memory training program.     

Comparing the testing effect under blocked and mixed practice: The mnemonic benefits of retrieval practice are not affected by practice format

The act of retrieving information modifies memory in critical ways. In particular, testing-effect studies have demonstrated that retrieval practice (compared to restudy or to no testing) benefits long-term retention and protects from retroactive interference. Although such testing effects have previously been demonstrated in both between- and within-subjects manipulations of retrieval practice, it is less clear whether one or the other testing format is most beneficial on a final test. In two paired-associate learning experiments conducted under typical testing-effect conditions, we manipulated restudy and test trials using either blocked or mixed practice conditions while equating other factors. Retrieval-practice and restudy trials were presented either separately in different blocks (blocked practice) or randomly intermixed (mixed practice). In Experiment 1, recall was assessed after short and long delay intervals; in Experiment 2, the final memory test occurred after a short delay, but with or without an interfering activity before the final test. In both experiments, typical testing effects emerged, and critically, they were found to be unaffected by practice format. These results support the conclusion that testing effects are robust and emerge to equal extents in both blocked and mixed designs. The generality of testing effects further encourages the application of retrieval practice as a memory enhancer in a variety of contexts, including education.     

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.     

Reducing the Misinformation Effect Through Initial Testing: Take Two Tests and Recall Me in the Morning?

Initial retrieval of an event can reduce people's susceptibility to misinformation. We explored whether protective effects of initial testing could be obtained on final free recall and source‐monitoring tests. After studying six household scenes (e.g., a bathroom), participants attempted to recall items from the scenes zero, one, or two times. Immediately or after a 48‐hour delay, non‐presented items (e.g., soap and toothbrush) were exposed zero, one, or four times through a social contagion manipulation in which participants reviewed sets of recall tests ostensibly provided by other participants. A protective effect of testing emerged on a final free recall test following the delay and on a final source‐memory test regardless of delay. Taking two initial tests did not increase these protective effects. Determining whether initial testing will have protective (versus harmful) effects on memory has important practical implications for interviewing eyewitnesses. © 2015 The Authors. Applied Cognitive Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Retrieval-induced facilitation: initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material

Classroom exams can assess students' knowledge of only a subset of the material taught in a course. What are the implications of this approach for long-term retention? Three experiments (N = 210) examined how taking an initial test affects later memory for prose materials not initially tested. Experiment 1 shows that testing enhanced recall 24 hr later for the initially nontested material. This facilitation was not seen for participants given additional study opportunities without initial testing. Experiment 2 extends this facilitative effect to a within-subjects design. Experiment 3 demonstrates that this facilitation can be modulated by conscious strategies. These results have implications for educational practice and the theoretical developments of the testing effect, associative memory, and retrieval inhibition.     

The effects of free recall testing on subsequent source memory

The testing effect is the finding that prior retrieval of information from memory will result in better subsequent memory for that material. One explanation for these effects is that initial free recall testing increases the recollective details for tested information, which then becomes more available during a subsequent test phase. In three experiments we explored this hypothesis using a source-monitoring test phase after the initial free recall tests. We discovered that memory is differentially enhanced for certain recollective details depending on the nature of the free recall task. Thus further research needs to be conducted to specify how different kinds of memorial details are enhanced by free recall testing.     

The role of retrieval mode and retrieval orientation in retrieval practice: insights from comparing recognition memory testing formats and restudying

The effectiveness of retrieval practice for aiding long-term memory, referred to as the testing effect, has been widely demonstrated. However, the specific neurocognitive mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remain unclear. In the present study, we sought to explore the role of pre-retrieval processes at initial testing on later recognition performance by using event-related potentials (ERPs). Subjects studied two lists of words (Chinese characters) and then performed a recognition task or a source memory task, or restudied the word lists. At the end of the experiment, subjects received a final recognition test based on the remember–know paradigm. Behaviorally, initial testing (active retrieval) enhanced memory retention relative to restudying (passive retrieval). The retrieval mode at initial testing was indexed by more positive-going ERPs for unstudied items in the active-retrieval tasks than in passive retrieval from 300 to 900 ms. Follow-up analyses showed that the magnitude of the early ERP retrieval mode effect (300–500 ms) was predictive of the behavioral testing effect later on. In addition, the ERPs for correctly rejected new items during initial testing differed between the two active-retrieval tasks from 500 to 900 ms, and this ERP retrieval orientation effect predicted differential behavioral testing gains between the two active-retrieval conditions. Our findings confirm that initial testing promotes later retrieval relative to restudying, and they further suggest that adopting pre-retrieval processing in the forms of retrieval mode and retrieval orientation might contribute to these memory enhancements.     

Does response mode affect amount recalled or the magnitude of the testing effect?

The testing effect is the finding that retrieval practice can enhance recall on future tests. One unanswered question is whether first-test response mode (writing or speaking the answer) affects final-test performance (and whether final-test response mode itself matters). An additional unsettled issue is whether written and oral recall lead to differences in the amount recalled. In three experiments, we examined these issues: whether subjects can recall more via typing or speaking; whether typing or speaking answers on a first test can lead to better final-test performance (and whether an interaction occurs with final-test response mode) and whether any form of overt response leads to better final-test performance as compared to covert retrieval (thinking of the answer but not producing it). Subjects studied paired associates; took a first test by typing, speaking, or thinking about responses; and then took a second test in which the answers were either spoken or typed. The results revealed few differences between typing and speaking during recall, and no difference in the size of the testing effect on the second test. Furthermore, an initial covert retrieval yielded roughly the same benefit to future test performance as did overt retrieval. Thus, the testing effect was quite robust across these manipulations. The practical implication for learning is that covert retrieval provides as much benefit to later retention as does overt retrieval and that both can be effective study strategies.     

The dark side of testing memory: repeated retrieval can enhance eyewitness suggestibility

Eyewitnesses typically recount their experiences many times before trial. Such repeated retrieval can enhance memory retention of the witnessed event. However, recent studies (e.g., Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009) have found that initial retrieval can exacerbate eyewitness suggestibility to later misleading information--a finding termed retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES). Here we examined the influence of multiple retrieval attempts on eyewitness suggestibility to subsequent misinformation. In four experiments, we systematically varied the number of initial tests taken (between zero and six), the delay between initial testing and misinformation exposure (~30 min or 1 week), and whether initial testing was manipulated between- or within-subjects. University undergraduate students were used as participants. Overall, we found that eyewitness suggestibility increased as the number of initial tests increased, but this RES effect was qualified by the delay and by whether initial testing occurred in a within- or between-subjects manner. Specifically, the within-subjects RES effect was smaller than the between-subjects RES effect, possibly because of the influence of retrieval-induced forgetting/facilitation (Chan, 2009) when initial testing was manipulated within subjects. Moreover, consistent with the testing effect literature (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), the benefits of repeated testing on later memory were stronger after a 1-week delay than after a 30-min delay, thus reducing the negative impact of RES in long-term situations. These findings suggest that conditions that are likely to occur in criminal investigations can either increase (repeated testing) or reduce (delay) the influence of RES, thus further demonstrating the complex relationship between eyewitness memory and repeated retrieval.     

Effects of testing on subsequent re‐encoding and long‐term forgetting of action‐relevant materials: On the influence of recall type

Testing one's memory of previously studied information reduces the rate of forgetting, compared to restudy. However, little is known about how this direct testing effect applies to action phrases (e.g., “wash the car”) – a learning material relevant to everyday memory. As action phrases consist of two different components, a verb (e.g., “wash”) and a noun (e.g., “car”), testing can either be implemented as noun‐cued recall of verbs or verb‐cued recall of nouns, which may differently affect later memory performance. In the present study, we investigated the effect of testing for these two recall types, using verbally encoded action phrases as learning materials. Results showed that repeated study–test practice, compared to repeated study–restudy practice, decreased the forgetting rate across 1 week to a similar degree for both noun‐cued and verb‐cued recall types. However, noun‐cued recall of verbs initiated more new subsequent learning during the first restudy, compared to verb‐cued recall of nouns. The study provides evidence that testing has benefits on both subsequent restudy and long‐term retention of action‐relevant materials, but that these benefits are differently expressed with testing via noun‐cued versus verb‐cued recall.     

Optimizing retrieval as a learning event: When and why expanding retrieval practice enhances long-term retention

Retrieving information from memory makes that information more recallable in the future than it otherwise would have been. Optimizing retrieval practice has been assumed, on the basis of evidence and arguments tracing back to Landauer and Bjork (1978), to require an expanding-interval schedule of successive retrievals, but recent findings suggest that expanding retrieval practice may be inferior to uniform-interval retrieval practice when memory is tested after a long retention interval. We report three experiments in which participants read educational passages and were then repeatedly tested, without feedback, after an expanding or uniform sequence of intervals. On a test 1 week later, recall was enhanced by the expanding schedule, but only when the task between successive retrievals was highly interfering with memory for the passage. These results suggest that the extent to which learners benefit from expanding retrieval practice depends on the degree to which the to-belearned information is vulnerable to forgetting.