↓ Skip to main content

Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information
Published in
Memory & Cognition, May 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13421-016-0621-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeri L. Little, Elizabeth Ligon Bjork

Abstract

Although the testing effect has received a substantial amount of empirical attention, such research has largely focused on the effects of tests given after study. The present research examines the effect of using tests prior to study (i.e., as pretests), focusing particularly on how pretesting influences the subsequent learning of information that is not itself pretested but that is related to the pretested information. In Experiment 1, we found that multiple-choice pretesting was better for the learning of such related information than was cued-recall pretesting or a pre-fact-study control condition. In Experiment 2, we found that the increased learning of non-pretested related information following multiple-choice testing could not be attributed to increased time allocated to that information during subsequent study. Last, in Experiment 3, we showed that the benefits of multiple-choice pretesting over cued-recall pretesting for the learning of related information persist over 48 hours, thus demonstrating the promise of multiple-choice pretesting to potentiate learning in educational contexts. A possible explanation for the observed benefits of multiple-choice pretesting for enhancing the effectiveness with which related nontested information is learned during subsequent study is discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 33 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Unspecified 4 11%
Other 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 47%
Unspecified 7 19%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Linguistics 2 6%
Other 4 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,234,180
of 13,347,801 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#215
of 1,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,820
of 265,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#5
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,347,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.