↓ Skip to main content

The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, April 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
209 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, April 2007
DOI 10.3758/bf03194051
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth J. Marsh, Henry L. Roediger, Robert A. Bjork, Elizabeth L. Bjork

Abstract

The present article addresses whether multiple-choice tests may change knowledge even as they attempt to measure it. Overall, taking a multiple-choice test boosts performance on later tests, as compared with non-tested control conditions. This benefit is not limited to simple definitional questions, but holds true for SAT II questions and for items designed to tap concepts at a higher level in Bloom's (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives. Students, however, can also learn false facts from multiple-choice tests; testing leads to persistence of some multiple-choice lures on later general knowledge tests. Such persistence appears due to faulty reasoning rather than to an increase in the familiarity of lures. Even though students may learn false facts from multiple-choice tests, the positive effects of testing outweigh this cost.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 5%
France 2 <1%
Ireland 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 186 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 19%
Researcher 29 14%
Student > Master 24 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 8%
Other 13 6%
Other 55 26%
Unknown 32 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 73 35%
Social Sciences 32 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 3%
Computer Science 7 3%
Neuroscience 7 3%
Other 43 21%
Unknown 40 19%