↓ 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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 7%
Brazil 2 1%
France 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Ireland 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 121 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 22%
Researcher 24 17%
Student > Master 18 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 15 10%
Professor 10 7%
Other 46 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 68 47%
Social Sciences 22 15%
Unspecified 12 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 32 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 22 September 2014.
All research outputs
#640,463
of 5,067,825 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#142
of 685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,042
of 233,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#5
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,067,825 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 233,803 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.