Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T15:42:03.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Item Difficulty Affect the Magnitude of the Retrieval Practice Effect? An Evaluation of the Retrieval Effort Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2020

Marcos Felipe Rodrigues de Lima Open the ORCID record for Marcos Felipe Rodrigues de Lima [Opens in a new window] ,
Sebastião Venâncio Open the ORCID record for Sebastião Venâncio [Opens in a new window] ,
Júlia Feminella Open the ORCID record for Júlia Feminella [Opens in a new window]  and
Luciano Grüdtner Buratto Open the ORCID record for Luciano Grüdtner Buratto [Opens in a new window]
Marcos Felipe Rodrigues de Lima*
Affiliation:
Universidade de Brasília (Brazil)
Sebastião Venâncio
Affiliation:
Universidade de Brasília (Brazil)
Júlia Feminella
Affiliation:
Universidade de Brasília (Brazil)
Luciano Grüdtner Buratto
Affiliation:
Universidade de Brasília (Brazil)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marcos Felipe Rodrigues de Lima. Universidade de Brasília. Departamento de Processos Psicológicos Básicos. Campus Darcy Ribeiro, Instituto de Psicologia, Sala ASS-12/5. 70910-900. Brasília, DF (Brazil). E-mail: lima.piraju@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Retrieving information by testing improves subsequent retention more than restudy, a phenomenon known as the retrieval practice effect. According to the retrieval effort hypothesis (REH), difficult items require more retrieval effort than easier items and, consequently, should benefit more from retrieval practice. In two experiments, we tested this prediction. Participants learned sets of easy and difficult Swahili–Portuguese word pairs (study phase) and repeatedly restudied half of these items and repeatedly retrieval practiced the other half (practice phase). Forty-eight hours later, they took a cued-recall test (final test phase). In both experiments, we replicated both the retrieval practice and the item difficulty effects. In Experiment 1 (N = 51), we found a greater retrieval practice effect for easy items, MDifference = .26, SD = .17, than for difficult items, MDifference = .19, SD = .19, t(50) = 2.01, p = .05, d = 0.28. In Experiment 2 (N = 28), we found a nonsignificant trend—F(1, 27) = 2.86, p = .10, $$ {\upeta}_{\mathrm{p}}^2 $$ = .10—toward a greater retrieval practice effect for difficult items, MDifference = .28, SD = .22, than for easy items, MDifference = .18, SD = .21. This was especially true for individuals who benefit from retrieval practice (difficult: MDifference = .32, SD = .18; easy: MDifference = .20, SD = .20), t(24) = –2.08, p = .05, d = –0.42. The results provide no clear evidence for the REH and are discussed in relation to current accounts of the retrieval practice effect.

Keywords

cued recalldesirable difficultiesretrieval practiceretrieval efforttesting effect
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 23 , 2020 , e31
Copyright
© Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors would like to thank Beatriz A. Cavendish, for her helpful comments on a previous version of the article, and Gabriela Y. Iwama, for her suggestions and comments regarding mixed logit regression models

Conflicts of Interest: None

This work was based on a Master’s thesis submitted to the University of Brasília, and it was supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

References

Albers, C., & Lakens, D. (2018). When power analyses based on pilot data are biased: Inaccurate effect size estimators and follow-up bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the training of human beings. In Metcalfe, J. & Shimamura, A. (Eds.), Metacognition: Knowing about knowing (pp. 185–205). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bjork, R. A., & Kroll, J. F. (2015). Desirable difficulties in vocabulary learning. The American Journal of Psychology, 128(2), 241–252. https://doi.org/ 10.5406/amerjpsyc.128.2.0241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchin, Z. L., & Mulligan, N. W. (2019). Divided attention and the encoding effects of retrieval. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(10), 2474–2494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819847141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1563–1569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017021Google ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, S. K., & DeLosh, E. L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 268–276. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H. (2008). Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention. Psychological Science, 19(11), 1095–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02209.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cull, W. L., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1994). The learning ability paradox in adult metamemory research: Where are the metamemory differences between good and poor learners? Memory & Cognition, 22, 249–257. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03208896CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article e00781. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finley, J. R., Benjamin, A. S., Hays, M. J., Bjork, R. A., & Kornell, N. (2011). Benefits of accumulating versus diminishing cues in recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaspelin, N., Ruthruff, E., & Pashler, H. (2013). Divided attention: An undesirable difficulty in memory retention. Memory & Cognition, 41(7), 978–988. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0326-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guran, C.-N. A., Lehmann-Grube, J., & Bunzeck, N. (2020). Retrieval practice improves recollection-based memory over a seven-day period in younger and older adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article e02997. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, L., & Rovine, M. J. (2007). Multilevel models for the experimental psychologist: Foundations and illustrative examples. Behavior Research Methods, 39(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192848CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (1973).Attention and effort. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Karpicke, J. D. (2017).Retrieval-based learning: A decade of progress. In Byrne, J. H. (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory, Vol. 2 of Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (pp. 487–514). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21055-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: An episodic context account. In Ross, B. H. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 61, pp. 237–284). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800283-4.00007-1Google Scholar
Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L. III. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning. Science, 319(5865), 966–968. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152408CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lima, M. F. R., & Buratto, L. G. (2019). Norms for familiarity, concreteness, valence, arousal, wordlikeness, and memorability for Swahili–Portuguese word pairs [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Institute of Psychology, University of Brasília.Google Scholar
Middleton, E. L., Schwartz, M. F., Rawson, K. A., Traut, H., & Verkuilen, J. (2016). Towards a theory of learning for naming rehabilitation: Retrieval practice and spacing effects. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(5), 1111–1122. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_JSLHR-L-15-0303CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minear, M., Coane, J. H., Boland, S. C., Cooney, L. H., & Albat, M. (2018). The benefits of retrieval practice depend on item difficulty and intelligence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(9), 1474–1486. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000486Google ScholarPubMed
Moreira, B. F. T., Pinto, T. S. S., Starling, D. S. V., & Jaeger, A. (2019). Retrieval practice in classroom settings: A review of applied research. Frontiers in Education, 4, Article e00005. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, T. O., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Norms of paired-associate recall during multitrial learning of Swahili-English translation equivalents. Memory, 2(3), 325–335. http://doi.org/10.1080/09658219408258951CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1–2), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009). Testing the retrieval effort hypothesis: Does greater difficulty correctly recalling information lead to higher levels of memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2012). Why is test–restudy practice beneficial for memory? An evaluation of the mediator shift hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026166Google ScholarPubMed
Racsmány, M., Szőllősi, Á., & Bencze, D. (2018). Retrieval practice makes procedure from remembering: An automatization account of the testing effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(1), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000423Google ScholarPubMed
Roediger, H. L. III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sumowski, J. F., Chiaravalloti, N., & DeLuca, J. (2010). Retrieval practice improves memory in multiple sclerosis: Clinical application of the testing effect. Neuropsychology, 24(2), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017533CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tse, C.-S., Balota, D. A., & Roediger, H. L. III. (2010). The benefits and costs of repeated testing on the learning of face-name pairs in healthy older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25(4), 833–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019933CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tullis, J. G., Finley, J. R., & Benjamin, A. S. (2013). Metacognition of the testing effect: Guiding learners to predict the benefits of retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 41, 429–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0274-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, N. (2019). Individual differences in long-term memory. Psychological Bulletin, 145(1), 79–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000176CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Broek, G. S. E., Segers, E., Takashima, A., & Verhoeven, L. (2014). Do testing effects change over time? Insights from immediate and delayed retrieval speed. Memory, 22(7), 803–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.831455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaughn, K. E., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2013). Repeated retrieval practice and item difficulty: Does criterion learning eliminate item difficulty effects? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1239–1245. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0434-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whiffen, J. W., & Karpicke, J. D. (2017). The role of episodic context in retrieval practice effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(7), 1036–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000379Google ScholarPubMed
Wing, E. A., Marsh, E. J., & Cabeza, R. (2013). Neural correlates of retrieval-based memory enhancement: An fMRI study of the testing effect. Neuropsychologia, 51(12), 2360–2370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.04.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed