Nontested Information Research Articles

Multiple-choice pretesting potentiates learning of related information.

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.

Benefits of testing for nontested information: Retrieval-induced facilitation of episodically bound material

Testing is a powerful means to boost the retention of information. The extent to which the benefits of testing generalize to nontested information, however, is not clear. In three experiments, we found that completing cued-recall tests for a subset of studied materials enhanced retention for the specific information tested, as well as for associated, nontested information during later free-recall testing. In Experiment 1, this generalized benefit was revealed for lists of category-exemplar pairs. Experiment 2 extended the effect to unrelated words, suggesting that retrieval can enhance later free recall of nontested information that is bound solely through episodic context. In Experiment 3, we manipulated the format of the final test and found facilitation in free-recall, but not in cued-recall, testing. The results suggest that testing may facilitate later free recall in part by enhancing access to information that is present during a prior temporal or list context. More generally, these findings suggest that retrieval-induced facilitation extends to a broader range of conditions than has previously been suggested, and they further motivate the adoption of testing as a practical and effective learning tool.

When does retrieval induce forgetting and when does it induce facilitation? Implications for retrieval inhibition, testing effect, and text processing

Retrieval practice can enhance long-term retention of the tested material (the testing effect), but it can also impair later recall of the nontested material – a phenomenon known as retrieval-induced forgetting (Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(5), 1063–1087). Recent research, however, has shown that retrieval practice can sometimes improve later recall of the nontested material – a phenomenon termed retrieval-induced facilitation (Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2006). Retrieval-induced facilitation: initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 553–571). What drives these different effects? Two experiments were designed to examine the conditions under which retrieval induces forgetting and facilitation. Two variables, the level of integration invoked during encoding and the length of delay between retrieval practice and final test, were revealed as critical factors in determining whether testing facilitated or hindered later retrieval of the nontested information. A text processing framework is advanced to account for these findings.

The Relevance of the New APA Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing for Employment Testing in South Africa

Some of the major developments, reflected in the most recent revision of the Standards for educational and psychological testing of the American Psychological Association and two other sponsoring organizations, are reviewed. In view of the South African Employment Equity Act of 1998, the focus is on psychometric considerations that have a bearing on employment testing. Topics covered include the, conceptualisation of construct validity as the primary objective in test validation; the introduction of several sources of (construct) validity evidence; the formulation of requirements such as freedom from predictive bias, fairness and consideration of the consequences of testing; approaches to preventing unnecessary subgroup mean differences; and the appropriate use of non-test information when relevant norms are lacking. Finally, the implications of these psychometric developments for the training of local assessment practitioners are pointed out.

The Role of Bayesian Concepts in Test Development and Test Interpretation

Column Editor's Note. Among Robert L. Thorndike's many contributions is his use of Bayesian thinking in test construction and his dissemination of information about Bayesian concepts. Thorndike's ability to render complex technical material comprehensible to nonspecialists prompted your editor to invite him to develop a series of three articles.In the first, readers are introduced to central tenets of Bayesian reasoning and are led to appreciate that it is not an esoteric approach reserved for specialists; rather, it is closely related to common sense. In the second article, to appear in next month's issue, Thorndike sketches some Bayesian approaches to test development. In the final installment, which will appear in November, Thondike illustrates how Bayesian thinking can and should be used to interpret test scores. When we interpret a score, we usually have prior test or nontest information about the examinee. “We should neither ignore nor overvalue this prior information but should skillfully use it to govern our interpretation of the new data.It is hoped that this trilogy will not only provide some interpretive skill but will also enhance commonsense thinking in a wide variety of professional and personal applications.—Gerald S. Hanna