ArticleJournal of cognition2025
The Pretesting Effect: Exploring the Impact of Feedback and Final Test Timing.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Testing before learning: Exploring the robustness of the pretesting effect.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pretesting effect suggests that attempting and failing to guess unknown information can improve memory compared to errorless study. A relevant question concerns the optimal timing for providing corrective feedback and administering the final test. This study explored two variables: (1) the timing of feedback after unsuccessful pretest attempts, either immediately or following a delay of 24 hours (Experiment 1) or 48 hours (Experiment 2); and (2) the timing of the final test after feedback, either immediately or after a 24-hour delay (Experiment 1). Recall accuracy was evaluated across these conditions and compared to an errorless (read-only) learning condition. The results showed that pretesting consistently yielded higher recall accuracy than the read-only condition. Immediate feedback was more effective than delayed feedback, and performance on the immediate test was superior to that of the delayed test. More importantly, the pretesting effect persisted even with delays in feedback and final testing. This flexibility in timing suggests practical applications, particularly in educational settings where immediate feedback or testing may not always be feasible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.