ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Testing before learning: Exploring the robustness of the pretesting effect.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. 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.
- The Pretesting Effect: Exploring the Impact of Feedback and Final Test Timing.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
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
Retrieval practice, or taking tests after studying, is a highly effective strategy to enhance learning. Furthermore, pretesting, which involves attempting and failing to guess unknown information before studying it, has emerged as a more effective strategy than mere re-studying. These methods exemplify errorful learning and represent powerful learning tools. In a series of experiments, we investigated how test order - whether administered before (pretest) or after (post-test) exposure to the learning material - affects memory compared to errorless copying (Experiment 1). Experiment 2 followed a similar design but included a copy-test-copy condition to further explore the potential impacts of test order. The results revealed that the pretest, post-test, and copy-test-copy groups all improved memory compared to errorless copying, with no difference between the three. Error type analysis indicated minimal intrusion errors. In Experiment 3, we explored the pretesting effect in older adults. The results showed that pretesting significantly enhanced memory compared to copying, indicating the robustness of pretesting in healthy aging and across age groups. Interestingly, participants across the experiments consistently underestimated the efficacy of testing, revealing a gap in metacognitive awareness. These findings underscore the efficacy of errorful learning as a robust strategy with broad applicability across diverse populations and procedures.
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.