The Pretesting Effect: Exploring the Impact of Feedback and Final Test Timing

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Cognition
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.455
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Memory Processes and Influences
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.43
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Pretesting Effect: Exploring the Impact of Feedback and Final Test Timing

Eugenia Marin-Garcia, Yeray Mera, Nataliya Dianova
1 citations
Journal of Cognition
Memory Processes and Influences
1.43
article

The Pretesting Effect: Exploring the Impact of Feedback and Final Test Timing

Eugenia Marin-Garcia, Yeray Mera, Nataliya Dianova
article en
1 citations

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.

Journal of CognitionVol. 8(1)
University of the Basque Country (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Memory Processes and Influences
1.43
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.