According to the Pew Research Center, more than one in three U.S. workers today are Millennials (adults between the ages of 14 to 34).
This year they surpassed the Diversity/ Gen X cohort to become, along with Baby Boomers, the largest share of the American workforce. The U.S. is experiencing one of its most diverse times when it comes to generations in the workforce.
What are the implications of the generational differences in the workforce and how do they play out, specifically, in areas of public health and health administration? Dr. Susan Nohelty and Dr. James V. Gambone*, doctoral co-lead faculty members in the Capella University School of Nursing and Health Sciences, share their thoughts on these differences and how they may impact these two fields both now and also in the future.
Baby Boomers, who have now been around the longest and were born between 1945 and 1963.
Diversity Generation/ Gen X members, who were born between 1964 and 1981.
Millennials, born between 1982 and 2002.
Gambone explains that leaders in the workplace need to understand and embrace generational differences, as well as race and gender and the many other characteristics of diversity. How leaders deal with these differences will shape their professional relationships and motivate those who are working with them.
"It is important to first understand that each generation has developed different core values, which makes their personalities and work styles different. During their formative years (10-20) they experienced different political, economic, educational, and parenting circumstances which have contributed to the development of their own unique generational 'core values.' We need to understand these different core values in order to develop successful workplace engagement and retention strategies," says Gambone.
For Baby Boomers, work is an exciting adventure. Nohelty describes them as workaholics who work efficiently and find personal fulfillment and meaning in work, desire quality, and question authority. When in positions of leadership, they work towards consensus within a collegial environment. They like to interact in meetings and enjoy being part of a team. They prefer to communicate in person. They don't necessarily like feedback; however, they are motivated by money and title recognition.
Gambone points out that Millennials are good at multitasking and generally good team workers; they are tenacious, entrepreneurial, tolerant, and group goal-oriented. Work to them is a means to an end. This is not surprising given the fact that most of them were team taught while they were developing their core values. Their leadership style is more democratic in nature, and they like to participate with others. They look for authenticity in the workplace—do you really walk your talk? Their communication style is through email and voice mail and social media. They want feedback all the time and have a "want it now" attitude. Reward to them is meaningful work.
Millennials are also the most tested generation in human history and because of that testing, many have developed a fear of failure. This means engagement practices at work promoting innovation and taking risks need to include opportunities to fail without penalties—as long as learning how not to repeat failure is part of the process.
Employers can be offering different working options like telecommuting and working offsite, and focusing on the results employees produce rather than on how they get it done. This will give employees some flexibility on how they want to work and put everybody, regardless of where they spent most of their time working, on the same scale to measure success. Telecommuting can also encourage Boomers nearing retirement to stay on staff longer since the option allows them to 'gear down' their workloads while still staying involved.
In order for Boomers and Diversity generation leaders to prepare Millennials to become future leaders in the workforce, they must be facilitating mentoring between different aged employees to encourage more cross-generational interaction.
Younger employees should learn to seek the experience and wisdom offered by senior employees. Older employees should learn to be open to the fresh perspectives offered by younger employees. Millennials crave relationships built on authenticity, trust, and mutual preparedness—if they feel that the relationship is not mutual, they are more hesitant to reach out.
The key to seeing all ages work effectively and in harmony in the workforce is to be able to effectively address and take advantage of the differences in values and expectations of each generation.
Learn more about Capella's programs in public health and health administration.
*Dr.James V.Gambone helped develop the intergenerational field and has been practicing bringing all of the generations together in business, faith communities, and community organizations for 28 years. His books, Together for Tomorrow and All Are Welcome: A Primer on Intentional Intergenerational Ministry and Dialogue, are now in their 12th printing and can be purchased here.
Dr. Susan Nohelty has worked in the health care field for over 35 years, working as a registered nurse in a variety of clinical, managerial, administrative, and educational positions. As an administrator, she studied and researched the unique characteristics of the various generations in the workplace, and how these characteristics impact working relationships. Her personal and professional experiences have been richly enhanced through her numerous intergenerational collaborations.


text:
The Republic of Latvia has declared an emergency situation in its territory from 9 November 2020 until 7 February 2021
Who can be tested for COVID-19 for free?
The "Apturi Covid" App
Strict isolation at home
Provision of health services
For Patients' Families
For persons with signs of an acute respiratory infectious disease
Psycho-emotional support
Support for Society
How to behave safely?
The correct behaviour at events and in public places for taking care of the safety of your own health and that of others
Curfew or staying in your place of residence
Safe behaviour in the work environment
Organisation of sports events
Guidelines and recommendations for companies
For organisers of cultural events
Support for Entrepreneurs and Employees
Centralised procurement of personal protective equipment
Careful Travel
National morbidity rates and travel restrictions
National morbidity rates
Covidpass.lv arrival confirmation form
For persons who wish to arrive in Latvia
After arrival in Latvia
Patients tested
Cases in Latvia
Disease rate
Informative page about the spread of Covid-19 in Latvia
What is a curfew and how to observe it?
How to self-isolate?
Explanation, rules and recommendations for self-isolation
Covid-19 control measures
Physical distancing and epidemiological safety measures
Stop the virus with your phone!
Facts, symptoms, risks, testing, treatment, safety measures
For entrepreneurs and employees
Requirements, advice and support
Covid-19 Frequently Asked Questions and Answers
Until 25 January, in order to reduce the risk of infecting each other with Covid-19, all residents of Latvia must stay at their place of residence on the weekends (the night hours from 22.00 to 5.00 from Friday to Saturday and from Saturday to Sunday).
Therefore, from 8 January to the morning of 9 January, as well as on 15 and 16 January and 22 and 23 January sales and service outlets will be open from 6.00 to 21.00, so that employees can get from home to work and back without breaking the rules. Restrictions on working hours will also apply to public catering places, with food and drink still available for take-away only.
Movement at night is allowed by filling in a certificate for:
Persons going to or from a place of work or service and performing work or service duties.
Those in need of medical care, including veterinary medical care.
Providers and recipients of emergency services, as well as those on-call at night, the specifics of whose work preclude them from working remotely.
The opening hours of gas stations, the provision of public transport services and emergency and emergency utilities are not restricted at night.
Taxi service can be used by a person:
to go to or from work;
to receive emergency services;
to go to their place of residence after entering Latvia;
to go to an airport, port, bus station, train station.
Only one passenger (or with minors) can be in a taxi.
During the movement in a curfew period, a person must bring with him/her an identity document (passport or ID card)
What will be the state support for those who have lost their job or closed business during the emergency situation?
Grant for the working capital flow
A company can receive the support if:
the turnover for the month for which the support is requested (November or December) is at least 20% lower than the average turnover in August, September and October 2020 combined;
and is at least 30% lower than in the corresponding month of 2019 (does not apply to companies registered in 2020).
The support is 30% of the total gross wage on which wage taxes were paid in August, September, and October 2020.
Applications for the grant for November or December can be submitted until 15 January 2021.
Downtime allowance for companies and their employees
The downtime allowance shall be granted for employees in the amount of 70% of the average monthly gross salary for the period from 1 August to 31 October this year.
Employees of a micro-enterprise will be able to receive support in the amount of 50% of the average monthly gross salary for the 3rd quarter of this year, as indicated in the quarterly declaration.
Regardless of the current salary, the downtime allowance from 1 January 2021 will not be less than EUR 500 and no more than EUR 1000 for a full month.
In addition to the downtime allowance, the State Social Insurance Agency will also grant a supplement of EUR 50 for each dependent child under the age of 24, for which the employee is subject to personal income tax relief.
The employer may pay its employees the difference between the downtime allowance and the full salary received so far.
Allowance for part-time employee salary subsidies
Within the framework of the support measures the employee will receive support in the amount of 50% of the average monthly gross salary for the period from 1 August to 31 October of this year but not more than EUR 500.
The employer will be obliged to pay the difference between the salary subsidy and the full salary received so far.
Support for self-employed and patent payers
For a self-employed person operating under the general tax regime and a recipient of royalties who has not registered as an economic operator, support is provided in the amount of 70% of the average income from economic activity or royalties in the 3rd quarter of this year, but not less than EUR 500 and no more than EUR 1000 per full month.
A self-employed person - a micro-enterprise taxpayer may receive support in the amount of 50% of the average monthly income from economic activity for the third quarter of this year, but not less than EUR 500 and no more than EUR 1000 per full month.
The patent payer has a fixed downtime allowance in the amount of EUR 500 per full month. It is available if there is a valid patent during the support period.
In addition to the downtime allowance, the SSIA will also grant a supplement of EUR 50 for each dependent child under the age of 24, for which the person is subject to personal income tax relief.
How does one apply for the allowance?
You can apply by filling in the application form in the SRS Electronic Declaration System (EDS). The application form will be available in the EDS from 1 December of this year.
For employees of the company, the employer submits both an application for downtime allowance and a salary subsidy, but the employee receives the support to his/her account.
You can apply for the allowance for November until 15 December, for December - until 15 January, and for January - until 15 February.
What rules must one follow in stores, shopping centres, markets, street markets and other shopping venues?
On-site sales of goods
In all shopping venues, including markets and outdoor street shopping venues, one must wear a mask, maintain a 2-metre distance, and pay additional attention to hygiene; there must also be information on the precautions to be taken. An economic service provider is prohibited from servicing a customer who does not use or misuses the mouth and nose covering. This means that, for example, in a store, the seller will not serve the customer if the person does not use a mouth and nose covering.
At a point of sale:
at least 15 m2 of publicly available space must be provided per visitor;
information about the maximum allowed number of visitors, including in foreign languages, must be provided at the entrance of every shop;
if the area of the place for the provision of economic services is less than 15 m2, then one visitor may be in it at the same time;
for the control of the flow of visitors, the entrance to the shop is only allowed with a cart or trolley or a shopping bag of the trade service provider (the total number thereof may not exceed the maximum number of visitors allowed at the point of sale);
visitors are only admitted one at a time (one household member), except with children under the age of 12, who may be accompanied by one adult.
In the shopping centre (buildings with a total retail space of at least 10,000 square metres, or with a total of at least 10 retail workers or service providers employed in its individual retail outlets):
at the same time there is no more than the maximum number of visitors allowed, which is determined by summing up the number of visitors allowed at points of sale;
information is placed in a clearly visible place at the entrance, including in foreign languages, regarding the maximum number of people allowed at the shopping centre together;
the flow of visitors at the entrances and exits of the shopping centre, in the corridors, at the toilets and elsewhere is controlled (outside the place of service and sale) where the gathering of visitors takes place.
What goods can be sold from 12 January?
From 12 January to 25 January only the following shall operate:
pharmacies, including veterinary pharmacies,
opticians,
fuel stations,
points of sale where the following groups of goods may be sold:
groceries;
hygiene goods (list of goods in Latvian);
essential household goods (list of goods in Latvian);
mobile phone prepaid cards;
tobacco products, herbal smoking products, electronic smoking devices and their liquids;
animal feed and goods;
press publications;
public transport tickets;
mouth and nose coverings and individual protective equipment;
home-made agricultural products (explanation in Latvian),
flowers and Christmas trees.
Distance selling and e-commerce are not restricted, incl. the delivery of goods at home and via parcel machines, as well as the receipt of goods in stores.
The wholesale of any goods in wholesale trade bases, which are necessary for both retail stores and the operation of companies, production, etc. is not interrupted.
Does the sales restriction also apply to markets and street sales?
Yes, the sales restriction also applies to street sales and market sales.
What services can be provided from 12 January ?
The provision of services is limited.
From 12 January to 25 January:
Entire beauty care industry (including hairdressers) will not work.
Sports equipment rental services may only be provided outdoors.
Photo shoots and photo services other than for document photos will not take place.
There will be no drive hunting.
These services are limited in several respects:
whether the service is provided for more than 15 minutes (including time in the waiting room),
whether there is direct human contact during the provision of services,
whether it is possible to use a face mask (for example, it is not used at a beautician and in photo shoots),
or whether a person can go without this service for 3 weeks.
All restrictions are intended to reduce the number of people we meet on a daily basis, reducing the risk of becoming infected with Covid-19.
Can goods be sold at the place of service?
If the provision of the service is not possible without the purchase of goods, for example, the purchase and installation of new tyres or car parts in a car repair shop, then the sale of goods is allowed.
Are online stores allowed?
Distance sales and e-commerce of any goods are allowed - the purchase of goods with a distance agreement, delivery at home and via parcel machines, as well as the delivery and receipt of goods in stores is allowed, adhering to safety preconditions.
What helps stop the spread of COVID-19!
Wash hands regularly
Cough and sneeze in your elbow
Keep a safe distance
#Stay@Home
The COVID-19 information website is developed and maintained by the State Chancellery. Taking into account the changes in all sectors, we recommend you to search for up-to-date information on the websites of the responsible authorities
Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
About TDW
Home / News & Media / Latest News / Kim Boreham and Eddie Look attend Hong Kong Rugby Union Awards Dinner 2018
Kim Boreham and Eddie Look attend Hong Kong Rugby Union Awards Dinner 2018
On Saturday 28 April, partners Kim Boreham and Eddie Look attended the Hong Kong Rugby Union's Annual Awards Dinner. Held at the Conrad Hotel, the dinner was organised to celebrate the end of the rugby season.
Kim Boreham distributing awards at the HKRU Dinner
Local rugby is a cause that Tanner De Witt has supported for many years; we have been proud supporters of the Hong Kong Rugby Union's domestic league referees since 2015. We were very pleased to see familiar faces from the Hong Kong Rugby Union and new players from all over the city. We hope that the rugby scene continues to develop in Hong Kong.
For more information about our community and sporting efforts, please visit our Community page.
Latest News, News & Media, Hong Kong Law Firm, Charity and Community, Rugby Sevens, Rugby
Legal update: SFC fines company secretary for insider dealing 18 January, 2021
Data Breach Response: The first 24 hours 15 January, 2021
The Legal 500 2021 rankings are announced for Asia-Pacific 14 January, 2021
Introduction to Restructuring and Insolvency department 14 January, 2021
Legal update: Bankrupt's contact details are not 'confidential', 'private' or 'privileged' 12 January, 2021


Hobbs Trial 8th April has been POSTPONED due to the weather.
The trial has been rescheduled for 3rd June and will be at the same Frocester venue. The Moss Motors Trial, which was scheduled for 3rd June, will be rescheduled to a later date, which will be announced shortly.


Recently I had the opportunity to photograph two beautiful siblings at a friend's house. My friend is a wonderful photographer and grandparent to the chilcren. She was photographing the young girl using the wet collodion process - one of the first photographic processes -with an 8x10 view camera.
able to work in between her shots with the kids.
finding out what they are interested in, have them run around if they are itchy to move, and make sure to read the signs the kids give off as I'm photographing them, before they get tired or need a snack.


text:
Reading: The Forward Testing Effect is Reliable and Independent of Learners' Working Memory Capacity
XML (EN)
The Forward Testing Effect is Reliable and Independent of Learners' Working Memory Capacity
Bernhard Pastötter ,
Department of Psychology, University of Trier, DE
Christian Frings
The forward testing effect refers to the finding that retrieval practice of previously studied information enhances learning and retention of subsequently studied other information. While most of the previous research on the forward testing effect examined group differences, the present study took an individual differences approach to investigate this effect. Experiment 1 examined whether the forward effect has test-retest reliability between two experimental sessions. Experiment 2 investigated whether the effect is related to participants' working memory capacity. In both experiments (and each session of Experiment 1), participants studied three lists of items in anticipation of a final cumulative recall test. In the testing condition, participants were tested immediately on lists 1 and 2, whereas in the restudy condition, they restudied lists 1 and 2. In both conditions, participants were tested immediately on list 3. On the group level, the results of both experiments demonstrated a forward testing effect, with interim testing of lists 1 and 2 enhancing immediate recall of list 3. On the individual level, the results of Experiment 1 showed that the forward effect on list 3 recall has moderate test-retest reliability between two experimental sessions. In addition, the results of Experiment 2 showed that the forward effect on list 3 recall does not depend on participants' working memory capacity. These findings suggest that the forward testing effect is reliable at the individual level and affects learners at a wide range of working memory capacities alike. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
Keywords: Memory, Long-term memory, Working memory, Learning
How to Cite: Pastötter, B., & Frings, C. (2019). The Forward Testing Effect is Reliable and Independent of Learners' Working Memory Capacity. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 37. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.82
Accepted on 16 Aug 2019 Submitted on 18 Mar 2019
Tests are commonly used to evaluate learning. However, tests can also be used to enhance learning and retention. This has been demonstrated in both basic research in the laboratory (for reviews, see Karpicke, 2017; Roediger & Butler, 2011; Rowland, 2014) and applied research in educational contexts (for reviews, see Adesope, Trevisan, & Sundararajan, 2017; Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, 2013; Moreira, Pinto & Starling, 2019). Thereby, testing can have both direct and indirect effects on long-term learning and retention (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006a). A prominent direct benefit of testing is the (backward) testing effect, which refers to the finding that when participants (repeatedly) retrieve versus restudy previously studied item material, the retrieved items are better recalled on a delayed test than the restudied items (e.g., Hogan & Kintsch, 1971; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b). The backward testing effect is a robust phenomenon that generalizes across a wide range of materials and experimental settings (see Karpicke, 2017). Different mechanisms have been suggested to contribute to the backward testing effect. For instance, retrieval practice, more than restudy, may promote semantic elaboration (Carpenter, 2009) and/or may enhance contextual processing of the information (Karpicke, Lehman, & Aue, 2014), thus enhancing learning and memory accessibility of the practiced information.
In addition, there are indirect benefits of testing. Actually, it is these indirect benefits of testing that students typically aim for when practicing retrieval on their own, not the direct benefits of testing (Karpicke, Butler, & Roediger, 2009). For instance, retrieval practice of previously studied material potentiates relearning of the practiced information, a finding that has been termed test-potentiated learning (Arnold & McDermott, 2013; Izawa, 1971; see also Tempel & Frings, 2018). The typical experiment consists of a study phase, a restudy phase, and a final test phase. Critically, between study and restudy phases, it is manipulated whether the material is tested or not. The typical finding is that interpolated testing promotes relearning of the studied material and enhances memory performance in the final test. On the other hand, retrieval practice also potentiates subsequent learning of other information, a finding that has been referred to as forward testing effect (Pastötter & Bäuml, 2014) or test-potentiated new learning (Chan, Meissner, & Davis, 2018). The forward testing effect is particularly striking because it is on the learning of new information that is not necessarily related to the previously studied (and tested) item material (see Yang, Chew, Sun, & Shanks, 2019). The forward testing effect can be studied in interim-testing tasks: Participants study several (e.g., three) lists of items in anticipation of a final cumulative recall test. Between the study of lists, participants are either tested on the most recent list (i.e., list 1 or list 2) in a recall test, or restudy the items of the most recent list. After study of all lists, participants are tested on the last list (i.e., list 3), which is the critical list. The typical finding is that interim testing of lists 1 and 2 enhances recall of list 3 and reduces the number of prior-list intrusions in the list 3 recall test (e.g., Bäuml & Kliegl, 2013; Szpunar, McDermott, & Roediger, 2008; Weinstein, McDermott, & Szpunar, 2011; Yang et al., 2019). The forward testing effect has been observed with different item materials (e.g., words, pictures, texts, videos), for different numbers of to-be-studied item lists (e.g., two lists, three lists, five lists) and for different types of recall tasks used in the interim tests (e.g., cued recall, free recall; for reviews, see Pastötter & Bäuml, 2014; Yang, Potts, & Shanks, 2018; for a meta-analysis on the forward testing effect, see Chan et al., 2018).
Both encoding and retrieval accounts have been put forth to account for the forward testing effect (see Yang et al., 2018, for a recent review). Retrieval accounts assume that recall testing between the study of lists promotes contextual list segregation, which may enhance list differentiation and reduce interference between lists at test (Bäuml & Kliegl, 2013; Szpunar et al., 2008). In contrast, encoding accounts assume that testing of previously studied lists improves encoding of subsequently studied item material. Specifically, it has been suggested that interim testing may reduce memory load (i.e., interference during encoding) and enhance attentional encoding, which makes the encoding of later lists as effective as the encoding of earlier lists (Pastötter et al., 2018; Pastötter, Schicker, Niedernhuber, & Bäuml, 2011), or a change in participants' encoding strategy, which enhances elaborative encoding for the later lists compared to the earlier lists (Chan, Manley, Davis, & Szpunar, 2018; Wissman, Rawson, & Pyc, 2011; see also Garcia-Marques, Nunes, Marques, Carneiro, & Weinstein, 2015). In addition, motivational factors have been suggested that may mediate the encoding and/or retrieval benefits of testing. Accordingly, retrieval failures in tests may induce dissatisfaction in learners and thus motivate more effort toward subsequent encoding and/or retrieval of new information (Cho, Neely, Crocco, & Vitrano, 2017). Furthermore, interim testing may induce in learners a greater expectancy of additional tests, which may motivate more effort toward attentional encoding of new information (Weinstein, Gilmore, Szpunar, & McDermott, 2014). Thus, multiple encoding and retrieval factors and different mediators may contribute to the forward testing effect. Notably, the same factors may also contribute to test-potentiated learning, as has been suggested in a recent study by Cho et al. (2017). These authors demonstrated comparable indirect effects of interpolated testing on the relearning and final recall of previously studied, old items (test-potentiated learning) and the learning and recall of previously not studied, new items (forward testing effect).
Regarding individual-differences research on testing effects, a considerable amount of studies have examined possible influences of learners' age and working memory capacity (WMC) on testing effects. This research has established both direct and indirect testing effects in children, young people, and older adults. For instance, children in (late) primary school benefit from the backward testing effect (Karpicke, Blunt, & Smith, 2016), the forward testing effect (Aslan & Bäuml, 2016), and test-potentiated learning (Lipowski, Pyc, Dunlosky, & Rawson, 2014), and even preschool children may benefit from some forms of retrieval practice (Kliegl, Abel, & Bäuml, 2018; see Fazio & Marsh, in press, for a review). In addition, several studies have established both backward (Meyer & Logan, 2013) and forward testing effects (Pastötter & Bäuml, 2019) and test-potentiated learning (Coane, 2013) in older adults, with the size of the effects comparable to younger adults. Furthermore, reliable testing effects were observed in memory-impaired patient groups, including patients with multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury, and Alzheimer's disease (Balota, Duchek, Sergent-Marshall, & Roediger, 2006; Pastötter, Weber, & Bäuml, 2013; Sumowski, Chiaravalloti, & DeLuca, 2010; Sumowski, Wood et al., 2010; but see Pastötter, Eberle, Aue, & Bäuml, 2017).
Regarding the relationship between WMC and the benefits of retrieval practice, several studies have examined whether complex working memory tasks, such as the operation or symmetry span tasks, relate to the backward testing effect or test-potentiated learning. WMC is an interesting individual-differences variable in cognitive psychology because it accounts for a substantial portion of variance in a person's general fluid intelligence and executive function (see Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003; Foster et al., 2015; McCabe, Roediger, McDaniel, Balota, & Hambrick, 2010). The majority of these studies found no (direct) relationship between WMC and the backward testing effect effect (Agarwal, Finley, Rose, & Roediger, 2017; Aslan & Bäuml, 2011) or test-potentiated learning (Bertilsson, Wiklund-Hörnqvist, Stenlund, & Jonsson, 2017; Brewer & Unsworth, 2012; Minear, Coane, Boland, Cooney, & Albat, 2018; Tsu & Pu, 2012; Wiklund-Hörnqvist, Jonsson, & Nyberg, 2014; but see Agarwal et al., 2017). Notably, the study by Tse and Pu (2012) showed that a significant proportion of variance in test-potentiated learning could be predicted by an interaction between participants' WMC and test anxiety scores. Thus, more indirect relationships between WMC and the benefits of retrieval practice may exist. To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet examined the relationship between the forward testing effect and participants' WMC.
In two experiments we investigated individual differences in the forward testing effect. In both experiments, participants went through both a testing and a restudy condition. In each condition, participants studied three lists of words, which they were asked to remember for a final recall test. In the testing condition, they were tested immediately on lists 1 and 2 after studying each single list, whereas in the restudy condition, they restudied lists 1 and 2 after initial study. In both conditions, participants were tested immediately on list 3 and finally on lists 1 and 2. The critical variables were correct recall and the number of prior-list intrusions in the immediate list 3 recall test. Individual forward-testing-effect recall and intrusion scores (shortly referred to as FTE recall and intrusion scores in the following) were determined by calculating individual differences between conditions. Experiment 1 examined the test-retest reliability of the forward testing effect, i.e., the correlation of FTE recall and intrusion scores between two experimental sessions. Experiment 2 examined the relationship between the forward testing effect and participants' WMC, measured with complex WM span tasks. Because the reliability of a measure limits the correlation that can be observed with another measure (Nunally, 1970; Spearman, 1904), significant test-retest reliability of FTE scores in Experiment 1 was considered a necessary precondition for analyzing the relationship of these scores to participants' WMC in Experiment 2. Based on the finding that test-potentiated learning is not related to learners' WMC (Brewer & Unsworth, 2012; Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al., 2014) and the view that the same factors contribute to test-potentiated learning and the forward effect of testing (Cho et al., 2017), we hypothesized to find no significant correlation between the forward testing effect and participants' WMC. To foreshadow the results, the data of Experiment 1 suggested sufficient reliability of the forward testing effect and thereby enabled us to analyze the potential relationship of the effect to individual WMC. In accordance with our hypothesis we did not find evidence for a correlation. Note that as we actually predicted a null correlation, Bayesian statistics are reported in addition to frequentist statistics.
The goal of Experiment 1 was to examine test-retest reliability of the forward testing effect. Participants took part in two sessions, which both consisted of a testing and a restudy condition. The two sessions were one week apart. Different items were used in the two sessions. FTE recall and intrusion scores were calculated for both sessions and test-retest reliabilities were estimated using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC; see Hedge, Powell, & Sumner, 2018; Parsons, Kruijt, & Fox, 2018).
Required sample size for the test-retest reliability analysis in Experiment 1 was calculated based on methods suggested by Walter, Eliasziw, and Donner (1998). Given α = 0.05 and a desired power of 1 – β = 0.95 to observe a fair level of reliability with ICC of 0.3 (or larger), a required sample size of 57 subjects was calculated. Note that ICCs of 0.8, 0.6, and 0.4 are typically interpreted as excellent, good/substantial, and moderate levels of reliability, respectively (Fleiss, 1981; Landis & Koch, 1977).
Sixty-four students from the University of Trier participated in Experiment 1 (mean age: 22.4 years, SD = 2.5 years; 24 females, 40 males). All participants successfully completed both sessions. The study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local ethical review committee at the University of Trier (reference number: 50/2017). All participants gave written informed consent.
The material was taken from a study by Pastötter, Kliegl, and Bäuml (2012; Exp. 2). It consisted of 144 unrelated German nouns of medium frequency and word length of 4 to 8 letters, which were drawn from CELEX database (Duyck, Desmet, Verbeke, & Brysbaert, 2004). The 144 items were randomly assigned to twelve 12-item lists. Six lists were used in session 1, the other six lists in session 2. In each session, three lists were assigned to the testing condition, the other three lists were assigned to the restudy condition. Thus, different items were used in the two sessions.
The two sessions were one week apart. Participants were retested in session 2 at about the same time as they were tested in session 1, with maximum deviation of two hours between sessions. In both sessions, participants took part in both the testing and the restudy condition, with order of conditions counterbalanced across participants. In both conditions, participants studied three 12-item lists (see Figure 1). Items of each list were visually presented in random order in the middle of a computer screen with a presentation rate of 3.75 sec (3 sec item presentation, 0.75 sec blank screen). Subsequent to the presentation of each list (45 sec), all participants solved simple mathematics (e.g., 4 * 8) for 30 sec as a distractor. Experimental conditions differed in inter-list activity that followed the distractors after lists 1 and 2. In the testing condition, after study of list 1 and the distractor, participants were given 45 sec to recall in any order they wished as many items as they could remember from list 1; next, after study of list 2 and the distractor, participants were given 45 sec to recall in any order they wished as many items as they could remember from list 2. In the restudy condition, participants were instead re-presented the just-studied items of lists 1 and 2 (45 sec each) with new random item presentation order. In both conditions, the distractor after list 3 was followed by an immediate list 3 recall test, in which participants were given 45 sec to recall in any order they wished as many items they could remember from list 3. After the immediate list 3 recall test, lists 2 and 1 were tested in two final recall tests; list 2 was always tested first. Each test took 45 sec. In all recall tests, participants typed in responses on a computer keyboard.
Procedure of the episodic memory task. In both the testing and the restudy condition, participants studied three lists of items. Each list consisted of 12 words and was followed by a short distractor (D). List 3 was tested immediately (after the distractor) in both conditions. Lists 1 and 2 were also tested immediately in the testing condition, but were restudied in the restudy condition. After immediate recall of list 3, lists 1 and 2 were tested in final recall tests.
On the group level, percent correct recall in the immediate list 3 recall test was examined as a function of experimental condition (testing, restudy) and session (session 1, session 2). In addition, in the testing condition, immediate list recall was examined as a function of list (list 1, list 2, list 3) and session (session 1, session 2). Regarding final recall, percent correct list recall was examined as a function of condition (testing, restudy), list (list 1, list 2), and session (session 1, session 2). Furthermore, number of prior-list intrusions were examined in the immediate list 3 recall test; list 1 and list 2 items that were falsely recalled by participants in the immediate list 3 recall were considered as intrusions. In all analyses of variance (ANOVAs), Greenhouse-Geisser (GG) correction was applied where necessary.
Bayesian statistics were calculated using JASP 0.9.2.0 software (Wagenmakers et al., 2018). BF01 is reported when the Bayesian analysis provides relatively more evidence for the null hypothesis than for the alternative hypothesis; BF10 is reported when the analysis provides relatively more evidence for the alternative hypothesis than for null hypothesis.
On the item level, FTE recall and intrusion scores were calculated, separately for sessions 1 and 2. The FTE recall score was calculated by subtracting participants' immediate list 3 recall rates in the restudy condition from their immediate list 3 recall rates in the testing condition; the FTE intrusion score was calculated by subtracting participants' number of prior-list intrusions in the restudy condition from their number of prior-list intrusions in the testing condition. Test-retest reliability was estimated with the ICC-2k, which uses a two-way random effects model for absolute agreement (see Hedge et al., 2018; Parsons et al., 2018).
Group level
The results of all recall tests are shown in Table 1. Regarding recall rates in the immediate list 3 recall test, a two-way ANOVA with the within-subjects factors of condition (testing vs. restudy) and session (session 1 vs. session 2) revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(1,63) = 36.41, MSE = 400.95, p < .001, ηp2=.366M1 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .366 \] \end{document}
, (BF10 > 100, compared to null model), a significant main effect of session, F(1,63) = 7.77, MSE = 321.90, p = .007, ηp2=.110M2 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .110 \] \end{document}
(BF10 = 2.52, compared to null model), and a significant interaction between the two factors, F(1,63) = 7.61, MSE = 228.17, p = .008, ηp2=.108M3 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .108 \] \end{document}
(BF10 = 2.30, compared to two-main-effects model). Thus, while the forward effect on list 3 recall was significant in both sessions, ps ≤ .001, the effect was smaller in session 2 than in session 1.
Results in the Immediate and Final Recall Tests as a Function of Practice Condition and Session in Experiment 1. Means and Standard Errors of the Mean (in Parentheses).
Recall Rates
Session 1 Immediate Recall Testing 66.93 (2.75) 68.88 (2.57) 69.01 (2.56) 0.17 (0.05)
Restudy 48.70 (3.68) 0.36 (0.10)
Difference 20.31 (3.29)** –.19 (.11)
Final Recall Testing 41.28 (4.11) 56.64 (3.54)
Restudy 51.69 (3.97) 55.08 (4.00)
Difference –10.42 (4.40)* 1.56 (3.87)
Difference 9.90 (2.97)** –.14 (.08)
Difference –20.05 (5.53)** –12.37 (4.89)*
Pair-wise t tests (two sided, uncorrected) for differences between conditions (testing vs. restudy). * p < .05, ** p < .01.
Regarding intrusion rates in the immediate list 3 recall test, a two-way ANOVA with the within-subjects factors of condition (testing vs. restudy) and session (session 1 vs. session 2) showed a significant main effect of condition, F(1,63) = 5.56, MSE = 0.310, p = .022, ηp2=.081M4 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .081 \] \end{document}
(BF10 = 2.18, compared to null model), and a significant main effect of session, F(1,63) = 4.26, MSE = 0.331, p = .043, ηp2=.063M5 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .063 \] \end{document}
(BF10 = 1.29, compared to null model), but no significant interaction between the two factors, F(1,63) < 1 (BF01 = 4.75, compared to two-main-effects model).
Regarding immediate recall of lists 1 to 3 in the testing condition, a two-way ANOVA with the within-subjects factors of list (list 1 vs. list 2 vs. list 3) and session (session 1 vs. session 2) showed no significant main effects or interaction, Fs < 1 (BF01s > 7.00), indicating similar recall rates for lists 1 to 3 in the testing condition in both sessions.
With regard to final recall rates, a three-way ANOVA with the within-subjects factors of condition (testing vs. restudy), list (list 1 vs. list 2), and session (session 1 vs. session 2) was calculated. The analysis showed a significant main effect of condition, F(1,63) = 15.35, MSE = 887.75, p < .001, ηp2=.196M6 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .196 \] \end{document}
(BF10 > 100, compared to null model), a significant main effect of list, F(1,63) = 18.23, MSE = 461.35, p < .001, ηp2=.224M7 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .224 \] \end{document}
(BF10 = 28.83, compared to null model), a significant interaction between the two factors of condition and list, F(1,63) = 5.07, MSE = 609.66, p = .028, ηp2=.075M8 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .075 \] \end{document}
(BF10 = 1.23, compared to three-main-effects model), and a significant interaction between the two factors of condition and session, F(1,63) = 4.92, MSE = 902.38, p = .030, ηp2=.073M9 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .073 \] \end{document}
(BF10 = 3.20, compared to three-main-effects model). Other main effect and interactions were not significant, Fs < 1 (BF01s > 4.00). With respect to the two significant interactions, analyses of single main effects suggested that (i) restudy outperformed testing in the final recall test of list 1, p < .001, but not in the final recall test of list 2, p = .074, and (ii) restudy outperformed testing in session 2, p < .001, but not in session 1, p = .142.
ICC estimates (and 95% confidence intervals) were calculated separately for FTE recall and intrusion scores between the two sessions. Regarding the FTE recall score, a moderate test-retest reliability was observed, ICC = .407, p = .013, 95%–CI [.052, .633]. Regarding the FTE intrusion score, no significant test-retest reliability was observed, ICC = .016, p = .475, 95%–CI [–.634, .406]. A scatterplot of the significant test-retest reliability of the FTE recall score is shown in Figure 2A.
List 3 recall results. (A) Scatterplot of the significant test-retest reliability of the FTE recall score, i.e., the difference between participants' immediate list 3 recall rates in the testing and restudy condition, in Experiment 1. The red marker indicates averaged recall rates from sessions 1 and 2. Error bars show ± 1 standard error of measurement (SEM), which is the square root of the error variance term calculated from the ICC and can be interpreted as the 68% confidence interval for an individual's data point. Color coding of data points indicates the number of subjects having identical scores on both axes. (B) Scatterplot of the nonsignificant correlation between the FTE recall and WMC scores in Experiment 2. Error bars show ± 1 standard error or the mean for the FTE recall and WMC scores, respectively. Color coding of data points indicates the number of subjects having identical scores on both axes.
On the group level, the results of Experiment 1 replicate the findings from previous work on the forward testing effect (e.g., Bäuml & Kliegl, 2013; Szpunar et al., 2008; Weinstein et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2019), showing that interim testing of lists 1 and 2, in comparison to restudy of lists 1 and 2, enhances correct recall of list 3 items and reduced the number of prior-list intrusions in the immediate list 3 recall test. Notably, the effect of testing on prior-list intrusions was small and (Bayesian) evidence for the effect was weak. Going beyond the previous research, the results show that the forward effect on list 3 recall rates was reliably reduced in session 2 compared to session 1 (see General Discussion, for a possible explanation of this result).
On the item level, the results of Experiment 1 suggest a moderate test-retest reliability of the FTE recall score, i.e., the difference in correct list 3 recall between the testing and the restudy condition (note, however, that the 95%-CI reached from weak to substantial levels of reliability). In contrast, the reliability of the FTE intrusion score was not significant. Notably, the variance between individuals in the FTE intrusion score was very low (46 participants in session 1 and 54 participants in session 2 had an FTE intrusion score of 0; 37 participants had FTE intrusion scores of 0 in both sessions), which may have decreased the likelihood of observing a significant test-rest reliability. Arguably, a larger test-rest reliability of the FTE intrusion score may be observed with different item materials (see General Discussion).
The goal of Experiment 2 was to examine the relationship between the forward testing effect and participants' WMC. Because the reliability of a measure limits the correlation that can be observed with another measure (Nunally, 1970; Spearman, 1904), based on the results from Experiment 1, only the FTE recall score, but not the FTE intrusion score, was related to participants' WMC. Experiment 2 took place in a single session. Participants completed the episodic memory task, including both a testing and a restudy condition, first and shortened versions of complex WM span tasks, namely the operation span and symmetry span tasks (Foster et al., 2015), second. As outlined above, no significant correlation between the forward testing effect and participants' WMC was expected.
Required sample size was calculated using G*Power (Version 3.1.9.2; Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). Given α = 0.05 and a desired power of 1 – β = 0.95 to detect a correlation between FTE recall and WMC scores of medium effect size of |ρ| = 0.25 or larger (two-tailed), a required sample size of 197 subjects was calculated. Because data sets from subjects showing an accuracy of less than 80% on the distraction component of one of the working-memory tasks (see below) were discarded from correlational analysis (Conway et al., 2005), a slightly larger sample size was tested.
Two-hundred and forty students from the University of Trier participated in Experiment 2 (mean age: 22.0 years, SD = 3.4 years; 187 females, 53 males). The experiment was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local ethical review committee at the University of Trier (reference number: 50/2017). All participants gave written informed consent.
The material for the episodic memory task was the same that was used in Experiment 1. For each participant, 72 (out of the 144) items were randomly assigned to six 12-item lists. Three of these lists were used in the testing condition, the other three lists in the restudy condition.
The material for the WMC tasks was taken from Foster et al. (2015), which employed shortened versions of established WM tasks, i.e., the operation span task and the symmetry span task. Both tasks included a memory component and a distraction component. In the operation span task, letters were used as to-be-remembered targets and mathematical statements served as distractors (see Figure 3A). In the symmetry span task, locations of a red square in a 4 × 4 grid were used as to-be-remembered targets and judgments whether or not gridded figures were symmetrical along the vertical axis served as distractors (see Figure 3B).
The procedure of the episodic memory task was identical to the procedure of the memory task in the first session of Experiment 1, with two exceptions. First, with regard to the 30 sec distractor that followed study of each list, instead of solving simple mathematics, participants counted backward in steps of twos from a random three-digit number. Second, with regard to the 45 sec recall tests, instead of typing in responses on a computer keyboard, participants were asked to write down responses on paper. Different sheets of paper were used for the different recall tests. The distractor and response recording were changed in order to avoid potential overlap with the WMC tasks, especially the operation span task.
After the episodic memory task, two computer-based WMC tasks were conducted employing German translations of the E-Prime 2.0 (SP 2) protocol of Foster et al. (2015). We used model 4 from the study by Foster et al. (2015), including one block of the operation span task and one block of the symmetry span task. Foster et al. (2015) showed that this model predicted participants' fluid intelligence better than the model using three blocks of the operation span task, indicating high validity of measuring participants' WMC. Regarding reliability of WMC measures in the study by Foster et al. (2015), Cronbach's alpha was .690 for the single block of the operation span task and .609 for the single block of the symmetry span task. In the present experiment, the operation span task was conducted first and the symmetry span task second. In the two tasks, trials with to-be-remembered targets, i.e., letters in the operation span task and locations in the symmetry span task, and trials with distractors, i.e., mathematical statements in the operation span task and symmetry judgments in the symmetry span task, appeared alternately in each sequence (see Figure 3). Each sequence ended with a recall test in which the targets were to be recalled in correct order. Sequence length was varied from 3 to 7 in the operation span task and from 2 to 5 in the symmetry span task, and sequences with different lengths were present in random order. Participants completed one block of 5 sequences with different sequence lengths in the operation span task and one block of 4 sequences with different sequence lengths in the symmetry span task, a procedure that has been suggested to have high validity and reliability (see Foster et al., 2015). Sequences with different sequence lengths were randomly sampled in both WMC tasks. Before each block, participants practiced both the memory component and the distraction component of each task. Participants were timed while practicing distraction trials. They were then required to respond within 2.5 SDs of their average response time to each distraction item in each block of the two tasks.
Procedure of the working memory task. (A) In the operation span task, trials with to-be-remembered letters and trials with distracting mathematical statements alternated in each sequence. At the end of each sequence, the letters were to be recalled by participants in correct order. Sequence length varied from 3 to 7. (B) In the symmetry span task, trials with to-be-remembered locations and trials with distracting symmetry judgments alternated in each sequence. At the end of each sequence, the locations were to be recalled in correct order. Sequence length varied from 2 to 5.
Regarding the episodic memory task, percent correct recall in the immediate list 3 recall test was examined as a function of the within-participants factor of experimental condition (testing, restudy). In the testing condition, immediate recall was examined as a function of list (list 1, list 2, list 3). Regarding final recall, percent correct recall was examined as a function of condition (testing, restudy) and list (list 1, list 2). In addition, number of prior-list intrusions was examined in the immediate list 3 recall test. Greenhouse-Geisser (GG) correction was applied where necessary. We note that the results from a serial-position analysis of the immediate list 3 recall data were previously published in a short report (Pastötter, Engel, & Frings, 2018).
Regarding the two working-memory tasks, an absolute partial score was calculated by summing the number of letters (maximum of 25) in the operation span task and the number of locations (maximum of 14) in the symmetry span task that were correctly recalled in correct order for each participant, separately for the two tasks (Turner & Engle, 1989). Next, a relative partial scores was calculated by dividing the absolute partial score by the maximum numbers of recalled targets for each participant, separately for the two tasks. Finally, a combined partial score was calculated by averaging the two relative partial scores for each participant. This combined partial score was considered as participants' WMC score for correlational analysis. Subjects were discarded from further (WMC and correlational) analyses if accuracy on the distraction component on one of the two tasks (fell below a level of 80% (see Conway et al., 2005).
For the correlational analysis, the FTE recall score was calculated by subtracting participants' immediate list 3 recall rate in the restudy condition from their list 3 recall rate in the testing condition. The relationship between participants' FTE recall and WMC scores was analyzed. Shapiro-Wilk testing was used to check the assumption of normal distribution for the two scores. The assumption of normality had to be rejected for both scores, W240s ≤ .985, ps ≤ 0.026. Therefore, Kendall's tau correlations (rτ) were calculated to examine the relationship between FTE recall and WMC scores.
Bayesian statistics were calculated using JASP 0.9.2.0 software (see Wagenmakers et al., 2018). BF01 is reported when the Bayesian analysis provides relatively more evidence for the null hypothesis than for the alternative hypothesis; BF10 is reported when the analysis provides relatively more evidence for the alternative hypothesis than for null hypothesis.
Episodic memory task
The results of the episodic memory task are shown in Table 2. In the immediate list 3 recall test, participants correctly recalled significantly more list 3 items in the testing condition than in the restudy condition,t239 = 10.55, p < .001, d = .681 (BF10 > 100). In addition, participants produced fewer prior-list intrusions in the testing condition than in the restudy condition, t239 = 4.51, p < .001, d = .291 (BF10 > 100). Together, these results suggest a significant forward testing effect.
Results in the Immediate and Final Recall Tests as a Function of Practice Condition in Experiment 2. Means and Standard Errors of the Mean (in Parentheses).
Immediate Recall Testing 66.32 (1.24) 63.58 (1.35) 64.72 (1.44) 0.10 (0.02)
Difference 15.59 (1.48)** –.29 (.06)**
Difference –14.69 (2.05)** –9.72 (1.91)**
Pair-wise t tests (two sided) for differences between conditions (testing vs. restudy). ** p < .01
Regarding immediate recall of lists 1 to 3 in the testing condition, a one-way ANOVA with the within-subjects factor of list (list 1 vs. list 2 vs. list 3) showed no significant effect, F(2,478) = 2.38, MSE = 194.61, p = .095, G-G corrected (BF01 = 6.52, compared to null model), indicating that recall was equally successful from lists 1 to 3 in the testing condition.
Regarding final recall testing, a two-way ANOVA with the within-subjects factors of condition (testing vs. restudy) and list (list 1 vs. list 2) showed a significant main effect of condition, F(1,239) = 72.72, MSE = 491.62, p < .001, ηp2=.233M10 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .233 \] \end{document}
(BF10 > 100, compared to null model) a significant main effect of list, F(1,239) = 17.63, MSE = 449.68, p < .001, ηp2=.069M11 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .069 \] \end{document}
(BF10 > 100, compared to null model), but no significant interaction between the two factors, F(1,239) = 3.26, MSE = 453.70, p = .072, ηp2=.013M12 \documentclass[10pt]{article} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage[substack]{amsmath} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage[mathscr]{eucal} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{pmc} \usepackage[Euler]{upgreek} \pagestyle{empty} \oddsidemargin -1.0in \begin{document} \[ \eta _p^2 = .013 \] \end{document}
(BF01 = 2.191, compared to two-main-effects model). Thus, both lists were recalled better in the restudy than in the testing condition.
Working memory tasks
The data sets from 23 subjects were discarded from WMC and correlational analysis due to accuracy lower than 80% on the distraction component of either the operation span task (15 subjects) or the symmetry span task (8 subjects). The data from one more subject was discarded due to system error during accomplishment of the operation span task. Thus, the data of 216 subjects went into further analysis.
Subjects' mean absolute partial score was 18.53 (SD = 4.83; range 2–25) in the operation span task and 10.14 (SD = 2.70; range 4–14) in the symmetry span task. Mean relative partial scores were 0.74 (SD = 0.19; range 0.08–1.00) in the operation span task and 0.72 (SD = 0.19; range 0.29–1.00) in the symmetry span task. Partial scores in the two tasks were correlated, rτ = .183, p < .001 (BF10 > 100). The mean combined partial score (WMC score) was 0.73 (SD = 0.15, range 0.35–1.00, median: 0.74).
Relationship between FTE recall and WMC scores
The relationship between FTE recall and WMC scores is depicted in a scatterplot in Figure 2B. The correlation between the two scores was not significant, rτ = -.018, p = .715 (BF01 = 10.43). Additional median split analysis (based on participants' WMC score) confirmed that the forward testing effect in list 3 recall was equally present in low-WMC (mean: 15.43%, SD = 22.09%) and high-WMC participants (mean: 16.28%, SD = 24.42%), t214 < 1 (BF01 = 6.51). In contrast to the FTE recall score, participants' mean immediate list 3 recall rates (averaged over testing and restudy conditions) was significantly related to participants' WMC score, rτ = .104, p = .026.
With regard to the episodic memory task, the results of Experiment 2 replicate the findings from Experiment 1 showing enhanced list 3 recall and fewer prior-list intrusions in the immediate list 3 recall test in the testing compared to the restudy condition. More importantly, with regard to the analysis of individual differences in the forward testing effect, the results showed no correlation between FTE recall and WMC scores, suggesting that the forward testing effect does not depend on participants' WMC.
On the group level, the results of both experiments demonstrate a significant forward testing effect, with interim testing of lists 1 and 2 enhancing recall of list 3 and reducing the number of prior-list intrusions in the immediate list 3 recall test. On the individual level, the results of Experiment 1 show that the forward effect on list 3 recall has moderate test-retest reliability between two experimental sessions. In addition, the results of Experiment 2 demonstrate that the forward effect on list 3 recall does not depend on participants' WMC. These results suggest that the forward testing effect is a reliable phenomenon that does not depend on learner characteristics concerning WMC.
The present study adds to earlier research that also took an individual-differences approach in studying the benefits of retrieval-based learning. Developmental and clinical research has established both direct and indirect testing effects in children (Aslan & Bäuml, 2016; Karpicke et al., 2016; Lipowski et al., 2014), healthy older adults (Coane, 2013; Pastötter & Bäuml, 2019; Meyer & Logan, 2013), and patients with memory impairment (Balota et al., 2006; Pastötter et al., 2013; Sumowski, Wood et al., 2010). In addition, several studies examined the influence of participants' WMC on the backward testing effect (Agarwal et al., 2017; Aslan & Bäuml, 2011) and test-potentiated learning (e.g., Brewer & Unsworth, 2012; Wiklund-Hörnqvist et al., 2014). These studies found no (direct) relationship between WMC and retrieval-based learning. The present study adds to this research by showing that the forward testing effect is also not (directly) related to participants' WMC. Whether there are indirect relationships between the forward testing effect and participants' WMC, i.e., whether the relationship can be moderated by other variables, needs to be tested in future work. Indeed, such moderation has been reported for test-potentiated learning, with test anxiety as moderator (Tse & Pu, 2012). In addition, future research may like to examine the association of WMC to list isolation effects arising from different forms of memory retrieval, e.g., episodic, semantic, and short-term memory retrieval (for related research, see Wahlheim, Alexander, & Kane, 2019), in comparison to non-retrieval baseline conditions.
In the literature, both encoding and retrieval mechanisms have been suggested to contribute to the forward testing effect. Specifically, regarding encoding, testing between the study of lists has been suggested to induce encoding resets (Pastötter et al., 2018; Pastötter et al., 2011) and/or a change in participants' encoding strategy (Chan et al., 2018; Wissman et al., 2011). In addition, regarding retrieval, testing has been argued to promote contextual list segregation, enhancing list differentiation and reducing interference between lists at test (Bäuml & Kliegl, 2013; Szpunar et al., 2008; see also Wahlheim, 2015, for an integration account). The present study was not designed to test theoretical accounts against each other. In fact, the finding that, in both experiments, the three lists showed the same immediate recall rates in the testing condition is consistent with both reset-of-encoding and interference-reduction views on the forward effect. In addition, the finding that, in Experiment 1, the forward effect on list 3 recall was found to be reduced in session 2 compared to session 1 supports the strategy-change view on the effect. Indeed, participants may have changed encoding strategy after testing in session 1 and thus used a more elaborative encoding strategy in both the testing and the restudy condition in session 2, which may have the forward testing effect in session 2. Thus, on the group level, the present results are consistent with the idea that multiple mechanisms may contribute to the forward effect. On the individual level, the present findings suggest that the forward testing effect is unrelated to participants' WMC, indicating that the underlying (encoding or retrieval) mechanism(s) may not depend on WM characteristics.
In recent work, it was speculated that the forward testing effect may partly be mediated by some form of self-induced forget instruction, inducing participants to think that the practiced information is no longer needed and thus can be forgotten (Abel & Bäuml, 2016; Szpunar, McDermott, & Roediger, 2007). In fact, intentional forgetting of previously studied, old information (e.g., list 1) can lead to enhancement of subsequently studied, new information (e.g., list 2), as has been demonstrated in the list-method directed forgetting (LMDF) task (for a review, see Pastötter et al., 2017). In this task, both encoding and retrieval factors have been suggested to contribute to the enhancement effect, with the relative contribution of the factors depending on list recall order at final test (Pastötter et al., 2012). Regarding individual differences, the list 2 enhancement effect has been shown to be unrelated to WMC when list 2 is recalled after list 1 (Delaney & Sahakyan, 2007) and mainly encoding factors (i.e., reset of encoding) contribute to the effect (Pastötter et al., 2012), but is positively related to WMC when list 2 is recalled first (Aslan, Zellner, & Bäuml, 2010) and mainly retrieval factors (i.e., interference reduction) contribute to the effect (Pastötter et al., 2012). In the present study, the target list (list 3) was always recalled first after encoding. Still, the forward testing effect was unrelated to participants' WMC. These findings suggest that the forward testing effect may differ mechanistically from the enhancement effect in LMDF. Indeed, encoding factors (e.g., reset of encoding, change of encoding strategy, more attentional and motivational encoding) may play a much greater role for the forward testing effect than they do for the enhancement effect in LMDF.
In Experiment 1, the FTE intrusion score, i.e., the forward effect on incorrect prior-list intrusions in the immediate list 3 recall test, was not found to be reliable. Because the reliability of a measure limits the correlation that can be observed with another measure (Nunally, 1970; Spearman, 1904), the relationship between the FTE intrusion score and the WMC score thus was not examined in Experiment 2. Arguably, the variance between individuals in the FTE intrusion score was very low in the present study. Therefore, larger test-retest reliability of the FTE intrusion score might be observed with larger variance between individuals. Future studies may like to examine this issue when using item materials that produce more intrusions and thus larger variance between subjects. For example, Szpunar et al. (2008) let participants study semantically related word lists that were composed of different words from the same categories. With such interrelated item material, variance between individuals in the FTE intrusion score may be increased and larger test-retest reliability may be observed.
Regarding final recall of lists 1 and 2, the results of both experiments revealed benefits of restudy over testing, which were larger for list 1 then for list 2 (in Experiment 1). Critically, final list 1 recall provided only a rough measure of the backward testing effect (with retroactive interference from lists 2 and 3 and, when prior recall of lists 3 and 2), whereas final list 2 recall provided a mixed measure of backward and forward effects (with retroactive interference from lists 3 and prior recall of list 3). Therefore, individual differences in final recall of lists 1 and 2 between the testing and restudy condition were not further analyzed with regard to test-rest reliability or relationship to participants' WMC. Notably, regarding the backward testing effect in final list 1 recall, the finding that restudied items were better recalled than previously tested items is consistent with the literature, showing that the backward testing effect is most prominent when the final recall testing is administered after a relatively long delay of several days or weeks, but is often eliminated or even reversed when final recall testing is administered after a relatively short delay of several minutes (see Kornell, Bjork, & Garcia, 2011; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006b).
To conclude, the results of two experiments suggest that the FTE is a reliable phenomenon that is not related to individuals' WMC. Together with the findings from previous work on the backward testing effect and test-potentiated learning, the present results suggest that the effectiveness of retrieval-based learning does not depend to a significant degree on learners' WMC. Future work may examine the relationship of the benefits of retrieval-based learning to other learner characteristics, e.g., general fluid intelligence. Following the view that WMC is an explanatory construct for persons' intellectual abilities that predicts reasoning abilities and general fluid intelligence to a very large degree (Oberauer, Schulze, & Wilhelm, 2005), we would expect that the benefits of testing are broadly present in learners' with different cognitive abilities.
Data Accessibility Statement
Item material and data can be found at Open Science Framework, DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TFP4S.
Ethics and Consent
This research was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local ethical review committee at the University of Trier (reference number: 50/2017). All participants gave written informed consent.
The publication was funded by the Open Access Fund of Universität Trier and the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the Open Access Publishing funding programme.
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
BP and CF developed the study concept and experimental design. BP performed the data analysis and drafted the manuscript. CF provided critical revision. Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.
Abel, M., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2016). Retrieval practice can eliminate list-method directed forgetting. Memory and Cognition, 44, 15–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-015-0539-x
Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87, 659–701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306
Agarwal, P. K., Finley, J. R., Rose, N. S., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2017). Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity. Memory, 25, 764–771. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1220579
Arnold, K. M., & McDermott, K. B. (2013). Test-potentiated learning: Distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of tests. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 940–945. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029199
Aslan, A., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2011). Individual differences in working memory capacity predict retrieval-induced forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 264–269. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021324
Aslan, A., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2016). Testing enhances subsequent learning in older but not in younger elementary school children. Developmental Science, 19, 992–998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12340
Aslan, A., Zellner, M., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2010). Working memory capacity predicts listwise directed forgetting in adults and children. Memory, 18, 442–450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211003742698
Balota, D. A., Duchek, J. M., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2006). Does expanded retrieval produce benefits over equal-interval spacing? Explorations of spacing effects in healthy aging and early stage Alzheimer's disease. Psychology and Aging, 21, 19–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.19
Bäuml, K.-H. T., & Kliegl, O. (2013). The critical role of retrieval processes in release from proactive interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 39–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.006
Bertilsson, F., Wiklund-Hörnqvist, C., Stenlund, T., & Jonsson, B. (2017). The testing effect and its relation to working memory capacity and personality characteristics. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 16, 241–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.16.3.241
Brewer, G. A., & Unsworth, N. (2012). Individual differences in the effects of retrieval from long-term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 407–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.12.009
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, 1563–1569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017021
Chan, J. C. K., Manley, K. D., Davis, S. D., & Szpunar, K. K. (2018). Testing potentiates new learning across a retention interval and a lag: A strategy change perspective. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 83–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.05.007
Chan, J. C. K., Meissner, C. A., & Davis, S. D. (2018). Retrieval potentiates new learning: A theoretical and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 1111–1146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000166
Cho, K. W., Neely, J. H., Crocco, S., & Vitrano, D. (2017). Testing enhances both encoding and retrieval for both tested and untested items. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1211–1235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1175485
Coane, J. H. (2013). Retrieval practice and elaborative encoding benefit memory in younger and older adults. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 95–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.04.001
Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772
Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 547–552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.005
Delaney, P. F., & Sahakyan, L. (2007). Unexpected costs of high working memory capacity following directed forgetting and contextual change manipulations. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1074–1082. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193479
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, 4–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
Duyck, W., Desmet, T., Verbeke, L., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Wordgen: A tool for word selection and non-word generation in Dutch, German, English, and French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 488–499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195595
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (in press). Retrieval-based learning in children. Current Directions in Psychological Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418806673
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Foster, J. L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 43, 226–236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020919
Garcia-Marques, L., Nunes, L. D., Marques, P., Carneiro, P., & Weinstein, Y. (2015). Adapting to test structure: Letting testing teach what to learn. Memory, 23, 365–380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.889166
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1166–1186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
Hogan, R. M., & Kintsch, W. (1971). Differential effects of study and test trials on long-term recognition and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 562–567. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(71)80029-4
Izawa, C. (1971). The test trial potentiating model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 8, 200–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(71)90012-5
Karpicke, J. D. (2017). Retrieval-based learning: A decade of progress. In: J. T. Wixted (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory, Vol. 2 of Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (J. H. Byrne, Series Ed.) (pp. 487–514). Oxford: Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.21055-9
Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., & Smith, M. A. (2016). Retrieval-based learning: Positive effects of retrieval practice in elementary school children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00350
Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in student learning: do students practise retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471–479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802647009
Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, R. W. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: An episodic context account. In: B. H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 61, 237–284. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800283-4.00007-1
Kliegl, O., Abel, M., & Bäuml, K. H. T. (2018). A (preliminary) recipe for obtaining a testing effect in preschool children: Two critical ingredients. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01446
Kornell, N., Bjork, R. A., & Garcia, M. A. (2011). Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifurcation model. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 85–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.002
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lipowski, S. L., Pyc, M. A., Dunlosky, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2014). Establishing and explaining the testing effect in free recall for young children. Developmental Psychology, 50, 994–1000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035202
McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., III, McDaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). The relationship between working memory capacity and executive functioning: evidence for a common executive attention construct. Neuropsychology, 24, 222–243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017619
Meyer, A. N., & Logan, J. M. (2013). Taking the testing effect beyond the college freshman: Benefits for lifelong learning. Psychology and Aging, 28, 142–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030890
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, 1474–1486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000486
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, 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00005
Nunnally, J. C. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oberauer, K., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Süß, H. M. (2005). Working memory and intelligence--their correlation and their relation: comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005). Psychological Bulletin, 131, 61–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.61
Parsons, S., Kruijt, A., & Fox, E. (2018, April 5). Psychological science needs a standard practice of reporting the reliability of cognitive behavioural measurements. Preprint on PsyArXiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6ka9z
Pastötter, B., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2014). Retrieval practice enhances new learning: the forward effect of testing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00286
Pastötter, B., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2019). Testing enhances subsequent learning in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 34, 242–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000307
Pastötter, B., Eberle, H., Aue, I., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2017). Retrieval practice fails to insulate episodic memories against interference after stroke. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1074. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01074
Pastötter, B., Engel, M., & Frings, C. (2018). The forward effect of testing: Behavioral evidence for the reset-of-encoding hypothesis using serial position analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01197
Pastötter, B., Kliegl, O., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2012). List-method directed forgetting: The forget cue improves both encoding and retrieval of postcue information. Memory & Cognition, 40, 861–873. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0206-4
Pastötter, B., Schicker, S., Niedernhuber, J., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2011). Retrieval during learning facilitates subsequent memory encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 37, 287–297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021801
Pastötter, B., Tempel, T., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2017). Long-term memory updating: The reset-of-encoding hypothesis in list-method directed forgetting. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02076
Pastötter, B., Weber, J., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2013). Using testing to improve learning after severe traumatic brain injury. Neuropsychology, 27, 280–285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031797
Roediger, H. L., III, & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 20–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00012.x
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17, 249–255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1432–1463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1412159
Sumowski, J. F., Chiaravalloti, N., & Deluca, J. (2010). Retrieval practice improves memory in multiple sclerosis: Clinical application of the testing effect. Neuropsychology, 24, 267–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017533
Sumowski, J. F., Wood, H. G., Chiaravalloti, N., Wylie, G. R., Lengenfelder, J., & DeLuca, J. (2010). Retrieval practice: A simple strategy for improving memory after traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 16, 1147–1150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710001128
Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Expectation of a final cumulative test enhances long-term retention. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1007–1013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193473
Szpunar, K. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2008). Testing during study insulates against the buildup of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1392–1399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013082
Tempel, T., & Frings, C. (2018). Feedback increases benefits but not costs of retrieval practice: Retrieval-induced forgetting is strength-independent. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 636–642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1450-9
Tse, C. S., & Pu, X. (2012). The effectiveness of test-enhanced learning depends on trait test anxiety and working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 253–264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029190
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90040-5
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Love, J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, A. J., et al. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 58–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1323-7
Wahlheim. (2015). Testing can counteract proactive interference by integrating competing information. Memory & Cognition, 43, 27–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0455-5
Wahlheim, C. N., Alexander, T. R., & Kane, M. J. (2019). Interpolated retrieval effects on list isolation: Individual differences in working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 47, 619–642. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00893-w
Walter, S. D., Eliasziw, M., & Donner, A. (1998). Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 101–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980115)17:1<101::AID-SIM727>3.0.CO;2-E
Weinstein, Y., Gilmore, A. W., Szpunar, K. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2014). The role of test expectancy in the build-up of proactive interference in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1039–1048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036164
Weinstein, Y., McDermott, K. B., & Szpunar, K. K. (2011). Testing protects against proactive interference in face–name learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 183, 518–523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0085-x
Wiklund-Hörnqvist, C., Jonsson, B., & Nyberg, L. (2014). Strengthening concept learning by repeated testing. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55, 10–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12093
Wissman, K. T., Rawson, K. A., & Pyc, M. A. (2011). The interim test effect: testing prior material can facilitate the learning of new material. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 1140–1147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0140-7
Yang, C., Chew, S.-J., Sun, B., & Shanks, D. R. (2019). The forward effects of testing transfer to different domains of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 809–826. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000320
Yang, C., Potts, R., & Shanks, D. R. (2018). Enhancing learning and retrieval of new information: A review of the FTE. npj Science of Learning, 3, 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0024-y
Pastötter, B. and Frings, C., 2019. The Forward Testing Effect is Reliable and Independent of Learners' Working Memory Capacity. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), p.37. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.82
Pastötter B, Frings C. The Forward Testing Effect is Reliable and Independent of Learners' Working Memory Capacity. Journal of Cognition. 2019;2(1):37. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.82
Pastötter, B., & Frings, C. (2019). The Forward Testing Effect is Reliable and Independent of Learners' Working Memory Capacity. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 37. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.82
Pastötter B and Frings C, 'The Forward Testing Effect Is Reliable and Independent of Learners' Working Memory Capacity' (2019) 2 Journal of Cognition 37 DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.82
Pastötter, Bernhard, and Christian Frings. 2019. "The Forward Testing Effect Is Reliable and Independent of Learners' Working Memory Capacity". Journal of Cognition 2 (1): 37. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.82
Pastötter, Bernhard, and Christian Frings. "The Forward Testing Effect Is Reliable and Independent of Learners' Working Memory Capacity". Journal of Cognition 2, no. 1 (2019): 37. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.82
Pastötter, B.and C. Frings. "The Forward Testing Effect Is Reliable and Independent of Learners' Working Memory Capacity". Journal of Cognition, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019, p. 37. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.82
Jump to Discussions Related content


The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) published its 2011 Annual Report on Enforcement Ections. In 2011, TSA took 21 surface transportation actions. These actions were taken as a result of rail car chain of custody and location violations, as well as Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) violations (e.g., use of another's TWIC, fraudulent manufacture of a TWIC). TSA collected a total of $8,500 in civil penalties for the violations.


text:
<?php
/**
 * CustomOdnoklassnikiService class file.
 *
 * @author Sergey Vardanyan <rakot.ss@gmail.com>
 * @license http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
 */

require_once dirname(dirname(__FILE__)) . '/services/OdnoklassnikiOAuthService.php';

class CustomOdnoklassnikiService extends OdnoklassnikiOAuthService
{

//	protected $scope = 'VALUABLE ACCESS';

    protected function fetchAttributes()
    {
        $info = $this->makeSignedRequest('http://api.odnoklassniki.ru/fb.do', array(
            'query' => array(
                'method' => 'users.getCurrentUser',
                'format' => 'JSON',
                'application_key' => $this->client_public,
                'client_id' => $this->client_id,
            ),
        ));

        $this->attributes = json_decode(json_encode($info), true);
        $this->attributes['id'] = $info->uid;
        $this->attributes['name'] = $info->first_name . ' ' . $info->last_name;

        if ($this->scope == 'VALUABLE ACCESS') {
            $this->getRealIdAndUrl();
        }
    }

    /**
     * Avable only if VALUABLE ACCESS is on
     * you should ask for enable this scope for odnoklassniki administration
     */
    protected function getRealIdAndUrl()
    {
        $info = $this->makeSignedRequest('http://api.odnoklassniki.ru/fb.do', array(
            'query' => array(
                'method' => 'users.getInfo',
                'uids' => $this->attributes['id'],
                'fields' => 'url_profile',
                'format' => 'JSON',
                'application_key' => $this->client_public,
                'client_id' => $this->client_id,
            ),
        ));

        preg_match('/\d+\/{0,1}$/', $info[0]->url_profile, $matches);
        $this->attributes['id'] = (int)$matches[0];
        $this->attributes['url'] = $info[0]->url_profile;
    }

    public function wallPost($data)
    {
        $post = array(
            'application_key' => $this->client_public,
            'method' => 'share.addLink',
            'format' => 'JSON',
        );
        if (isset($data['link'])) {
            $post['linkUrl'] = $data['link'];
        }

        if (isset($data['message'])) {
            $post['comment'] = $data['message'];
        }
        $this->makeSignedRequest('http://api.odnoklassniki.ru/fb.do', array(
            'query' => $post
        ));
    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


"Those places need to be shut down, flat out," Sanders said. "They need to be gone because when people die then that's a problem."
"I'm here today to stand against those people who are causing those problems and also condoning these problems," Sanders said. "It's not okay to take lives. It's not okay to leave mothers without their children."


text:
Keyword Analysis & Research: hippiatric definition 1992
hippiatric definition 1992 0.1 0.5 9209 12 26
hippiatric 0.86 0.3 8678 59 10
definition 1.37 0.2 6686 69 10
Keyword Research: People who searched hippiatric definition 1992 also searched
hippiatric definition 1992 0.75 0.4 3971 39
hippiatric definition 1991 1.09 0.3 2483 3
What is the meaning of hippiatrics?
Hippiatrics - definition of hippiatrics by The Free Dictionary Define hippiatrics. hippiatrics synonyms, hippiatrics pronunciation, hippiatrics translation, English dictionary definition of hippiatrics. 1. the study and treatment of diseases of horses.
When was the Hippiatrica written?
The Hippiatrica (Greek: Ἱππιατρικά) is a Byzantine compilation of ancient Greek texts, mainly excerpts, dedicated to the care and healing of the horse. The texts were probably compiled in the 5th or 6th century AD by an unknown editor.
What is the Folio from the Hippiatrica?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Folio from the Hippiatrica with written and illustrated instructions on drenching a horse to induce diarrhea. The Hippiatrica (Greek: Ἱππιατρικά) is a Byzantine compilation of ancient Greek texts, mainly excerpts, dedicated to the care and healing of the horse.
When did hippies start using the term hippie?
^ Use of the term "hippie" did not become widespread in the mass media until early 1967, after San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen began to use the term; See "Take a Hippie to Lunch Today", S.F. Chronicle, January 20, 1967, p. 37. San Francisco Chronicle, January 18, 1967 column, p. 27
Search Results related to hippiatric definition 1992 on Search Engine
What does Hippiatric mean? - definitions
https://www.definitions.net/definition/Hippiatric
Hippiatric. hip-i-at′rik, adj. relating to the treatment of the diseases of horses.— n.pl. Hippiat′rics .— ns. Hippiat′rist; Hippiat′ry .— adj. Hipp′ic, relating to horses.
HIPPIATRIC English Definition and Meaning | Lexico.com
lexico.com
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hippiatric
Definition of hippiatric in English: hippiatric Pronunciation /ˌhɪpɪˈatrɪk/ adjective historical Of, relating to, or concerning the medical treatment of horses. noun historical A person who …
Hippiatric definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
collinsdictionary.com
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hippiatric
Hippiatric definition: relating or belonging to the treatment of disease in horses | Meaning, pronunciation, translations and examples
Hippie - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie
A hippie, also spelled hippy, especially in UK English, was a member of the counterculture of the 1960s, originally a youth movement that began in the United States during the mid-1960s and spread to other countries around the world. The word hippie came from hipster and was used to describe beatniks who moved into New York City's Greenwich Village, San Francisco's Haight …
Hippiatrics - definition of hippiatrics by The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hippiatrics
Define hippiatrics. hippiatrics synonyms, hippiatrics pronunciation, hippiatrics translation, English dictionary definition of hippiatrics. 1. the study and treatment of diseases of horses. 2. a work on the diseases of horses. Also hippiatry . — hippiatrist , n. — hippia-tric , adj.
HIPPIATRICAL | Meaning & Definition for UK English
https://www.lexico.com/definition/hippiatrical
UK English definition of HIPPIATRICAL along with additional meanings, example sentences, and ways to say.
hippiatry - Wiktionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hippiatry
Noun hippiatry ( uncountable ) The branch of veterinary medicine dealing with horses. Related terms hippiater hippiatric hippiatrics hippiatrist Categories: English words prefixed with …
Hippiatrist definition and meaning | Collins English
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hippiatrist
hippiatrist in British English. (hɪˈpaɪətrɪst) noun. someone who treats the diseases of horses. Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippiatrica


text:
<!DOCTYPE html>

    <meta charset="utf-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<meta name="description" content="">
<meta name="author" content="">

<title>

    Sticky footer template · Timmerbedrijf Van Ankeren

</title>

<link href="/assets/css/bootstrap.css" rel="stylesheet">

<link href='http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Raleway:400,900,800,700,600,500,300,200,100' rel='stylesheet' type='text/css'>

<link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" sizes="144x144" href="/assets/ico/apple-touch-icon-144-precomposed.png">
<link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" sizes="114x114" href="/assets/ico/apple-touch-icon-114-precomposed.png">
  <link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" sizes="72x72" href="/assets/ico/apple-touch-icon-72-precomposed.png">
                <link rel="apple-touch-icon-precomposed" href="/assets/ico/apple-touch-icon-57-precomposed.png">
                               <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/assets/ico/favicon.png">

Sticky footer

Pin a fixed-height footer to the bottom of the viewport in desktop browsers with this custom HTML and CSS.

Use the sticky footer with a fixed navbar if need be, too.

Example courtesy Martin Bean and Ryan Fait.