↓ Skip to main content

Multiple-choice tests stabilize access to marginal knowledge

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Multiple-choice tests stabilize access to marginal knowledge
Published in
Memory & Cognition, September 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13421-014-0462-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allison D. Cantor, Andrea N. Eslick, Elizabeth J. Marsh, Robert A. Bjork, Elizabeth Ligon Bjork

Abstract

Marginal knowledge refers to knowledge that is stored in memory, but is not accessible at a given moment. For example, one might struggle to remember who wrote The Call of the Wild, even if that knowledge is stored in memory. Knowing how best to stabilize access to marginal knowledge is important, given that new learning often requires accessing and building on prior knowledge. While even a single opportunity to restudy marginal knowledge boosts its later accessibility (Berger, Hall, & Bahrick, 1999), in many situations explicit relearning opportunities are not available. Our question is whether multiple-choice tests (which by definition expose the learner to the correct answers) can also serve this function and, if so, how testing compares to restudying given that tests can be particularly powerful learning devices (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). In four experiments, we found that multiple-choice testing had the power to stabilize access to marginal knowledge, and to do so for at least up to a week. Importantly, such tests did not need to be paired with feedback, although testing was no more powerful than studying. Overall, the results support the idea that one's knowledge base is unstable, with individual pieces of information coming in and out of reach. The present findings have implications for a key educational challenge: ensuring that students have continuing access to information they have learned.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Spain 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 68 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 25%
Social Sciences 10 14%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,059,430
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#143
of 1,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,057
of 238,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,567 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,632 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.