Do individual differences in working memory capacity, episodic memory ability, or fluid intelligence moderate the pretesting effect
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 14810674 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Steven C Pan (0000-0001-9080-5651, National University of Singapore, corresponding author), Liwen Yu (0000-0003-2414-0836, National University of Singapore), Mary Siew-Lian Wong (0009-0002-6802-5960, National University of Singapore), Ganeash Selvarajan (0000-0002-4768-1793, National University of Singapore), Andy Z J Teo (0009-0009-3842-1031, National University of Singapore) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 142 |
| Pages | 104608 |
| Publication date | 2025-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Memory and Language (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0749-596X • E-ISSN: 1096-0821 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jml.2025.104608 |
| OpenAlex | W4406241353 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 67 |
Higher gF was associated with smaller pretesting effects among college students. • Higher WMC was associated with smaller pretesting effects in online participants. • Pretesting can be more beneficial for persons with lower cognitive ability scores. The pretesting effect refers to the finding that guessing the answers to test questions before learning the correct answers improves memory relative to studying (or reading) without prior guessing. Although the pretesting effect is robust and has been demonstrated across multiple studies, its magnitude varies across individuals. Two studies investigated whether individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC), episodic memory ability (EM), and/or fluid intelligence (gF) help explain that variation. In Study 1, lower gF scores were associated with a larger pretesting effect among undergraduate students, stemming from lower performance on read items. In Study 2, involving adult online participants, observed patterns were less consistent, but lower WMC scores were associated with larger pretesting effects, again due to lower performance on read items. Together, these patterns suggest that pretesting can homologize memory ability across individuals, although to an extent that may vary across learner populations and cognitive abilities. That conclusion and other findings are interpreted in the context of relevant individual differences research and theories related to pretesting and memory phenomena
Cognition · Cognitive psychology · Developmental psychology · Episodic memory · Fluid intelligence · Working memory · Infant Development and Preterm Care · Neuroscience · Psychology
The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention
An automated version of the operation span task
Measuring Working Memory Capacity With Automated Complex Span Tasks
The Impact of Age on Cognition
Self-Regulated Learning
Learning from Errors
Working memory span tasks
Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity?!
Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments
G*Power 3
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Unraveling the benefits of experiencing errors during learning
The pretesting effect thrives in the presence of competing information
The benefit of interleaved presentation in category learning is independent of working memory
Discrepant findings on the relation between episodic memory and retrieval practice
Interaction between the testing and forward testing effects in the case of Cued-Recall
Effects of pre-tests and feedback on performance outcomes and persistence in Massive Open Online Courses
Sample Size Requirements for Structural Equation Models
The effect of testing versus restudy on retention
At what sample size do latent variable correlations stabilize
At what sample size do correlations stabilize
Primary Mental Abilities
Individual differences in long-term memory
On the division of short-term and working memory
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |