↓ Skip to main content

Learning psychological research and statistical concepts using retrieval-based practice

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Learning psychological research and statistical concepts using retrieval-based practice
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01484
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Wee Hun Lim, Gavin Jun Peng Ng, Gabriel Qi Hao Wong

Abstract

Research methods and statistics are an indispensable subject in the undergraduate psychology curriculum, but there are challenges associated with engaging students in it, such as making learning durable. Here we hypothesized that retrieval-based learning promotes long-term retention of statistical knowledge in psychology. Participants either studied the educational material in four consecutive periods, or studied it just once and practiced retrieving the information in the subsequent three periods, and then took a final test through which their learning was assessed. Whereas repeated studying yielded better test performance when the final test was immediately administered, repeated practice yielded better performance when the test was administered a week after. The data suggest that retrieval practice enhanced the learning-produced better long-term retention-of statistical knowledge in psychology than did repeated studying.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Singapore 1 3%
Unknown 32 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 50%
Computer Science 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 October 2015.
All research outputs
#14,698,802
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,900
of 29,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,348
of 277,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#324
of 532 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 277,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 532 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.