Claim	Basis
C0	Meta: practice testing beats restudy/rereading, also on transfer outcomes; C0 ledger 2026-09-08 (survived).
K06 (candidate)	Note carries the bank kill sentence behind K06 (group K06); no change in review

Syntes: Adesope et al. 2017 — practice testing meta (LEARN-002)

Källa: Adesope, Trevisan & Sundararajan (2017). Rethinking the Use of Tests… Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306

Metadata

ID: LEARN-002
Tier: meta
N / design: meta-analys (118 artiklar; 272 ES; N=15 427)
Population: övergripande (klassrum g≈0,67 ≈ labb)
Subject: Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing

Finding

Övergripande g ≈ 0,61 (fixed) / 0,70 (random) för practice tests vs icke-testande villkor.
Vs restudy: g ≈ 0,51; vs filler/ingen aktivitet: g ≈ 0,93.
Format: short-answer g≈0,80; multiple-choice g≈0,70; effekt även när praktik- och slutformat skiljer sig.
Klassrum ≈ labb (g≈0,67 vs 0,62). Retention-utfall starkare än blandade retention+transfer.
Feedback hjälper men effekt även utan (g≈0,63 vs 0,60).

Mechanism

Retrieval practice (practice tests) stärker retention mer än restudy via test-enhanced learning.

Limits

Heterogenitet hög; transfer mer blygsam; många studier HE/labb trots klassrumssektion.

This claim dies if …

Meta där retrieval/spacing/interleaving förlorar mot reread/massed under ekologisk klassrumstid med delayed closed-book.

Swedish implication

Start retrieval/spacing/interleaving i planering; measure delayed closed-book, inte bara lektionstest.

Rethinking the Use of Tests: A Meta-Analysis of Practice Testing

Links to claims

Supports (2)

Source note (Swedish, verbatim from the Kunskapsbank)