Episodic Memory
Retrieval Practice Task
Also called: testing effect task, test-enhanced learning task, retrieval practice paradigm
Measure the testing effect: how much better word pairs are remembered after a practice test than after restudy.
10-12 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 522
- Evidence grade
- B
- Registered clinical studies
- 8
What it measures
Measures the testing effect: how much better word pairs are remembered after a practice test than after restudy. Participants study 24 word pairs, restudy half and recall the other half with feedback, then recall all pairs after a short break.
Constructs
- Episodic memory
- Retrieval-based learning
- Associative memory
Research uses
- Learning and memory research
- Education and training research
- Within-study comparison of learning strategies
How the paradigm works
The retrieval practice task measures the testing effect: pairs that were tested during learning are remembered better than pairs that were studied again. Participants study 24 pairs of English nouns, 5 seconds each. In practice, each pair comes up once more: 12 pairs are shown again to restudy, and for the other 12 participants see the first word, type the second and then see the correct pair. Which 12 pairs are tested is drawn from the session's random seed and recorded, so across sessions every pair is tested equally often. After a 2 minute break of true-or-false arithmetic, participants type the second word of all 24 pairs.
More about the paradigm
The word pairs were written for this task: common nouns that are related but are not obvious partners, such as pencil and drawer. Typed answers ignore case, accents, punctuation and a leading article, and one wrong, missing, extra or swapped letter is accepted in words of 4 or more letters. No answer is timed.
The main score is the testing effect: the proportion of tested pairs recalled at the end minus the proportion of restudied pairs. Recall in each condition, overall recall and practice test accuracy are also reported. The effect is usually larger after longer delays, so the break length is a setting. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Testing Effect%
- Final recall of tested pairs minus final recall of restudied pairs.
- Positive means testing helped more than restudy
- Final Recall, Tested%
- Share of tested pairs recalled in the final test.
- Higher is better
- Final Recall, Restudied%
- Share of restudied pairs recalled in the final test.
- Higher is better
- Final Recall%
- Share of all 24 pairs recalled in the final test.
- Higher is better
- Practice Test Accuracy%
- Share of practice tests answered correctly before feedback.
- Higher is better
- Pairs Recalledcount
- Pairs recalled in the final test.
- Higher is better
- Typo Matchescount
- Final answers accepted with one wrong, missing, extra or swapped letter.
- Context for recall scores
- Blank Answerscount
- Final answers left blank.
- Context for recall scores
- Break Accuracy%
- Share of true-or-false arithmetic answered correctly during the break.
- Shows the break task was done
Use and evidence
522 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 6% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 47 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 131 |
| 2024 | 92 |
| 2023 | 105 |
| 2022 | 98 |
| 2021 | 96 |
| 2020 | 99 |
| 2019 | 116 |
| 2018 | 127 |
| 2017 | 107 |
| 2016 | 107 |
| 2015 | 107 |
| 2014 | 99 |
| 2013 | 85 |
| 2012 | 78 |
| 2011 | 68 |
| 2010 | 50 |
| 2009 | 49 |
| 2008 | 51 |
| 2007 | 29 |
| 2006 | 25 |
| 2005 | 19 |
| 2004 | 12 |
| 2003 | 22 |
| 2002 | 13 |
| 2001 | 12 |
| 2000 | 17 |
Use grade B
300 to 999 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade B
At least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 23
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 135
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 8
Note on the counts: includes education papers.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Pairs
- 24 pairs of common English nouns, each shown for 5 seconds (standard; 3 to 10), in an order drawn from the session's seed.
- Practice
- 12 pairs shown again to restudy and 12 tested by typed cued recall, each test followed by the correct pair for 3,000 ms. Which set is tested is drawn from the session's seed, with no more than 3 restudy or test trials in a row.
- Break
- 120 seconds (standard; 60 to 600) of true-or-false arithmetic.
- Final test
- Typed cued recall of all 24 pairs, without feedback or a time limit.
- Answers
- Case, accents, punctuation and a leading article are ignored, and one wrong, missing, extra or swapped letter is accepted in words of 4 or more letters.
The word pairs were written for this task; no published word list is used. The pairs are English.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: testing_effect_final_test from the scored run, one typed answer per pair. Typed answers have no chance level, so accuracy is not judged against chance, and answers are untimed, so none can be missed. Typed answers under 200 ms on at least half of 4 or more answered pairs invalidate. Recalling no pairs, the same answer for 90% of at least 12 answers, no arithmetic answered during the break, or break arithmetic at or below chance over at least 10 answers is flagged for review. A session run in another language is flagged. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Recalling nothing can be a real result, so it is flagged rather than invalidated, as for verbal learning. One word typed for nearly every cue cannot recall 24 different pairs, but it can be a placeholder typed for forgotten pairs, so it is flagged. The break keeps participants from rehearsing the pairs; no arithmetic answered, or true-or-false answers at or below chance, means the break may not have been used for the arithmetic. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. The word lists are English. A session run in another language shows English words to a participant who may not read English fluently, so it is flagged for review. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Study time per pair (seconds) | 5 | 3 to 10 |
| Break before the final test (seconds) | 120 | 60 to 600 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Instructions and screens: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. Words and sentences: English.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Retrieval Practice Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Roediger & Karpicke, 2006), with the standard settings (study time per pair (seconds): 5; break before the final test (seconds): 120). The main score was testing effect (final recall of tested pairs minus final recall of restudied pairs).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249-255. 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(6), 1432-1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
- 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(6), 1563-1569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017021
Source papers
- Roediger HL, Karpicke JD (2006). Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3):249-255.Paradigm source, Young adults
- Rowland CA (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: a meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6):1432-1463.Paradigm source, Mixed
- Carpenter SK (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: the benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6):1563-1569.Paradigm source, Young adults
Questions
How long does the Retrieval Practice Task take?
About 10 to 12 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Testing Effect, Final Recall, Tested, Final Recall, Restudied, Final Recall, Practice Test Accuracy, Pairs Recalled, Typo Matches, Blank Answers and Break Accuracy. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Retrieval Practice Task used in research?
522 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 6% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 47 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade B). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Retrieval Practice Task have?
In the published research, 23 papers report its test-retest reliability and 8 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade B in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Study time per pair (seconds) (3 to 10) and break before the final test (seconds) (60 to 600). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
The instructions and screens are in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. The words and sentences stay in English, so sessions in other languages are flagged for review. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.