The Effects of Retrieval Practice Across Levels of Thinking and Retention Interval on Reading Comprehension

The present study examined the effect of different types of retrieval practice on reading comprehension across levels of thinking and retention interval in a classroom setting. One hundred undergraduates divided into two retention interval groups (short- and long-retention interval) were asked to read a passage on a topic in Cognitive Psychology and were then required to engage in a retrieval practice learning strategy using the two types of question format (production test and recognition test) and different levels of thinking (lower-order thinking and higher-order thinking). A three-way mixed ANOVA statistical test was used to analyse the data and found no significant differences in reading comprehension across the different types of retrieval practice, suggesting that the performance when using the recognition test is equivalent to when using the production test. The difference in reading comprehension between the different types of retention interval also was not observed, indicating that students in the short-retention interval group retained just as much information as those in the long-retention interval group. Additionally, the present study observed a significant difference in students’ reading comprehension between different levels of thinking, signifying that the students’ performance for the lower-level thinking questions was better than that for the higher-level thinking questions. The present finding contributed to the existing body of knowledge in which it suggested that the performance in reading comprehension when using a recognition test, particularly a well-constructed one, with competitive alternatives was equivalent to when using a production test. Keywords: Levels of thinking, Question format, Reading comprehension, Retention interval, Retrieval practice

Mastering your fellowship

The series, ‘Mastering your Fellowship’, provides examples of the question format encountered in the written and clinical examinations, Part A of the FCFP (SA) (Fellowship of the College of Family Physicians [SA]) examination. The series is aimed at helping family medicine registrars (and their supervisors) prepare for this examination. Model answers are available online.

Mastering your fellowship

The series, ‘Mastering your Fellowship’, provides examples of the question format encountered in the written and clinical examinations, Part A of the Family Physicians of South Africa (FCFP SA) examination. The series is aimed at helping Family Medicine registrars prepare for this examination. Model answers are available online.

Comparing the Rate-All-That-Apply and Rate-All-Statements Question Formats across Five Countries

Rate All That Apply (RATA) is a derivative of the popularly used Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) question format. For RATA, consumers select all terms or statements that apply from a given list and then continue to rate those selected based on how much they apply. With Rate All Statements (RATING), a widely used standard format for testing, consumers are asked to rate all terms or statements according to how much they apply. Little is known of how the RATA and RATING question formats compare in terms of aspects such as attribute discrimination and sample differentiation. An online survey using either a RATA or RATING question format was conducted in five countries (Brazil, China, India, Spain, and the USA). Each respondent was randomly assigned one of the two question formats (n = 200 per country per format). Motivations for eating items that belong to five food groups (starch-rich, protein-rich, dairy, fruits and vegetables, and desserts) were assessed. More “apply” responses were found for all eating motivation constructs within RATING data than RATA data. Additionally, the standard indices showed that RATING discriminated more among motivations than RATA. Further, the RATING question format showed better discrimination ability among samples for all motivation constructs than RATA within all five countries. Generally, mean scores for motivations were higher when RATA was used, suggesting that consumers who might choose low numbers in the RATING method decide not to check the term in RATA. More investigation into the validity of RATA and RATING data is needed before use of either question format over the other can be recommended.

Best of Five MCQS for the European Specialty Examination in Gastroenterology and Hepatology

This question book is designed to assist in preparations for the European Specialty Examination in Gastroenterology and Hepatology (ESEGH). Completing this examination demonstrates that sufficient knowledge has been acquired to fulfil the requirements of a specialist in gastroenterology and hepatology, according to a curriculum agreed upon across Europe. This preparation book adopts the same ‘Best of Five’ question format used in the ESEGH. Furthermore, it covers the breadth of the curriculum, and its composition has been designed to exactly match the relative proportion of questions on each topic area found in the examination. Each of the 300 questions contained in the book is accompanied by an answer, a set of succinct bullet points of key ‘take-home’ messages and a short summary of the relevant background, evidence base, and up-to-date European guidelines. The book ends with a chapter of 50 questions designed to act as a mock examination for use in the final stages of preparation.

Mastering your fellowship

The series, ‘Mastering your Fellowship’, provides examples of the question format encountered in the written and clinical examinations, Part A of the Fellowship of the College of Family Physicians, South Africa (FCFP [SA]) examination. The series is aimed at helping family medicine registrars prepare for this examination. Model answers are available online.

Comparing Four Question Formats in Five Languages for On-Line Consumer Surveys

Question formats are critical to the collection of consumer health attitudes, food product characterizations, and perceptions. The information from those surveys provides important insights in the product development process. Four formats based on the same concept have been used for prior studies: Check-All-That-Apply (CATA), Check-All-Statements (CAS), Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA), and Rate-All-Statements (RAS). Data can vary depending on what question format is used in the research, and this can affect the interpretation of the findings and subsequent decisions. This survey protocol compares the four question formats. Using a modified version of the Eating Motivation Survey (EMS) to test consumer eating motivations for five food items, each question format was translated and randomly assigned to respondents (N = 200 per country per format) from Brazil (Portuguese), China (Mandarin Chinese), India (Hindi or English), Spain (Spanish), and the USA (English). The results of this survey should provide more understanding of the differences and similarities in distribution of data for the four scale formats. Also, the translations and findings of this survey can guide marketers, sensory scientists, product developers, dieticians, and nutritionists when designing future consumer studies that will use these question formats.