Continuous Norming Approaches: A Systematic Review and Real Data Example.

Norming of psychological tests is decisive for test score interpretation. However, conventional norming based on subgroups results either in biases or require very large samples to gather precise norms. Continuous norming methods, namely inferential, semi-parametric, and (simplified) parametric norming, propose to solve those issues. This article provides a systematic review of continuous norming. The review includes 121 publications with overall 189 studies. The main findings indicate that most studies used simplified parametric norming, not all studies considered essential distributional assumptions, and the evidence comparing different norming methods is inconclusive. In a real data example, using the standardization sample of the Need for Cognition-KIDS scale, we compared the precision of conventional, semi-parametric, and parametric norms. A hierarchy in terms of precision emerged with conventional norms being least precise, followed by semi-parametric norms, and parametric norms being most precise. We discuss these findings by comparing our findings and methods to previous studies.

Retrieval Practice Enhances New Learning but does Not Affect Performance in Subsequent Arithmetic Tasks.

The forward testing effect is an indirect benefit of retrieval practice. It refers to the finding that retrieval practice of previously studied information enhances learning and retention of subsequently studied other information in episodic memory tasks. Here, two experiments were conducted that investigated whether retrieval practice influences participants' performance in other tasks, i.e., arithmetic tasks. Participants studied three lists of words in anticipation of a final recall test. In the testing condition, participants were immediately tested on lists 1 and 2 after study of each list, whereas in the restudy condition, they restudied lists 1 and 2 after initial study. Before and after study of list 3, participants did an arithmetic task. Finally, participants were tested on list 3, list 2, and list 1. Different arithmetic tasks were used in the two experiments. Participants did a modular arithmetic task in Experiment 1a and a single-digit multiplication task in Experiment 1b. The results of both experiments showed a forward testing effect with interim testing of lists 1 and 2 enhancing list 3 recall in the list 3 recall test, but no effects of recall testing of lists 1 and 2 for participants' performance in the arithmetic tasks. The findings are discussed with respect to cognitive load theory and current theories of the forward testing effect.