Seroprevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Among Skilled Nursing Facility Residents and Staff Members-Los Angeles County, August-September 2020.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of current or past coronavirus disease 2019 in skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents is unknown because of asymptomatic infection and constrained testing capacity early in the pandemic. We conducted a seroprevalence survey to determine a more comprehensive prevalence of past coronavirus disease 2019 in Los Angeles County SNF residents and staff members. METHODS: We recruited participants from 24 facilities; participants were requested to submit a nasopharyngeal swab sample for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and a serum sample for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. All participants were cross-referenced with our surveillance database to identify persons with prior positive SARS-CoV-2 results. RESULTS: From 18 August to 24 September 2020, we enrolled 3305 participants (1340 residents and 1965 staff members). Among 856 residents providing serum samples, 362 (42%) had current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 346 serology-positive residents, 199 (58%) did not have a documented prior positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. Among 1806 staff members providing serum, 454 (25%) had current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 447 serology-positive staff members, 353 (79%) did not have a documented prior positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result. CONCLUSIONS: Past testing practices and policies missed a substantial number of SARS-CoV-2 infections in SNF residents and staff members.

Why does interleaving improve math learning? The contributions of discriminative contrast and distributed practice.

Interleaved practice involves studying exemplars from different categories in a non-systematic, pseudorandom order under the constraint that no two exemplars from the same category are presented consecutively. Interleaved practice of materials has been shown to enhance test performance compared to blocked practice in which exemplars from the same category are studied together. Why does interleaved practice produce this benefit? We evaluated two non-mutually exclusive hypotheses, the discriminative-contrast hypothesis and the distributed-practice hypothesis, by testing participants' performance on calculating the volume of three-dimensional geometric shapes. In Experiment 1, participants repeatedly practiced calculating the volume of four different-sized shapes according to blocked practice, interleaved practice, or remote-interleaved practice (which involved alternating the practice of volume calculation with non-volume problems, like permutations and fraction addition). Standard interleaving enhanced performance compared to blocked practice but did not produce enhanced performance compared to remote interleaving. In Experiment 2, we replicated this pattern and extended the results to include a remote-blocked group, which involved blocking volume calculation with non-volume problems. Performance on key measures was better for remote-interleaved groups compared to remote-blocked groups, a finding that supports the distributed-practice hypothesis.

Note-taking habits of 21st Century college students: implications for student learning, memory, and achievement.

Students rely on their notes to memorise and learn critical course content, and recent studies of note-taking state that most students take notes, citing a survey published in 1974. Over the past four decades, classrooms and note-taking technologies have evolved: students can take notes on electronic devices, and some classes are entirely online. Despite these changes, few studies have investigated their impact on note-taking habits. Given that note-taking is critical for student learning, the purpose of the present study was to update the literature on students' general note-taking behaviour and investigate the impact of these newer technological advances on note-taking. We surveyed 577 college students, using questions from prior surveys and new questions relevant to technology. As per prior studies, students still reported taking notes in classrooms, and as important, students reported flexibility in their note-taking by (a) using a notebook or a laptop depending on course demands and (b) often deciding not to take notes in online courses. Thus, students are flexible in their note-taking behaviour, but may not always make the best decisions about how and when to take notes.

Do complex span and content-embedded working memory tasks predict unique variance in inductive reasoning?

Complex span and content-embedded tasks are two kinds of tasks that are designed to measure maintenance and processing in the working memory system. However, a key functional difference between these task types is that complex span tasks require the maintenance of information that is not relevant to the processing task, whereas content-embedded tasks require the maintenance of task-relevant information. The purpose of the present research was to test the hypothesis that more unique variance in inductive reasoning would be explained by content-embedded tasks than by complex span tasks, given that inductive reasoning requires reasoners to maintain and manipulate task-relevant information in order to arrive to a solution. A total of 384 participants completed three complex span tasks, three content-embedded tasks, and three inductive reasoning tasks. The primary structural equation model explained 51% of the variance in inductive reasoning; 45% of the variance in inductive reasoning was uniquely predicted by the content-embedded latent factor, 6% of the variance was predicted by shared variance between the content-embedded and complex span latent factors, and less than 1% was uniquely predicted by the complex span latent factor. These outcomes provide a novel extension to the small but growing literature showing an advantage of using content-embedded rather than complex span tasks for predicting higher-level cognition.

Collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions: Efficiency costs and no learning benefits.

Students are expected to learn key-term definitions across many different grade levels and academic disciplines. Thus, investigating ways to promote understanding of key-term definitions is of critical importance for applied purposes. A recent survey showed that learners report engaging in collaborative practice testing when learning key-term definitions, with outcomes also shedding light on the way in which learners report engaging in collaborative testing in real-world contexts (Wissman & Rawson, 2016, Memory, 24, 223-239). However, no research has directly explored the effectiveness of engaging in collaborative testing under representative conditions. Accordingly, the current research evaluates the costs (with respect to efficiency) and the benefits (with respect to learning) of collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions. In three experiments (ns = 94, 74, 95), learners individually studied key-term definitions and then completed retrieval practice, which occurred either individually or collaboratively (in dyads). Two days later, all learners completed a final individual test. Results from Experiments 1-2 showed a cost (with respect to efficiency) and no benefit (with respect to learning) of engaging in collaborative testing for key-term definitions. Experiment 3 evaluated a theoretical explanation for why collaborative benefits do not emerge under representative conditions. Collectively, outcomes indicate that collaborative testing versus individual testing is less effective and less efficient when learning key-term definitions under representative conditions.

Test-potentiated learning: three independent replications, a disconfirmed hypothesis, and an unexpected boundary condition.

Arnold and McDermott [(2013). Test-potentiated learning: Distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 940-945] isolated the indirect effects of testing and concluded that encoding is enhanced to a greater extent following more versus fewer practice tests, referred to as test-potentiated learning. The current research provided further evidence for test-potentiated learning and evaluated the covert retrieval hypothesis as an alternative explanation for the observed effect. Learners initially studied foreign language word pairs and then completed either one or five practice tests before restudy occurred. Results of greatest interest concern performance on test trials following restudy for items that were not correctly recalled on the test trials that preceded restudy. Results replicate Arnold and McDermott (2013) by demonstrating that more versus fewer tests potentiate learning when trial time is limited. Results also provide strong evidence against the covert retrieval hypothesis concerning why the effect occurs (i.e., it does not reflect differential covert retrieval during pre-restudy trials). In addition, outcomes indicate that the magnitude of the test-potentiated learning effect decreases as trial length increases, revealing an unexpected boundary condition to test-potentiated learning.

Does mediator use contribute to the spacing effect for cued recall? Critical tests of the mediator hypothesis.

When study is spaced across sessions (versus massed within a single session), final performance is greater after spacing. This spacing effect may have multiple causes, and according to the mediator hypothesis, part of the effect can be explained by the use of mediator-based strategies. This hypothesis proposes that when study is spaced across sessions, rather than massed within a session, more mediators will be generated that are longer lasting and hence more mediators will be available to support criterion recall. In two experiments, participants were randomly assigned to study paired associates using either a spaced or massed schedule. They reported strategy use for each item during study trials and during the final test. Consistent with the mediator hypothesis, participants who had spaced (as compared to massed) practice reported using more mediators on the final test. This use of effective mediators also statistically accounted for some - but not all of - the spacing effect on final performance.

The what, how much, and when of study strategies: comparing intended versus actual study behaviour.

The study behaviours of students can be assessed from several perspectives, such as what study strategies are used, the total number of hours of study, and the distribution of studying over time. Here, we present the results of a survey study that considered each of these perspectives by asking students to report the what, how much, and when of their study behaviours over the course of a semester. As important, to better understand students' use of study strategies, we also had students report at the beginning of the semester how they intended to study and their beliefs about the effectiveness of a variety of common strategies. Our results indicate that during the semester, students rely on relatively ineffective strategies and mass their studying the day or two before an exam. However, students intended to begin studying earlier and to use a mix of effective and ineffective study habits. Despite their use of some ineffective strategies, they did have a relatively accurate assessment of which strategies were less versus more effective. Taken together, our results suggest that students have some excellent intentions but may falter because massing study the evening before an exam limits their use of more effective study strategies.

Do reading and spelling share a lexicon?

In the reading and spelling literature, an ongoing debate concerns whether reading and spelling share a single orthographic lexicon or rely upon independent lexica. Available evidence tends to support a single lexicon account over an independent lexica account, but evidence is mixed and open to alternative explanation. In the current work, we propose another, largely ignored account--separate-but-shared lexica--according to which reading and spelling have separate orthographic lexica, but information can be shared between them. We report three experiments designed to competitively evaluate these three theoretical accounts. In each experiment, participants learned new words via reading training and/or spelling training. The key manipulation concerned the amount of reading versus spelling practice a given item received. Following training, we assessed both response time and accuracy on final outcome measures of reading and spelling. According to the independent lexica account, final performance in one modality will not be influenced by the level of practice in the other modality. According to the single lexicon account, final performance will depend on the overall amount of practice regardless of modality. According to the separate-but-shared account, final performance will be influenced by the level of practice in both modalities but will benefit more from same-modality practice. Results support the separate-but-shared account, indicating that reading and spelling rely upon separate lexica, but information can be shared between them.

Effects of successive relearning on recall: Does relearning override the effects of initial learning criterion?

Retrieval practice improves memory for many kinds of materials, and numerous factors moderate the benefits of retrieval practice, including the amount of successful retrieval practice (referred to as the learning criterion). In general, the benefits of retrieval practice are greater with more than with less successful retrieval practice; however, learning items to a higher (vs. lower) criterion requires more time and effort. If students plan on relearning material in a subsequent study session, does the benefit of learning to a higher criterion during an initial session persist? In Session 1, participants studied and successfully recalled Swahili-English word pairs one, two, three, four, five, six, or seven times. In subsequent sessions, all of the pairs were relearned to a criterion of one correct recall at one-week intervals across four or five successive relearning sessions. Experiments 1 and 2 revealed that the substantial benefits of learning to a higher initial criterion during the first session do not persist across relearning sessions. This relearning-override effect was also demonstrated in Experiment 2 after a one-month retention interval. The implications of relearning-override effects are important for theory and for education. For theories of test-enhanced learning, they support the predictions of one theory and appear inconsistent with the predictions of another. For education, if relearning is to occur, using extra time to learn to a higher initial learning criterion is not efficient. Instead, students should devote their time to subsequent spaced relearning sessions, which produce substantial gains in recall performance.

How do students implement collaborative testing in real-world contexts?

Recent research has explored the effects of collaborative testing, showing costs and benefits during learning and for subsequent memory. However, no prior research is informative about whether and how students use collaborative testing in real-world contexts. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the current research was to explore the extent to which students use collaborative testing during self-regulated learning. We conducted three surveys (n = 692 across three samples) asking students about their use of collaborative testing, with a particular interest in conditions under which students report implementing collaborative testing. Among the key outcomes, a majority of students reported using collaborative testing when studying in a group. Additionally, students reported that key term definitions are the material most often used during collaborative testing. Students are also more motivated to use testing and believe testing is more effective and more fun when implemented in a group versus alone. Outcomes also shed light on metacognitive components of collaborative testing, with the student asking (versus answering) the question making the monitoring judgement whereas both students make the control decision about when to terminate practice. We discuss ways in which the collaborative memory literature can be extended to support more successful student learning.

Does the benefit of testing depend on lag, and if so, why? Evaluating the elaborative retrieval hypothesis.

Despite the voluminous literatures on testing effects and lag effects, surprisingly few studies have examined whether testing and lag effects interact, and no prior research has directly investigated why this might be the case. To this end, in the present research we evaluated the elaborative retrieval hypothesis (ERH) as a possible explanation for why testing effects depend on lag. Elaborative retrieval involves the activation of cue-related information during the long-term memory search for the target. If the target is successfully retrieved, this additional information is encoded with the cue-target pair to yield a more elaborated memory trace that enhances target access on a later memory test. The ERH states that the degree of elaborative retrieval during practice is greater when testing takes place after a long rather than a short lag (whereas elaborative retrieval during restudy is minimal at either lag). Across two experiments, final-test performance was greater following practice testing than following restudy only, and this memorial advantage was greater with long-lag than with short-lag practice. The final test also included novel cue conditions used to diagnose the degree of elaborative retrieval during practice. The overall pattern of performance in these conditions provided consistent evidence for the ERH, with more extensive elaborative retrieval during long- than during short-lag practice testing.

Metacognitive monitoring during criterion learning: when and why are judgments accurate?

Research on metacognitive judgment accuracy during retrieval practice has increased in recent years. However, prior work had not systematically evaluated item-level judgment accuracy and the underlying bases of judgment accuracy in a criterion-learning paradigm (in which items are practiced until correctly recalled during encoding). Understanding these relationships during criterion learning has important theoretical implications for self-regulated learning frameworks, and also has applied implications for student learning: If the factors that influence metacognitive judgments are not predictive of subsequent test performance, students may make poor decisions during self-regulated learning. In the present experiments, participants engaged in test-restudy practice until items were recalled correctly. Once a given item reached criterion, participants made an immediate or delayed judgment of learning (JOL) for the item. A final cued-recall test occurred 30 min later. We examined judgment accuracy (the relationship between JOLs and test performance) and the underlying bases of judgment accuracy by evaluating cue utilization (the relationship between cues and JOLs) and cue diagnosticity (the relationship between cues and test performance). Immediate JOLs were only modestly related to subsequent test performance, and further analyses revealed that the cues related to JOLs were only weakly predictive of test accuracy. However, delaying JOLs improved both the accuracy of the JOLs and the diagnosticity of the cues that influenced judgments.

General knowledge norms: updated and expanded from the Nelson and Narens (1980) norms.

The Nelson and Narens (Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19:338-368, 1980) general knowledge norms have been valuable to researchers in many fields. However, much has changed over the 32 years since the 1980 norms. For example, in 1980, most people knew the answer to the question "What is the name of the Lone Ranger's Indian sidekick?" (answer: Tonto), whereas in 2012, few people know this answer. Thus, we updated the 1980 norms and expanded them by providing new measures. In particular, we report two new metacognitive measures (confidence judgments and peer judgments) and provide a detailed report of commission errors. Each of these measures will be valuable to researchers, and together they are likely to facilitate future research in a number of fields, such as research investigating memory illusions, metamemory processes, and error correction. The presence of substantial generational shifts from 1980 to 2012 necessitates the use of updated norms.

How do Students Regulate Their Use of Multiple Choice Practice Tests?

Multiple-choice practice tests are beneficial for learning, and students encounter multiple-choice questions regularly. How do students regulate their use of multiple-choice practice testing? And, how effective is students' use of multiple-choice practice testing? In the current experiments, undergraduate participants practiced German-English word pairs. Students started with an initial study trial for each pair. Then, they had the options to restudy an item, take a practice test, or remove it from further practice. For comparison to students' use of multiple-choice practice questions, we included a second self-regulated group that had access to cued-recall practice questions. Participants chose to complete multiple-choice questions until they correctly answered each item about one time during practice, similar to students' use of cued-recall questions. We also included experimenter-controlled groups in which participants completed practice tests until they reached a higher number of correct answers during practice. As compared to the experimenter-controlled groups, participants who regulated their use of multiple-choice questions scored lower on final tests but also spent less time practicing items. Thus, when considering final test performance in relation to time spent practicing, students' choices to use multiple-choice practice questions to about one correct answer per item was comparatively effective. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10648-023-09761-1.

Enhancing declarative concept application: The utility of examples as primary targets of learning.

Declarative concepts are abstract concepts denoted by key terms and short definitions that can be applied in a variety of scenarios (e.g., positive reinforcement in psychology; Rawson et al., 2015). One common learning goal for declarative concepts is to instill knowledge that students can use to support the application of content in novel scenarios. Given theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence from related literatures, one promising approach for supporting declarative concept application is learning examples. The purpose of the current research was to evaluate the utility of using examples as primary targets of learning for declarative concept application. In two experiments, participants read a textbook passage that included the definition and an example of 10 declarative concepts. Participants then learned the target material by recalling either the definition or the example of each concept. Across both experiments, declarative concept application was greater following practice focused on learning examples versus definitions. Results suggest that using this strategy may be an effective technique for supporting the application of definitions, which are foundational to many introductory courses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Are judgments of learning made after correct responses during retrieval practice sensitive to lag and criterion level effects?

Although successful retrieval practice is beneficial for memory, various factors (e.g., lag and criterion level) moderate this benefit. Accordingly, the efficacy of retrieval practice depends on how students use retrieval practice during learning, which in turn depends on accurate metacognitive monitoring. The present experiments evaluated the extent to which judgments of learning (JOLs) made after correct responses are sensitive to factors (i.e., lag and criterion level) that moderate retrieval practice effects, as well as which cues influence JOLs under these conditions. Participants completed retrieval practice for word pairs with either short or long lags between practice trials until items were correctly recalled 1, 3, 6, or 9 times. After the criterion trial for an item, participants judged the likelihood of recalling that item on the final test 1 week later. JOLs showed correct directional sensitivity to criterion level, with both final test performance and JOLs increasing as criterion level increased. However, JOLs showed incorrect directional sensitivity to lag, with greater performance but lower JOLs for longer versus shorter lags. Additionally, results indicated that retrieval fluency and metacognitive beliefs about criterion level--but not lag--influenced JOLs.

How and when do students use flashcards?

Previous survey research has documented students' use of self-regulated study strategies, with a particular interest in self-testing. These surveys indicate that students frequently use flashcards to self-test and that self-testing is primarily used as a way to monitor learning. Whereas previous surveys provide information about whether and why students self-test, they provide minimal information about how and when students choose to self-test. Accordingly, the primary purpose of the current survey was to explore how and when students engage in self-testing. We surveyed 374 undergraduates about the amount of practice and the timing of practice, two factors that strongly affect the efficacy of self-testing. Results indicate that students understand the benefits of practising to higher criterion levels (amount of practice) but do not typically implement or understand the benefits of practising with longer lags (timing of practice). We discuss practical implications for supporting more successful student learning.

Do Students Effectively Regulate Their Use of Self-Testing as a Function of Item Difficulty?

Retrieval practice is beneficial for both easy-to-learn and difficult-to-learn materials, but scant research has examined students' use of self-testing for items of varying difficulty. In two experiments, we investigated whether students differentially regulate their use of self-testing for easy and difficult items and assessed the effectiveness of students' self-regulated choices. Undergraduate participants learned normatively easy and normatively difficult Lithuanian-English word pair translations. After an initial study trial, participants in the self-regulated learning groups chose whether they wanted to restudy an item, take a practice test, or remove an item from further practice. Participants chose to test items repeatedly while learning but dropped both easy and difficult items after reaching a criterion of about one correct recall per item. Consequently, final test performance 2 days later was lower for difficult items versus easy items, and performance was lower in the self-regulated learning group than in an experimenter-controlled comparison group (in Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, we tested hypotheses for why participants reached a similar number of correct recalls for both easy and difficult items. Three new groups included different scaffolds aimed at minimizing potential barriers to effective regulation. These scaffolds did not change participants' learning choices, and as a result, performance on difficult items was still lower than on easy items. Importantly, participants planned to continue practicing items beyond one correct recall and believed that an optimal student should practice difficult items more than easy items, but they did not execute this plan during the learning task.

An examination of retrieval practice and production training in the treatment of lexical-semantic comprehension deficits in aphasia.

OBJECTIVE: Little research has addressed the treatment of lexical-semantic comprehension deficits (i.e., difficulty retrieving the meanings of words) in people with aphasia (PWA). Research suggests that practice retrieving names for depicted objects from long-term memory (production-based retrieval practice) more strongly benefits word retrieval for production in PWA compared to errorless learning (i.e., word repetition), which eschews retrieval practice. This study assessed whether production-based and comprehension-based retrieval practice enhance performance on errorful word-comprehension items in PWA measured relative to nonretrieval forms of training and untrained control items. METHOD: In a within-participant group study of PWA, errorful comprehension items were assigned to (a) a production-based training module (retrieval practice vs. errorless learning); (b) a comprehension-based training module (a receptive form of retrieval practice vs. restudy). Each module comprised one training session and a 1-day and 1-week comprehension posttest on the module's trained items and an untrained item set. RESULTS: The comprehension module conditions produced similar and superior posttest performance relative to untrained items. Both production module conditions improved posttest performance relative to untrained items, with retrieval practice conferring more durable learning and generalization indicative of refinement of semantic representations compared to errorless learning. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest comprehension- and production-based forms of training are both beneficial for improving lexical-semantic deficits in aphasia, with production-based retrieval practice conferring additional benefits to the targeted deficit compared to errorless learning. Future studies should examine these learning factors in schedules of training more commensurate with clinical practice and in other neurological populations (e.g., semantic dementia). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).