Abstract
North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota Delayed judgments of learning for word pairs are more accurate than immediate judgments of learning when the memory test is delayed. In the present experiment, I investigated a similar paradigm with text. Participants predicted performance on texts either immediately after reading the texts or after a delay following the reading of other texts, and tests were given either immediately or after a delay. Immediate ratings with an immediate test produced the most accurate predictions, and immediate ratings with a delayed test produced less accurate predictions. Delaying both the ratings and the test did not produce more accurate predictions than immediate predictions and a delayed test. The results for delayed judgments of learning with text were different from those with word pairs.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Begg, I., Duft, S., Lalonde, P., Melnick, R., &Sanvito, J. (1989). Memory predictions are based on ease of processing.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 610–632.
Dunlosky, J., &Nelson, T. O. (1992). Importance of the kind of cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the delayed-JOL effect.Memory & Cognition,20, 374–380.
Dunlosky, J., &Nelson, T. O. (1997). Similarity between the cue for judgments of learning (JOL) and the cue for test is not the primary determinant of JOL accuracy.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 34–49.
Ericsson, K. A., &Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory.Psychological Review,102, 211–245.
Glenberg, A. M., &Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,11, 702–718.
Glenberg, A. M., Sanocki, T., Epstein, W., &Morris, C. (1987). Enhancing calibration of comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 119–136.
Goodman, L. A., &Kruskal, W. H. (1954). Measures of association for cross classification.Journal of the American Statistical Association,49, 732–764.
Koriat, A. (1993). How do we know that we know? The accessibility model of the feeling of knowing.Psychological Review,100, 609–639.
Maki, R. H. (1995). Accuracy of metacomprehension judgments for questions of varying importance levels.American Journal of Psychology,108, 327–344.
Maki, R. H., &Serra, M. (1992). The basis of test predictions for text material.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 116–126.
Morris, C. C. (1990). Retrieval processes underlying confidence in comprehension judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 223–232.
Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling-of-knowing predictions.Psychological Bulletin,95, 109–133.
Nelson, T. O. (1996). Consciousness and metacognition.American Psychologist,51, 102–116.
Nelson, T. O., &Dunlosky, J. (1991). When people’s judgments of learning (JOLs) are extremely accurate at predicting subsequent recall: The “delayed-JOL effect.”Psychological Science,2, 267–270.
Schneider, W. (1988).Micro Experimental Laboratory (MEL) [Computer program]. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
Spargo, E. (1989).Timed readings (3rd ed.). Providence, RI: Jamestown Publishers.
Weaver, C. A., III (1990). Constraining factors in calibration of comprehension.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,16, 214–222.
Weaver, C. A., III, &Bryant, D. S. (1995). Monitoring of comprehension: The role of text difficulty in metamemory for narrative and expository text.Memory & Cognition,23, 12–22.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
—Accepted by previous editor, Geoffrey R. Loftus
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Maki, R.H. Predicting performance on text: Delayed versus immediate predictions and tests. Mem Cogn 26, 959–964 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201176
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03201176