MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402347944 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000005856

The Effect of Spaced Repetition on Learning and Knowledge Transfer in a Large Cohort of Practicing Physicians

2024· article· en· W4402347944 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David W. Price, Ting Wang, Thomas R. O’Neill, Zachary J. Morgan, Prasad Chodavarapu, Andrew Bazemore, Lars E. Peterson, Warren P. Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepetition (rhetorical device)Quarter (Canadian coin)MedicineCohortPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Spaced repetition is superior to repeated study for learning and knowledge retention, but literature on the effect of different spaced repetition strategies is lacking. The authors evaluated the effects of different spaced repetition strategies on long-term knowledge retention and transfer. METHOD: This prospective cohort study, conducted from October 1, 2020, to July 20, 2023, used the American Board of Family Medicine Continuous Knowledge Self-Assessment (CKSA) to assess learning and knowledge transfer of diplomates and residents. Participants were randomized to a control group or 1 of 5 spaced repetition conditions during 5 calendar quarters (January 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022). Participants in the spaced repetition groups received 6 repeated questions once or twice. Incorrectly but confidently answered questions were prioritized for repetition, with decreasing priority for questions answered incorrectly with lesser confidence. All participants received 6 rewritten questions corresponding to their initial questions chosen for repetition in quarter 10 (second quarter of calendar year 2023). RESULTS: A total of 26,258 family physicians or residents who completed the CKSA in the baseline period were randomized. Spaced repetition was superior to no spaced repetition for learning at quarter 6 (58.03% vs 43.20%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.62) and knowledge transfer at quarter 10 (58.33% vs 52.39%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.26). Double-spaced repetitions were superior to single-spaced repetitions for learning (62.24% vs 51.83%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.43) and transfer (60.08% vs 55.72%, P < .001, Cohen d = 0.20). There were no meaningful differences in learning or transfer between repetition strategy chosen in the single- or double-repetition groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study affirms the value of spaced repetition in improving learning and retention in medical education and ongoing professional development.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.409 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207