Testing After Worked Example Study Does Not Enhance Delayed Problem-Solving Performance Compared to Restudy

Four experiments investigated whether the testing effect also applies to the acquisition of problem-solving skills from worked examples. Experiment 1 (n = 120) showed no beneficial effects of testing consisting of isomorphic problem solving or example recall on final test performance, which consisted of isomorphic problem solving, compared to continued study of isomorphic examples. Experiment 2 (n = 124) showed no beneficial effects of testing consisting of identical problem solving compared to restudying an identical example. Interestingly, participants who took both an immediate and a delayed final test outperformed those taking only a delayed test. This finding suggested that testing might become beneficial for retention but only after a certain level of schema acquisition has taken place through restudying several examples. However, experiment 2 had no control condition restudying examples instead of taking the immediate test. Experiment 3 (n = 129) included such a restudy condition, and there was no evidence that testing after studying four examples was more effective for final delayed test performance than restudying, regardless of whether restudied/tested problems were isomorphic or identical. Experiment 4 (n = 75) used a similar design as experiment 3 (i.e., testing/restudy after four examples), but with examples on a different topic and with a different participant population. Again, no evidence of a testing effect was found. Thus, across four experiments, with different types of initial tests, different problem-solving domains, and different participant populations, we found no evidence that testing enhanced delayed test performance compared to restudy. These findings suggest that the testing effect might not apply to acquiring problem-solving skills from worked examples

Should all hip and knee prosthetic joints be aspirated prior to revision surgery?

Aims It is essential to exclude a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) prior to revision surgery. It is recommended to routinely aspirate the joint before surgery. However, this may not be necessary in a subgroup of patients. The aim of our study was to investigate if specific clinical and implant characteristics could be identified to rule out a PJI prior to revision surgery. Methods We retrospectively evaluated clinical and implant characteristics of patients who underwent a hip or knee revision surgery between October 2015 and October 2018. Patients were diagnosed with a PJI according to the MSIS diagnostic criteria. Results A total of 156 patients were analyzed, including 107 implants that were revised because of prosthetic loosening and 49 because of mechanical failure (i.e. instability, malalignment or malpositioning). No PJI was diagnosed in the group with mechanical failure. In the prosthetic loosening group, 20 of 107 were diagnosed with a PJI (19%). Although there was a significantly lower chance of having a PJI with an implant age of > 5 years combined with a CRP < 5 mg/L, an infection was still present in 3 out of 39 cases (8%). Conclusion Implants with solely mechanical failure without signs of loosening and low inflammatory parameters probably do not require a synovial fluid aspiration. These results need to be confirmed in a larger cohort of patients. In case of prosthetic loosening, all joints need to be aspirated before surgery as no specific characteristic could be identified to rule out an infection

Testing After Worked Example Study Does Not Enhance Delayed Problem-Solving Performance Compared to Restudy

Four experiments investigated whether the testing effect also applies to the acquisition of problem-solving skills from worked examples. Experiment 1 (n = 120) showed no beneficial effects of testing consisting of isomorphic problem solving or example recall on final test performance, which consisted of isomorphic problem solving, compared to continued study of isomorphic examples. Experiment 2 (n = 124) showed no beneficial effects of testing consisting of identical problem solving compared to restudying an identical example. Interestingly, participants who took both an immediate and a delayed final test outperformed those taking only a delayed test. This finding suggested that testing might become beneficial for retention but only after a certain level of schema acquisition has taken place through restudying several examples. However, experiment 2 had no control condition restudying examples instead of taking the immediate test. Experiment 3 (n = 129) included such a restudy condition, and there was no evidence that testing after studying four examples was more effective for

Testing After Worked Example Study Does Not Enhance Delayed Problem-Solving Performance Compared to Restudy

Abstract Four experiments investigated whether the testing effect also applies to the acquisition of problem-solving skills from worked examples. Experiment 1 (n=120) showed no beneficial effects of testing consisting of isomorphic problem solving or example recall on final test performance, which consisted of isomorphic problem solving, compared to continued study of isomorphic examples. Experiment 2 (n=124) showed no beneficial effects of testing consisting of identical problem solving compared to restudying an identical example. Interestingly, participants who took both an immediate and a delayed final test outperformed those taking only a delayed test. This finding suggested that testing might become beneficial for retention but only after a certain level of schema acquisition has taken place through restudying several examples. However, experiment 2 had no control condition restudying examples instead of taking the immediate test. Experiment 3 (n=129) included such a restudy condition, and there was no evidence that testing after studying four examples was more effective for final delayed test performance than restudying, regardless of whether restudied/tested problems were isomorphic or identical. Experiment 4 (n=75) used a similar design as experiment 3 (i.e., testing/restudy after four examples), but with examples on a different topic and with a different participant population. Again, no evidence of a testing effect was found. Thus, across four experiments, with different types of initial tests, different problem-solving domains, and different participant populations, we found no evidence that testing enhanced delayed tes