In one sentence
Health-profession programs now treat trying to recall as a core study method, not just a way to grade people — but the review argues the kind of recall still has to resemble the exam you will sit, and many students still avoid it.
What the researchers did
Serra, Kaminske, Nebel, and Coppola wrote a state-of-the-art review (a chronological map of how a field changed, not a new trial). All four work as learning specialists in medical schools as well as cognitive psychologists, and they flag that lens as a bias.
They searched papers on retrieval practice, test-enhanced learning, and the testing effect in medicine, nursing, dentistry, and related programs, plus older work that used practice questions without those labels. They split the story into before 2010, 2010–2025, and what still needs work. They also looked at school websites and third-party question banks and flashcard tools — the so-called parallel curriculum.
This is a narrative synthesis. It cites meta-analyses (for example classroom testing-effect estimates around g = 0.50) and domain reviews, rather than pooling one new effect size of its own.
What they found
- Lab psychology showed a reliable medium-sized testing effect; classroom meta-analyses land in a similar range. The authors treat that as the reason health programs could adopt the method without exotic software.
- Before 2010, students already used questions, flashcards, and “pump” grilling on rounds, but guidance often framed questions as assessment or volume of items, not as the learning event.
- 2010–2025 brought named studies in medicine, nursing, dentistry, veterinary training, and licensing prep, plus reviews that mostly find positive academic effects (some fields, such as radiology in one small review, are thinner).
- Adoption was pulled by exam-heavy culture and by commercial banks and spaced-repetition apps. A recurring warning: fact flashcards and case-style multiple choice are not the same cognitive task.
- Barriers remain: familiar rereading feels safer; “resource fatigue” from too many banks; advice that counts thousands of items without saying how to review errors.
What this means for learners and educators
- Treat a practice item as encoding, not a dress rehearsal you delay until you “know it.” Starting questions before you feel ready is closer to the better guides the review praises.
- Match format to the test: if the exam is a clinical vignette, a diet of isolated fact cards may under-prepare even if you are “doing retrieval.”
- Faculty can lower the social cost of recall with low-stakes quizzes and feedback. The review is not an endorsement of humiliating rapid-fire questioning on rounds; that tradition looks like retrieval but lacks clean outcome trials and carries harm.
Limitations and what we don't know yet
A state-of-the-art review is selective and chronological, not a registered meta-analysis of every health-education trial. Author roles in medical-school advising shape what counts as a “gap.” Effect sizes come from cited syntheses, not from this paper’s own pool. We still lack strong trials on the worst classroom questioning practices, and on how to fix the fluency illusion that keeps students rereading. Licensing exams and local courses differ; transfer is not automatic.
FAQ
Is doing thousands of bank questions enough?
Volume without feedback and review of misses is what the authors criticise. Retrieval helps when you actually reconstruct an answer and then study the gap.
Do flashcards replace practice vignettes?
Not if the exam requires applied case reasoning. The review stresses transfer-appropriate processing: practice the kind of thinking the test will demand.
Why did health schools pick this method up so quickly?
Heavy licensing tests, motivated students, and tools that already looked like retrieval — plus a medium-sized effect that is relatively easy to demonstrate.