Correction Exam Prep

How Long-Term Memory Works and What It Means for Certification Study

Corrected by Emir Baycan · on Pass4Sure · 11 July 2026 · View published page ↗

Factually incorrectNeeds stronger evidence

What was corrected

What the page claimed

"Memory is not determined by how long you spend with material, but by how deeply you process it..." - Fergus Craik, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto | ...retained 80% of material after one week, compared to 36% for students who only restudied. | ...candidates who used chunking strategies...reported higher confidence and better practice exam scores than those who studied topics in isolation. | A 2014 study by Doug Rohrer...found that interleaved practice...improved test scores by 43% compared to blocked practice... | A training study conducted by IBM in 2019...found that engineers who used generation-based study techniques...passed AWS and Azure certification exams at a rate of 89%, compared to 67%... | "Students overwhelmingly rely on the least effective study strategies..." - John Dunlosky, Professor of Psychology, Kent State University

What was corrected

De-attributed both unverified quotes (Craik and Dunlosky) into plain prose; corrected the Roediger & Karpicke retention figures from the unverified 80%/36% to the verified-accurate 61%/40%, resolving a contradiction with the sibling article active-recall-for-certification-study.md which correctly cites 61%/40%; converted the unverified Cisco/CCNA survey claim to accurately hedged language describing only the true underlying fact (the real 2020 CCNA consolidation) without the unverified survey finding; removed the unverified Rohrer '43%' figure and reconciled the in-text date (2014) with the reference-list date (2012); converted the unverified IBM case study with unverified 89%/67% pass rates to a generic illustrative statement.

Suggested change

De-attributed both fabricated quotes; converted the Cisco case study to accurately hedged language describing the true underlying fact without the invented survey claim; removed the fabricated Rohrer percentage and reconciled the date; converted the fabricated IBM case study to a generic illustrative statement; corrected the Roediger & Karpicke figures to the verified-accurate 61%/40%, resolving the cross-article contradiction with the sibling article.

Why this is better

Fixed 6 fabrications: two posthumous/unverified attributed quotes (Craik, Dunlosky), an unverified Cisco/CCNA survey finding grafted onto a true fact, a Rohrer statistic with an internal date contradiction, an unverified IBM case study with unverified precise pass-rate figures, and a Roediger & Karpicke retention figure that contradicted the correct figures in a sibling article (verified 61%/40% via web search).

More by Emir Baycan in Exam Prep

All of Emir Baycan's contributions →