Reading comprehension is slightly worse on handheld devices than in print in between-participants studies (g = -.113)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Across primary studies using between-participants designs, comprehension is significantly lower when reading on handheld devices than in print, with a small pooled effect (k = 38, g = -.113). → Salmerón 2023

Evidence¶

Salmerón 2023¶

Salmerón, L., Altamura, L., Delgado, P., Karagiorgi, A., & Vargas, C. (2023). Reading comprehension on handheld devices vs. on paper: A narrative review and meta-analysis of the medium effect and its moderators. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000830

q3 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r?

Multilevel random-effects meta-analysis of between-participants comparisons of handheld-device versus print reading, pooling k = 38 effect sizes with Hedges' g. The synthesis showed "a significant small size effect favoring print text comprehension" (g = -.113).

"Results from the two multilevel random-effect meta-analyses, which included primary studies that used either between-participants (k = 38, g = -.113) or within-participants (k = 21, g = -.103) designs consistently showed a significant small size effect favoring print text comprehension."

Salmerón 2023 (2)¶

Salmerón, L., Altamura, L., Delgado, P., Karagiorgi, A., & Vargas, C. (2023). Reading comprehension on handheld devices vs. on paper: A narrative review and meta-analysis of the medium effect and its moderators. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000830

q3 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r2

A second multilevel random-effects meta-analysis of within-participants comparisons (k = 21 effect sizes, 1,379 participants) using the standardized mean change index dc also showed "a significant small size effect favoring print text comprehension" (g = -.103).

"Results from the two multilevel random-effect meta-analyses, which included primary studies that used either between-participants (k = 38, g = -.113) or within-participants (k = 21, g = -.103) designs consistently showed a significant small size effect favoring print text comprehension."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The screen inferiority effect on handheld devices is larger for undergraduate students and for participants assessed individually — related
• Prior meta-analyses found the screen inferiority effect did not differ as a function of digital device type — related
• Reading text and presenting graphics on handheld screens are more difficult than on paper, and interactivity may be compromised — related