Leisure digital reading habits show a small positive association with reading comprehension (r = .055), much smaller than for print reading habits¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Across 39 effect sizes from 26 studies, the overall association between leisure digital reading habits and reading comprehension is small, positive, and statistically significant (r = .055). → Altamura 2023 q2 i? The association is far smaller than the medium-to-strong associations reported for print reading habits in prior meta-analytic work. → Altamura 2023

Evidence¶

Altamura 2023¶

Altamura, L., Vargas, C., & Salmerón, L. (2023). Do New Forms of Reading Pay Off? A Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Leisure Digital Reading Habits and Text Comprehension. Review of Educational Research, 95(1), 53–88. doi:10.3102/00346543231216463

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Three-level random-effects meta-analysis of 39 effect sizes from 26 studies (469,564 participants), excluding one influential outlier. The pooled correlation was "significant and positive, although the effect was rather small (r = .055)" with a 95% CI of .003 to .107. Heterogeneity was very large (Q(38) = 2591.93, p < .001; I2 = 98.9).

"The overall association between leisure digital reading habits and reading comprehension was significant and positive, although the effect was rather small (r = .055; 95% CI: .003, .107; p = .03; k = 39, n = 25)."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Educational stage significantly moderates the digital reading-comprehension association: negative at primary and middle school, positive at high school and university — related
• Data collection year does not significantly predict the digital reading-comprehension association, though it becomes significant when an outlier is included — related
• No evidence of publication bias, and extra-large-sample studies do not differ from the rest — related