Guided use of a multiple document reading application yields higher multiple document comprehension than access-only, unguided, or traditional pdf viewer use¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i3large
Currency · newest study 2021 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i3 Undergraduate students guided to use LiquidText's functions outperformed the control group on multiple document comprehension with d = 1.41. → Jordan Lombard 2021
Evidence¶
Jordan Lombard 2021¶
Jordan Lombard, Ivar Bråten, Cécile van de Leemput, Franck Amadieu. (2021). Performance and acceptance when using tablets as a multiple document learning tool: do application and guidance matter? Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09537-6
q3 · i3 · causal · r2
One-way ANOVA in a randomized between-subjects experiment with 88 undergraduates showed conditions differed on comprehension, F(3, 84) = 7.46, p < .001. The guided LiquidText condition beat each other group, including "the control condition (M = 9.38, SD = 2.34, Cohen’s d = 1.41)".
"Post-hoc comparisons using the REGWF procedure showed that participants in the LiquidText Guidance condition (M = 12.27, SD = 1.77) scored statistically significantly higher than did participants in the LiquidText Non-Guidance condition (M = 10.42, SD = 2.09, Cohen’s d = 0.96)"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Guided LiquidText users redistribute task time toward document processing and away from writing — related
- Students guided to use LiquidText show lower acceptance of tablets for multiple document work than controls despite better performance — related
- Unaided access to multiple document reading functions alone does not improve comprehension over a traditional pdf viewer — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Theory-guided five-step prompting of AI interaction improves open-ended explanation performance in construction education review, while unprompted AI access alone does not — a broader claim this one bears on
- Strategy guidance in using pause and scrollbar controls yields better immediate comprehension and higher performance efficiency than unguided learner control — related
- Strategy guidance yields better delayed recall performance and higher delayed-recall efficiency than continuous presentation — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
liquidtext-guidance-comprehension-advantage |
title |
Guided use of a multiple document reading application yields higher multiple document comprehension than access-only, unguided, or traditional pdf viewer use |
description |
Guided use of a multiple document reading application yields higher multiple document comprehension than access-only, unguided, or traditional pdf viewer use |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jordan-lombard-2021 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.