Page readers tended to include more details in their summaries than Scroll readers (a marginal result, p = .056), while recall of main ideas did not differ significantly¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1997 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The article reports that readers included details in summaries more often in the Page condition, but the test was marginal (F(1, 34) = 3.907, p = 0.0562), not significant at the .05 level; the printed means (3.61 vs. 5.33) are not labelled by condition and, read in the order the sentence names the conditions, would point the other way. → Annie Piolat 1997 q3 i? The difference in main-idea grades between Page and Scroll summaries was not statistically significant. → Annie Piolat 1997 (2)

Evidence¶

Annie Piolat 1997¶

Annie Piolat, Jean-Yves Roussey and Olivier Thunin. (1997). Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1997.0145

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 1 summarizing task: judge-graded details in summaries written by no-page-break participants. The article says Page readers included details "significantly more often" than Scroll readers, but the printed test is F(1, 34) = 3.907, p = 0.0562, just above the .05 threshold, so the difference is marginal. The means printed with it (3.61 vs. 5.33) are not labelled by condition, and read in the order of the sentence they would show fewer details for Page; the discussion section repeats that the Page advantage held for details.

"they did so significantly more often in the Page condition than in the Scroll condition, which validates Prediction 6 (3.61vs. 5.33;F(1, 34) = 3.907; p = 0.0562)."

Annie Piolat 1997 (2)¶

Annie Piolat, Jean-Yves Roussey and Olivier Thunin. (1997). Effects of screen presentation on text reading and revising. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1997.0145

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment 1 summarizing task, important-ideas grades: Page 2.61 vs. Scroll 1.83, F(1, 34) = 1.865, p = 0.1811; the article reports this difference as not statistically significant.

"the mean grade for the Page summaries was higher than for the Scroll summaries. However, this difference was not statistically significant (2.61vs. 1.83;F(l, 34) = 1.865; p = 0.1811)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Readers with an entertainment goal make more evaluative comments than readers with a study goal, with no difference in affective responses — related
• Reading time did not differ between Page and Scroll, though Page readers tended to backtrack more — related
• Readers locate sentences more accurately after reading a text in page-by-page presentation than in scrolling presentation — related
• Only Page readers tended to locate boundary-zone sentences more accurately than central-zone sentences — related
• The effect of page-break response cues on locating accuracy depends on the presentation mode read: they help Page readers and hurt Scroll readers — related
• Fifth-grade history textbook excerpts largely fail to answer the frame slot questions, presenting detailed action but missing main ideas — related