Poor readers show moderately elevated anxiety compared to typical readers (d = 0.41)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2024: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Poor readers experience greater problems with anxiety than typical readers, with a moderate pooled effect size of d = 0.41 and moderate heterogeneity. → Francis 2019

Evidence¶

Francis 2019¶

Francis, D. A.; Caruana, N.; Hudson, J. L.; McArthur, G. M. (2019). The association between poor reading and internalising problems: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2018.09.002

q3 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r3

Random-effects meta-analysis of 22 studies comparing poor reading and control groups on anxiety measures (n poor reading groups = 22, sample size = 1732). The pooled effect was "moderate, positive, and statistically significant (d= 0.41)" with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 68.39%).

"The overall effect was moderate, positive, and statistically significant (d= 0.41), 95% CI [0.26, 0.55], p ≤ 0.001, and there was also evidence for moderate heterogeneity, I 2 = 68.39%, Q (21) = 66.43, p < 0.001."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Poor readers show moderately elevated general internalising problems compared to typical readers (d = 0.41)
• Poor readers show a small but significant elevation in depression compared to typical readers (d = 0.23)
• Planned moderator subgroup analyses could not be conducted because fewer than 10 studies per subgroup were available — related
• Prior narrative reviews found poor readers at risk for internalising problems, with attention problems raising risk further — related