Poor readers show moderately elevated general internalising problems 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 have significantly higher general internalising problems than typical readers, with a moderate pooled effect size of d = 0.41 and low 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 14 studies comparing poor reading and control groups on general internalising measures (n poor reading groups = 14, sample size = 1147). The pooled effect was "positive, moderate, and statistically significant (d = 0.41)" with low heterogeneity (I2 = 35.07%).

"The overall effect was positive, moderate, and statistically significant (d = 0.41), 95% CI [0.31, 0.51], p < 0.001, and low heterogeneity was also present I2 = 35.07%, Q (13) = 20.02, p > 0.05."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

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