Earlier investigators found rapid readers recall as well as or better than slow readers¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 1922 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The article reports, citing Romanes, Abell, and Quantz, that rapid readers were equal or superior to slow readers in reproducing what they had read, with Quantz's rapid readers about 37% superior in quality of work. → Gilliland 1922

Evidence¶

Gilliland 1922¶

Gilliland, A. R. (1922). The effect of rate of silent reading on ability to recall. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1922-02093-001

q1 · i? · causal · r2

Narrative background attribution: the article reports Quantz's finding of about 37% superiority of rapid readers, and notes Romanes and Abell found rapid readers best at reproduction. These are second-hand citations, not studies conducted in this article.

"Quantz found that his rapid readers were on the average about 37% superior to the slow subjects in the quality of their work. The fast readers were more exact in reproduction and did not introduce so many extraneous ideas in their reports."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Rapid reading gains about 26% more ideas per second than normal reading, and slow reading about 20% fewer, in all four groups — related
• Comprehension (ideas recalled) shows very little difference across slow, normal, and rapid silent reading rates — related
• Forcing readers to skim at unusually high prescribed rates makes reproduction very poor and the process disagreeable — related