Reading for study produced a main memory advantage over reading for comprehension for target sentences¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 Overall, reading for study led to better memory for target sentences than reading for comprehension (OR = 1.32). → Moort 2022

Evidence¶

Moort 2022¶

Moort, M. L. van, Koornneef, A. W., Wilderjans, T. F., & Broek, P. W. van den. (2022). Validation processes and reading purpose: Is validation against knowledge and prior text influenced by reading goal? Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(7), 1533-1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000769

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Mixed-effects logistic regression on recognition memory probability-correct scores for target sentences showed "a main effect of goal" (OR = 1.32, p = .009), indicating that participants instructed to read for study recognized target information better the next day than those reading for general comprehension.

"On memory scores (see Table 5 for descriptive statistics) we observed a main effect of goal ( b = .29, SE = .11, z = 2.60, p = .009, OR = 1.32)"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Reading for study results in slower reading than reading for general comprehension on both target and spill-over sentences — related
• Longer first-pass reading time at the final word of the target sentence was negatively associated with consistency judgement accuracy — related
• Preschool neurophysiological assessment predicts performance on phonological processing, rapid naming, sentence memory, sight word reading, spelling, and composite reading one year later — related