Readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens. Readers had better calibrated (more accurate) judgement of their performance from paper compared to screens ( g = .20). This lack of transparency in the methods can cast doubt on the validity of the review findings. No reliable differences were found for reading time ( g = .08). Advertisement In systematic reviews that lack data amenable to meta-analysis, alternative synthesis methods are commonly used, but these methods are rarely reported. The findings were similar when analysing literal and inferential reading performance separately ( g = −.33 and g = −.26, respectively). Based on moderator analyses, this may have been limited to expository texts ( g = −.32) as there was no difference with narrative texts ( g = −.04). Resultsīased on random effects models, reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper ( g = −.25). Twenty-nine reports with 33 identified studies met inclusion criteria experimentally comparing reading performance ( k = 33 n = 2,799), reading time ( k = 14 n = 1,233) and/or calibration ( k = 11 n = 698) from paper and screens. Only studies that were experiments with random assignment and with participants who had fundamental reading skills and disseminated between 20 were included. reviews provide authors greater freedom to interpret and integrate study results and conclusions compared with systematic reviews but still allow the reader. Additional studies were identified by contacting researchers who have published on the topic, by a backwards search of the references of found reports and by a snowball search of reports citing what was initially found. MethodsĪ systematic literature search of reports of studies comparing reading from paper and screens was conducted in seven databases. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to consolidate the findings on reading performance, reading times and calibration of performance (metacognition) between reading text from paper compared to screens. Given the increasing popularity of reading from screens, it is not surprising that numerous studies have been conducted comparing reading from paper and electronic sources.
0 kommentar(er)
