ArticleScientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading2021
An Individual Differences Examination of the Relation between Reading Processes and Comprehension.
Article in Scientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Previous research has generally focused on understanding individual variation in either on-line processing or off-line comprehension even though some theories explicitly link difficulty in processing to comprehension problems. The goal of the current study was to examine individual variation in performance both during on-line and off-line reading measures. A battery of psycholinguistic and cognitive tests was administered to community college and university students. In addition, participants read texts in an eye-tracker and answered comprehension questions about them. Multi-level modeling was used to determine the individual-difference factors that modulated the relation between word-level characteristics (e.g., length, frequency, surprisal) and fixation durations. The analyses showed that language experience, decoding, and WMC interacted with word characteristics to influence fixation durations, whereas language experience and reasoning predicted comprehension. The results suggest that individual variation in processing does not map directly to variation in comprehension as some theories predict.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.