ArticleScientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading2021
The Process and Product of Coherence Monitoring in Young Readers: Effects of Reader and Text Characteristics.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prekindergarten and Kindergarten Predictors of Reading Comprehension in Monolingual English and Spanish-English Bilingual Sixth Graders.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- How to systematically and quantifiably remove meaning?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- A measure of individual differences in readers' approaches to text and its relation to reading experience and reading comprehension.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We examined sixth graders' detection of inconsistencies in narrative and expository passages, contrasting participants who were monolingual speakers (N = 85) or Spanish-English DLLs (N = 94) when recruited in pre-kindergarten (PK). We recorded self-paced reading times and judgments about whether the text made sense, and took an independent measure of word reading. Main findings were that inconsistency detection was better for narratives, for participants who were monolingual speakers in PK, and for those who were better word readers. When the text processing demands were increased by separating the inconsistent sentence and its premise with filler sentences there was a stronger signal for inconsistency detection during reading for better word readers. Reading patterns differed for texts for which children reported an inconsistency compared to those for which they did not, indicating a failure to adequately monitor for coherence while reading. Our performance measures indicate that narrative and expository texts make different demands on readers.
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.