ArticleBehavior research methods2023
A measure of individual differences in readers' approaches to text and its relation to reading experience and reading comprehension.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. 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.
- Editorial Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026Article
- Exploring the pretraining effect in learning classical Chinese reading skills.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- How efficient is translation in language testing? Deriving valid student vocabulary tests in Spanish (StuVoc1-Esp and StuVoc2-Esp) from established English tests.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Readers have different motivations and approaches to text that covers a range of topics and difficulty levels. We introduce the concept of readers' approaches to text to establish a link between motivational and cognitive aspects of reading comprehension. Study 1 describes the development of a self-report measure of readers' approaches to text with a community sample. An exploratory factor analysis revealed that The Readers' Approaches to Text Questionnaire (TReAT-Q) had four subscales: (1) intrinsic goals, (2) extrinsic goals and strategies, (3) effort at understanding, and (4) avoidance of text difficulty. Aside from avoidance of text difficulty, these factors predicted adults' reading experience above and beyond the related, but more general, measure of need for cognition. A confirmatory factor analysis on TReAT-Q in Study 2 revealed that all subscales except effort at understanding contributed to a readers' approaches to text latent construct for college students. A subsequent structural equation model (SEM) evaluating a cognitive model of reading comprehension showed that college students' TReAT-Q scores predicted reading comprehension through an indirect pathway, mediated by reading experience and vocabulary knowledge. Readers who enjoy reading and deploy reading strategies to meet a desired level of understanding tend to have more reading experiences. The SEM also demonstrated the mediating role of vocabulary knowledge in text comprehension by linking reading experience and reading comprehension. Extending beyond measures of motivation, TReAT-Q incorporates the positive and negative approaches readers have to texts, which is fundamental for assessing what readers gain from their reading experiences that assists reading comprehension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35505178What 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.