Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35874385›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Examining the Relationship of Information and Communication Technologies Use and Reading Literacy: A Moderated-Mediation Analysis of Metacognition Across Information and Communication Technologies Use Intensity.

Miaoyun Li, Meiqian Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Miaoyun LiNational Engineering Research Center for E-Learning, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China.
Meiqian WangNational Engineering Research Center for E-Learning, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) is increasingly becoming prevalent among students, both at home and school. While inconsistent results were found for student ICT use and reading literacy, this study attempted to explain these ambiguous links with the moderation of ICT use intensity and mediation of metacognition. Three moderated mediation models for each type of ICT use (at home for entertainment activities and for schoolwork, as well as at school) were analyzed using a Hong Kong sample taken from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2018 data pertaining to 5180 15-year-old students from 152 schools. A dynamic effect pattern was found for the links of all ICT use types and reading literacy with the increasing intensity of ICT use, which begins with a positive effect followed by a decrease to less positive, then turns to fluctuating negative and finally ends up with a stable negative effect. But the dominant effect varies across ICT use intensity, which result in different overall effects of three ICT use types. In addition, all three aspects of metacognition showed a profound negative mediation on links of intensive and excessive ICT use with reading literacy, and a less positive mediation for limited ICT use. The metacognition of assessing credibility showed a more important role than summarizing, which was followed by understanding and remembering. In light of the findings, the study recommended that more metacognitive scaffolds should be developed for students with intensive or excessive ICT use, so as to alleviate the side effects of ICT use on their reading literacy.

Indexed as

ICT useICT use intensitymetacognitionmoderated mediation analysisreading literacy

Identifiers

PMID35874385
PMCPMC9297003

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.