ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Enhancing word recognition skills in English (FL) and Arabic (L1) through transfer effect: an intervention study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The extant experimental study measured the effect of a reading training on developing word recognition skills in English (the foreign language, FL) and Arabic (the first language, L1). Methods: Forty-five participants were selectively allocated to two groups: experimental (n = 25) and control (n = 20). The participants took an online lexical decision task before and after the intervention. The English measures took cognizance of frequency, regularity, and word length, while vowelization marked the Arabic stimuli. To check causality, we fitted four multilevel models to track down the improvement in accuracy and reading times (RTs) based on the interaction of fixed effects (group and time) and random effects (each individual's responses). Results: The English model's results revealed a statistically significant and positive interaction between the experimental group and post-accuracy rates. Post-reading times, though slightly changed, remained significant compared to the control group. The results of the Arabic models suggested a nuanced difference in the experimental group's performance. Discussion: The findings revealed compelling insights into the adjustment of processing strategies, namely phonological and orthographic processing skills, to gain lexical access in English and Arabic. The study implicates the import of experimenting with new pedagogical approaches, i.e., reading interventions, to enhance cognitive reading skills among adult learners.
Indexed as
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.