SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2025
A cross-age odyssey of cognitive reading attributes: a scoping review.
Synthesis 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reading is a fundamental cognitive-linguistic process that involves the dynamic interaction of multiple interrelated cognitive and perceptual mechanisms. Existing reading models are often limited in fully capturing the intricate relationships between reading attributes across different age groups. This review aims to compare the cognitive attributes utilized in reading assessments for young and adult readers. Using a scoping review methodology, the study analyzed 47 empirical studies selected through a systematic search of reputable academic databases, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, from an initial pool of 331 publications. The selection followed a screening process based on three inclusion and exclusion criteria: types of publications, language, and skills assessed. A distinctive pattern emerges in the assessment of cognitive reading skills across age groups, with adult readers evaluated on a wider array of attributes that encompass both fundamental skills and higher order cognitive abilities. In contrast, young readers' assessments tend to center on a narrower spectrum of subskills, primarily emphasizing literal and interpretive comprehension. This developmental pattern calls for the refinement of existing assessment models to better capture the progressive nature of cognitive reading development. Tailoring assessment tools and instructional strategies to align with learners' cognitive demands is imperative for internal stakeholders, while external stakeholders are urged to develop age-appropriate assessments. Future research could address the study's limitations by exploring advanced technologies, such as eye tracking, conducting rigorous reviews, performing cross-linguistic comparative studies, and evaluating diverse assessment methods to enhance the accuracy, effectiveness, and generalizability of reading assessments across various contexts.
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.