Trial reportPloS one2025
An investigation of the effects of different text formats on middle school students' reading comprehension performance.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study is a quasi-experimental research that aims to compare the reading comprehension levels of students who read texts in textbooks through printed, digital, and augmented reality (AR)-supported formats. The sample of the study consisted of 150 students aged 11-12 who were enrolled in schools in Turkey. The participating students were randomly assigned to three equal groups (print, digital, augmented reality). During the data collection process, reading comprehension was assessed in five dimensions (literal comprehension, reorganization, inferential comprehension, evaluation, and appreciation) based on Barrett's Taxonomy. In order to determine the students' reading comprehension achievement levels, a "reading comprehension achievement test" was used. Initially, reading activities using the same printed texts were conducted with all three groups. Afterwards, a pre-test was administered. Following a five-week break, different reading activities were conducted with the three groups during the post-test phase. Intra-group comparisons of pre-test and post-test data were analyzed using the paired-samples t-test. ANCOVA analysis was used to test whether the differences in post-test reading comprehension scores between the groups were statistically significant. The results showed that the AR-supported reading activity improved students' reading comprehension performance (p < .05, η2 = .388). The same trend was observed in all sub-dimensions of reading comprehension (literal comprehension p < .05, η2 = .140; reorganization p < .05, η2 = .217; inferential comprehension p < .05, η2 = .322; evaluation p < .05, η2 = .225; appreciation p < .05, η2 = .327). Therefore, it can be concluded that augmented reality books enhance the reading comprehension performance of children aged 11-12. On the other hand, there was no significant difference in reading comprehension performance between traditional reading and screen-based reading (p = .542). These findings indicate that AR content is more effective in improving students' reading comprehension compared to printed and digital texts when reading storybooks. Consequently, the present research provides insights into the effects of different text formats on middle school students' reading comprehension performance.
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.