ArticleScientific reports2025
Children with and without reading difficulty value robot reading companions that are smart, supportive, and personalised.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As social robots are being increasingly deployed in educational settings, it is critically important to understand which design features make robots most likely to be accepted by children and to deliver benefits in education contexts. To deepen our understanding of young readers' expectations, needs, and desires for a robot that supports reading, we conducted co-design sessions followed by a semi-structured interview with children aged 5-9 years (30 children with typical reading and a case series of five children with poor reading, of which four were enroled in reading interventions at the time the study was conducted and were regularly attending one-on-one reading remediation sessions). We applied a mixed-method approach including thematic analysis of interview data using a reflexive and inductive approach. The children in this study designed robots that could deliver reading-specific support alongside more general emotional support. Key functional features and capabilities included prosocial behaviours (smiling, play, and conversation), breadth of knowledge that assumed access to information about many topics, including core academic skills (reading and mathematics). Key aesthetic features included colourful, compact, and customisable designs. These findings have implications for the design and implementation of social robots to support reading and suggest that children are very much open to interacting with reading robot companions.
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.