ArticlePloS one2026
Measuring reading time: Comparing logged and self-reported data in relation to reading skills.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChildren's reading time at home plays a critical role in their reading development. However, existing measures of reading time, based on self-reports, are often biased. Logged data from mobile apps may offer a more reliable alternative, as shown in studies examining screen time in digital media use.
objectivesThis study compared logged and self-reported measures of reading time and examined their associations with reading skills in French primary school children.
methodOne hundred and nine children from Grade 1 to Grade 5 and their parents participated. Parents completed a retrospective questionnaire estimating weekly reading time (self-reported measure). They then used a mobile application to record their child's reading activities in real time over a 14-day period (logged measure). All children were assessed on their reading fluency. RESULTS AND
conclusionsThe self-reported measure yielded significantly higher reading time estimates (M = 6.26 hours/week) than the logged measure (M = 2.11 hours/week), with a moderate correlation between the two (r = .45). Crucially, the logged measure showed stronger predictive validity for reading fluency (r = .39) than the self-reported measure (r = .25). Regression analyses confirmed that when both measures were included simultaneously, only the logged reading time remained a significant predictor of reading performance. These findings suggest that logged measures obtained via ambulatory assessment (here, using a mobile app) provide more accurate estimates of reading time and superior predictive validity compared to traditional self-reports. This methodology offers promising avenues for future research on reading habits and literacy development.
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.