This study examined the effects of (a) text presentation and (b) prior knowledge and language skill on finding information in financial documents. First, the participants filled out tests that measured their levels of vocabulary, reading skill, domain knowledge, and topic knowledge. Subsequently, they read an on-screen text on pension information in either a linear structure (“nonlayered”) or a hypertext structure (“layered”). Readers’ performance was measured by verbal scenario questions. No difference was found for text presentation. Language skill and domain knowledge were both important predictors for finding, whereas topic knowledge was not associated with readers’ performance at all. When differentiating between text presentation conditions, we found that domain knowledge only plays a role in the nonlayered condition, not in the layered condition. These results indicate that the set of skills needed to successfully read a document varies with both type of task and type of reading, confirming prior research.
AbrahamR. G.ChapelleC. A. (1992). The meaning of cloze test scores: An item difficulty perspective. Modern Language Journal, 76, 468-479. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1992.tb05394.x
2.
AlexanderP. A.KulikowichJ. M.JettonT. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64, 201-252. doi:10.3102/00346543064002201
3.
AlexanderP. A.KulikowichJ. M.SchulzeS. K. (1994). The influence of topic knowledge, domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 379-397. doi:10.1016/1041-6080(94)90001-9
4.
Autoriteit Financiële Markten. (2012). Een volgende stap naar meer pensioeninzicht: Pensioeninformatie actief gebruiken [A next step to more pension insight: Using pension information actively]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: AFM.
5.
BealD. J.DelpachitraS. B. (2003). Financial literacy among Australian university students. Economic Papers, 22, 65-78. doi:10.1111/j.1759-3441.2003.tb00337.x
6.
Ben-ShaharO.SchneiderC. E. (2011). The failure of mandated disclosure. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 159, 647-749. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1567284
7.
BilalD. (2000). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: I: Cognitive, physical, and affective behaviors on fact-based search tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51, 646-665.
8.
BilalD. (2001). Children’s use of the Yahooligans! Web search engine: II: Cognitive and physical behaviors on research tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 118-136.
9.
ByrnesJ. P.GuthrieJ. T. (1992). Prior conceptual knowledge and textbook search. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 8-29. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(92)90042-W
10.
CalisirF.EryaziciM.LehtoM. R. (2008). The effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on computer-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 439-450. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.032
11.
CalisirF.GurelZ. (2003). Influence of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on reading comprehension, browsing and perceived control. Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 135-145. doi:10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00058-4
12.
CarverR. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 26, 413-437. doi:10.1080/10862969409547861
13.
CoiroJ. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43, 352-392. doi:10.1177/1086296X11421979
14.
DugganG. B.PayneS. J. (2009). Text skimming: The process and effectiveness of foraging through text under time pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 228-242. doi:10.1037/a0016995
15.
FoltzP. W. (1996). Comprehension, coherence and strategies in hypertext and linear text. In RouetJ.LevonenJ. J.DillonA.SpiroR. J. (Eds.), Hypertext and cognition (pp. 109-136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
GilabertR.MartínezG.Vidal-AbarcaE. (2005). Some good texts are always better: Text revision to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 15, 45-68. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.12.003
17.
HallS. S.KowalskiR.PatersonK. B.BasranJ.FilikR.MaltbyJ. (2015). Local text cohesion, reading ability and individual science aspirations: Key factors influencing comprehension in science classes. British Educational Research Journal, 41, 122-142. doi:10.1002/berj.3134
HustonS. J. (2010). Measuring financial literacy. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 44, 296-316. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01170.x
20.
JansenC.BoersmaN. (2013). Meten is weten? over de waarde van de leesbaarheidsvoorspellingen van drie geautomatiseerde nederlandse meetinstrumenten. [Measuring is knowing? On the value of readability predictions of three automated Dutch instruments]. Tijdschrift Voor Taalbeheersing, 35(1), 47-62.
21.
KendeouP.van den BroekP. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567-1577. doi:10.3758/BF03193491
22.
KobayashiK. (2009). The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college experience on students’ comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 130-134. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.06.001
23.
KobayashiM. (2002). Cloze tests revisited: Exploring item characteristics with special attention to scoring methods. Modern Language Journal, 86, 571-586. doi:10.1111/1540-4781.00162
24.
LandiN. (2010). An examination of the relationship between reading comprehension, higher-level and lower-level reading sub-skills in adults. Reading and Writing, 23, 701-717. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9180-z
25.
LentzL.R.Pander MaatH.L.W. (2013). De gebruiksvriendelijkheid van het Uniform Pensioenoverzicht [The usability of the Annual Pension Statement]. (Netspar Occassional Paper). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Netspar.
26.
LipsonM. Y. (1982). Learning new information from text: The role of prior knowledge and reading ability. Journal of Literacy Research, 14, 243-261. doi:10.1080/10862968209547453
27.
LusardiA.MitchellO. S. (2005). Financial literacy and planning: Implications for retirement wellbeing (Working Paper No. 2005-108). Ann Harbor: Michigan Retirement Research Center.
28.
Malatesha JoshiR. (2005). Vocabulary: A critical component of comprehension. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 21, 209-219. doi:10.1080/10573560590949278
29.
MandellL. (2008). The financial literacy of young American adults: Results of the 2008 national Jump$tart coalition survey of high school seniors and college students. Washington, DC: Jumpstart Coalition.
30.
MangenA.WalgermoB. R.BrønnickK. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
31.
MarkowD.BagnashiK. (2005). What American teens and adults know about economics. New York, NY: National Council on Economic Education.
32.
McCruddenM. T.SchrawG. (2006). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113-139. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
33.
McDonaldS.StevensonR. J. (1998). Effects of text structure and prior knowledge of the learner on navigation in hypertext. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 40, 18-27. doi:10.1518/001872098779480541
34.
McKeownM. G.BeckI. L.SinatraG. M.LoxtermanJ. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 79-93. doi:10.2307/747834
35.
Müller-KalthoffT.MöllerJ. (2006). Browsing while reading: Effects of instructional design and learners’ prior knowledge. Research in Learning Technology, 14, 183-198. doi:10.1080/09687760600668602
36.
NellM.L.LentzL.R. (2013). Pensioenorganisaties en communicatiewetgeving: Exploratief onderzoek naar keuzes en verplichtingen [Pension organizations and communication legislation: Exploratory research into choices and obligations]. (Netspar NEA Paper No. 49). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Netspar.
37.
NellM.L.LentzL.R.Pander MaatH.L.W. (2016). Effecten van gelaagdheid in pensioendocumenten: een gebruikersstudie [Effects of layering in pension documents: A user study]. (Netspar Design Paper No. 53). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Netspar.
38.
NoonK. L.FogartyG. J. (2007). Cognitive and personality predictors of financial literacy among adult Australians. In MooreK. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 Australian psychological society (pp. 297-301). Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Australian Psychological Society.
39.
O’DonnellA. (1993). Searching for information in knowledge maps and texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 222-239. doi:10.1006/ceps.1993.1018
40.
OzuruY.DempseyK.McNamaraD. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19, 228-242. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
41.
PotelleH.RouetJ.-F. (2003). Effects of content representation and readers’ prior knowledge on the comprehension of hypertext. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 327-345. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00016-8
42.
SalmerónL.KintschW.CañasJ. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1157-1171. doi:10.3758/BF03193262
43.
ShapiroA. M. (2004). How including prior knowledge as a subject variable may change outcomes of learning research. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 159-189. doi:10.3102/00028312041001159
44.
ShinE. C.SchallertD. L.SavenyeW. C. (1994). Effects of learner control, advisement, and prior knowledge on young students’ learning in a hypertext environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(1), 33-46. doi:10.1007/BF02298169
45.
SmithM. C. (2000). The real-world reading practices of adults. Journal of Literacy Research, 32, 25-52. doi:10.1080/10862960009548063
46.
StahlS. A. (2003). Vocabulary and readability: How knowing word meanings affects comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 241-247. doi:10.1097/00011363-200307000-00009
47.
StahlS. A.HareV. C.SinatraR.GregoryJ. F. (1991). Defining the role of prior knowledge and vocabulary in reading comprehension: The retiring of number 41. Journal of Literacy Research, 23, 487-508. doi:10.1080/10862969109547755
48.
StarkD. P.ChoplinJ. M. (2010). A cognitive and social psychological analysis of disclosure laws and call for mortgage counseling to prevent predatory lending. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 85-131. doi:10.1037/a0018299
49.
StichtT. G. (1977). Comprehending reading at work. In JustM. A.CarpenterP. A. (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 221-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50.
SymonsS.PressleyM. (1993). Prior knowledge affects text search success and extraction of information. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 251-261. doi:10.2307/747997
51.
TarchiC. (2010). Reading comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus on direct and indirect effects of reader’s prior knowledge. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 415-420. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.002
52.
van RooijM.LusardiA.AlessieR. J. M. (2011). Financial literacy and stock market participation. Journal of Financial Economics, 101, 449-472. doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.03.006
53.
VisserJ.OosterveldP.KloosterboerM. (2012). Pensioencommunicatie: Behoeften en barrières: Geïntegreerd rapport van onderzoek onder deelnemers en gepensioneerden [Pension communication: Needs and barriers: Integrated report on research among clients and pensioners]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: TNS NIPO.
54.
WhiteS.ChenJ.ForsythB. (2010). Reading-related literacy activities of American adults: Time spent, task types, and cognitive skills used. Journal of Literacy Research, 42, 276-307. doi:10.1080/1086296X.2010.503552
55.
ZwaanR. A.RappD. N. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In GernsbacherM. A.TraxlerM. J. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 725-764). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
