Previous research has evidenced a strong positive relationship between leisure print reading habits and reading comprehension across the lifespan. The rapid evolution of new forms of leisure digital reading could modify such a relationship. This meta-analysis extends previous research by analyzing the relationship between leisure digital reading habits and reading comprehension. We analyzed 40 effect sizes using multilevel analysis. Data involved 469,564 participants from studies published between 2000 and 2022. The average effect size reflects a small significant effect on reading comprehension (r = .055), which contrasts with the medium size effects found in the literature related to print reading habits and comprehension. This relationship is significantly moderated by the reader’s educational stage. At early stages (primary and middle school) negative relationships are observed between leisure digital reading and text comprehension, while at later stages (high school and university) the relationship turns positive. We highlight the different contributions that reading modalities and technological contexts have on our reading comprehension, especially across the lifespan. In sum, leisure digital reading does not seem to pay off in terms of reading comprehension, at least, as much as traditional print reading does.
Al AmerF. M.LinL. (2021). Empirical assessment of prediction intervals in Cochrane meta-analyses. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 51(7), Article e13524. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.13524
2.
*AltamuraL. (2019). Digital reading habits and reading comprehension. [Unpublished bachellor dissertation, University of Valencia]. https://go.uv.es/D4FyR5I
3.
*Amiama-EspaillatC.Mayor-RuizC. (2017). Digital reading and reading competence–the influence in the Z generation from the Dominican Republic. Comunicar. Media Education Research Journal, 52, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.3916/C52-2017–10
4.
AnnisetteL. E.LafreniereK. D. (2017). Social media, texting, and personality: A test of the shallowing hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.043
5.
AssorA.KaplanH.RothG. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158883
6.
BannC. M.BayenU. J.McCormackL. A.UhrigJ. D. (2006). Effects of reading habits, reading comprehension, and memory beliefs on older adults’ knowledge about Medicare. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464805283627
BaronN. S.CalixteR. M.HavewalaM. (2017). The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008
9.
BorensteinM. (2019). Common mistakes in meta-analysis and how to avoid them. Biostat, Inc.
10.
Botello-PeñalozaH. A.López-AlbaA. (2014). La influencia de las TIC en el desempeño académico: Evidencia de la prueba PIRLS en Colombia 2011 [ICT influence in academic performance: 2011 PIRLS evidence from Colombia]. Revista Academia y Virtualidad, 7(2), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.18359/ravi.315
11.
BråtenI.BraaschJ. L. G. (2018). The role of conflict in multiple source use. In BraaschJ. L. G.BråtenI.McCruddenM. T. (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 184–201). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315627496.
12.
CacciaM.GiorgettiM.ToraldoA.MolteniM.SartiD.VerniceM.LorussoM. L. (2019). ORCA. IT: A new web-based tool for assessing online reading, search and comprehension abilities in students reveals effects of gender, school type and reading ability. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2433. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02433
13.
CardN. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. Guilford Press.
14.
CarrN. (2010). The shallows: How the internet is changing the way we think, read and remember. Atlantic Books Ltd.
15.
CastlesA.RastleK.NationK. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
16.
*ChampleyJ.ScherzJ. W.ApelKBurdaA. N. (2008). A preliminary analysis of reading materials and strategies used by older adults. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 29(3), 131–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525740108315365
17.
ChenC. M.ChenF. Y. (2014). Enhancing digital reading performance with a collaborative reading annotation system. Computers & Education, 77, 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.04.010
18.
*ChenS. Y.FangS. P. (2013). Developing a Chinese version of an author recognition test for college students in Taiwan. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12018
19.
ChenJ. L.SuY. F. (2010). The effects of different reading strategy instructions on low reading ability college students’ reading strategy performance: Evidences from think aloud data [Paper presentation]. 20th Annual meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse, Chicago, IL.
20.
CheungM. W. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 19(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032968
21.
CheungM. W. L. (2019). A guide to conducting a meta-analysis with non-independent effect sizes. Neuropsychology Review, 29(4), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-019-09415-6
22.
ClintonV. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269
23.
Clinton-LisellV. (2021). Stop multitasking and just read: Meta-analyses of multitasking’s effects on reading performance and reading time. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(4), 787–816. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12372
24.
Clinton-LisellV.SeipelB.GilpinS.LitzingerC. (2023). Interactive features of E-texts’ effects on learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(6), 3728–3743. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1943453
25.
CoiroJ. (2021). Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.302
26.
CuetosE.RodríguezB.RuanoE.ArribasD. (2014). PROLEC-R. Batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores, revisada (5a ed.) [Battery for the reading process assessment, reviewed (5th ed.)]. TEA Ediciones.
27.
CuetosF.ArribasD.RamosJ. L. (2016). PROLEC-SE-R. Batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores en secundaria y bachillerato, revisada [Battery for the reading process assessment in middle and high school, reviewed]. TEA Ediciones.
28.
DelgadoP.SalmerónL. (2021). The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure. Learning and Instruction, 71, Article 101396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101396
29.
DelgadoP.VargasC.AckermanR.SalmerónL. (2018). Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
30.
DuchêneM. C. A. (2010). Protocole Emilie—Evaluation de la compréhension de textes chez les collégiens [Emilie protocol—Text comprehension assessment for secondary school students]. Ortho Edition.
31.
*DuncanL. G.McGeownS. P.GriffithsY. M.StothardS. E.DobaiA. (2016). Adolescent reading skill and engagement with digital and traditional literacies as predictors of reading comprehension. British Journal of Psychology, 107(2), 209–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12134
32.
DunnL. M.MarkwardtF. C. (1970). Peabody individual achievement test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
33.
ForzaniE.LeuD. J. (2012). New literacies for new learners: The need for digital technologies in primary classrooms. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 421–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2012.708623
34.
FurenesM. I.KucirkovaN.BusA. G. (2021). A comparison of children’s reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 483–517. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998074
35.
GarcíaV. (2019). Construcción de mapas conceptuales navegables y comprensión lectora: análisis de procesos y diseño de instrucción [Navigable concept maps and Reading comprehension: process analysis and instruction design] [Doctoral dissertation, University of Valencia]. https://roderic.uv.es/handle/10550/70352
36.
*GumusS.AtalmisE. H. (2011). Exploring the relationship between purpose of computer usage and reading skills of Turkish students: Evidence from PISA 2006. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3), 129–140. https://bit.ly/2TTE7Z8
37.
HarrerM.CuijpersP.FurukawaT. A.EbertD. D. (2021). Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-on guide. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press.
38.
*HeesbeenS.E.A.SchaarsM.M.H. (2021). Leisure reading and reading comprehension: The moderating role of executive functions [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Utrecht University.
39.
*HsuC. T.ClarianaR.SchlossB.LiP. (2019). Neurocognitive signatures of naturalistic reading of scientific texts: A fixation-related fMRI study. Scientific Reports, 9, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47176-7
40.
IslamM. I.BiswasR. K.KhanamR. (2020). Effect of internet use and electronic game-play on academic performance of Australian children. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 21727. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-78916-9
41.
JacksonL. A.von EyeA.FitzgeraldH. E.WittE. A.ZhaoY. (2011). Internet use, videogame playing and cell phone use as predictors of children’s body mass index (BMI), body weight, academic performance, and social and overall self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 599–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.019
42.
*JohnsonG. M. (2013). Traditional literacy skills and internet use among 8-to 12-year-old children. Reading Psychology, 34(5), 486–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.658144
43.
*KanniainenL.KiiliC.TolvanenA.UtriainenJ.AroM.LeuD.J.LeppänenP. H. T. (2022). Online research and comprehension performance profiles among sixth-grade students, including those with reading difficulties and/or attention and executive function difficulties. Reading Research Quarterly, 57(4), 1213–1235.https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.463
44.
KayeL.OrbenA.EllisD. A.HunterS. C.HoughtonS. (2020). The conceptual and methodological mayhem of “screen-time”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), Article 3661. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103661
45.
KongY.SeoY. S.ZhaiL. (2018). Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005
46.
*KongY.SeoY. S.ZhaiL. (2022). ICT and digital reading achievement: a cross-national comparison using PISA 2018 Data. International Journal of Educational Research, 111, Article 101912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2021.101912
47.
KoolstraC. M.van der VoortT. H. A.van der KampL. J. T. (1997), Television’s Impact on Children’s Reading Comprehension and Decoding Skills: A 3-Year Panel Study. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(2), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.32.2.1
48.
LamK. K. L.ZhouM. (2022). Grit and academic achievement: A comparative cross-cultural meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(3), 597–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000699
49.
LerkkanenM. K.EklundK.LöytynojaH.AroM.PoikkeusA. M. (2018). YKÄ—Luku- ja kirjoitustaidon arviointimenetelmä yläkouluun [YKÄ—Reading test for lower secondary school]. Niilo Mäki Instituutti
50.
LeslieL.CaldwellJ. S. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory (3rd Ed.). Harper Collins.
51.
LeuD.J.Gregory McVerryJ.Ian O’ByrneW.KiiliC.ZawilinskiL.Everett-CacopardoH.KennedyC.ForzaniE. (2011). The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum. Journal of Adolescent & Adult literacy, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1598/JAAL.55.1.1
52.
LeuD. J.ForzaniE.RhoadsC.MaykelC.KennedyC.TimbrellN. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.85
53.
LiuY.GuX. (2020). Media multitasking, attention, and comprehension: A deep investigation into fragmented reading. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09667-2
54.
LiuD.KirschnerP. A.KarpinskiA. C. (2017). A meta-analysis of the relationship of academic performance and Social Network Site use among adolescents and young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.039
55.
LlorensA. C.GilL.Vidal-AbarcaE.MartínezT.MañáA.GilabertR. (2011). Prueba de competencia lectora para educación secundaria (CompLEC) [Reading literacy text for secondary education]. Psicothema, 23, 808–817. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=72722232043
56.
LocherF.PfostM. (2020). The relation between time spent reading and reading comprehension throughout the life course. Journal of Research in Reading, 43(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12289
57.
Macmillan Test Unit. (2000). Group Reading Test II, 6–14. NFER-Nelson.
58.
*Macedo-RouetM.SalmerónL.RosC.PérezA.StadtlerM.RouetJ. F. (2020). Are frequent users of social network sites good information evaluators? An investigation of adolescents’ sourcing abilities. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 43(1), 101–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2019.1690849
59.
MakM. T. F.WangM.ChuK. W. S. (2019). Effects of a gamified learning platform on elementary school students’ flow experiences in leisure reading. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 56(1), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.75
MangenA.van der WeelA. (2016) The evolution of reading in the age of digitisation: An integrative framework for reading research. Literacy, 50, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12086.
62.
MartínezT.Vidal-AbarcaE.SellésP.GilabertR. (2008). Evaluación de las estrategias y procesos de comprensión: el test de procesos de comprensión. [Assessment of strategies and reading comprehension processes: the reading comprehension processes test]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 31(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037008785702956
63.
*McGeownS. P.OsborneC.WarhurstA.NorgateR.DuncanL. G. (2016). Understanding children’s reading activities: Reading motivation, skill and child characteristics as predictors. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12060
64.
MergaM. K.RoniS. M. (2017). The influence of access to eReaders, computers and mobile phones on children’s book reading frequency. Computers & Education, 109, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.016
65.
*MežekŠ. (2013). Multilingual reading proficiency in an emerging parallel-language environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEAP.2013.02.001
66.
MolS. E.BusA. G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 267–296. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0021890
67.
National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy. (2013). NAPLAN achievement in Reading, Persuasive Writing, Language Conventions and Numeracy: National Report for 2013. ACARA, Sydney.
NaumannJ.SälzerC. (2017). Digital reading proficiency in German 15-year olds: Evidence from PISA 2012. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 20(4), 585–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-017-0758-y
70.
NeumanS. B. (1988). The displacement effect: Assessing the relation between television viewing and reading performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(4), 414–440. https://doi.org/10.2307/747641
71.
NikkelenS. W. C.ValkenburgP. M.HuizingaM.BushmanB. J. (2014). Media use and ADHD-related behaviors in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology, 50(9), 2228–2241.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037318
72.
*NorrisT. (2010). Adolescent academic achievement, bullying behavior, and the frequency of Internet use [Doctoral dissertation, Kent State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. https://www.proquest.com/docview/193947450
73.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264026407-en.
74.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 Assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264062658-en.
75.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and analytical framework: Mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190511-en
76.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2017). PISA 2015 Assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en.
77.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 Assessment and analytical framework mathematics, reading, science, problem solving and financial literacy. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
78.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume I): What students know and can do. PISA. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
79.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.McGuinnessL. A.MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 372, Article 71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
80.
*ParkS.WengW. (2020). The relationship between ICT-related factors and student academic achievement and the moderating effect of country economic index across 39 countries. Educational Technology & Society, 23(3), 1–15. https://bit.ly/3rVyTc2
81.
ParryD. A.DavidsonB. I.SewallC. J.FisherJ. T.MieczkowskiH.QuintanaD. S. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1535–1547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5
*PetkoD.CantieniA.PrasseD. (2017). Perceived quality of educational technology matters: A secondary analysis of students’ ICT use, ICT-related attitudes, and PISA 2012 test scores. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(8), 1070–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116649373
85.
PfostM.DörflerT.ArteltC. (2012). Reading competence development of poor readers in a German elementary school sample. An empirical examination of the Matthew effect model. Journal of Research in Reading, 35(4), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01478.x.
86.
*PfostM.DörflerT.ArteltC. (2013). Students’ extracurricular reading behavior and the development of vocabulary and reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 26, 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.008
87.
PfostM.HattieJ.DörflerT.ArteltC. (2014). Individual differences in reading development: A review of 25 years of empirical research on Matthew effects in reading. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 203–244. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313509492
PustejovskyJ. E. (2020). clubSandwich: Cluster-robust (sandwich) variance estimators with small-sample corrections (Version 0.4.2) [R package]. https://github.com/jepusto/clubSandwich
91.
RaC. K.ChoJ.StoneM. D.De La CerdaJ.GoldensonN. I.MoroneyE.TungI.LeeS. S.LeventhalA. M. (2018). Association of digital media use with subsequent symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among adolescents. JAMA, 320(3), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.8931
92.
SalmerónL.AltamuraL.Blanco-GandiaM. C.MontagudS.VargasC. (2022). Validation of a reading comprehension efficiency test for Spanish university students. Psicologica, 43(2), e14809. https://doi.org/10.20350/digitalCSIC/14809
93.
*SalmerónL.GarcíaA.Vidal-AbarcaE. (2011). [Unpublished raw data]. ERI Lectura, University of Valencia.
94.
*SalmerónL.GarcíaA.Vidal-AbarcaE. (2018). The development of adolescents’ comprehension-based Internet reading activities. Learning and Individual Differences, 61, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.11.006
95.
*SalmerónL.VargasC.DelgadoP.AltamuraL. (2020). [Unpublished raw data]. ERI Lectura, University of Valencia.
96.
SalmerónL.VargasC.DelgadoP.BaronN. (2023). Relation between digital tool practices in the language arts classroom and reading comprehension scores. Reading and Writing, 36, 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10295-1
97.
*SmithM. C.SmithT. J. (2010). Adults’ uses of computer technology: associations with literacy tasks. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(4), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.42.4.c
98.
SnowC. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597
99.
StadtlerM.ScharrerL.BrummernhenrichB.BrommeR. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: Readers’ memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 130–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769996
100.
StanovichK. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1
101.
StothardS. E.HulmeC.ClarkeP.BarmbyP.SnowlingM. J. (2010). York assessment of reading for comprehension. Secondary test. GL Assessment.
102.
SweSAT-R. (2006). Swedish scholastic aptitude test reviewed. Sweden.
103.
TiptonE.PustejovskyJ. E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40(6), 604–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615606099
104.
*TorppaM.NiemiP.VasalampiK.LerkkanenM. K.TolvanenA.PoikkeusA. M. (2019). Leisure reading (but not any kind) and reading comprehension support each other—A longitudinal study across Grades 1 and 9. Child Development, 91(3), 876–900. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13241
105.
TwengeJ. M.MartinG. N.SpitzbergB. H. (2019). Trends in U.S. Adolescents’ media use, 1976–2016: The rise of digital media, the decline of TV, and the (near) demise of print. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(4), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000203
106.
van BergenE.VasalampiK.TorppaM. (2020). How are practice and performance related? Development of reading from age 5 to 15. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(3), 415–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.309
107.
Van den NoortgateW.López-LópezJ. A.Marín-MartínezF.Sánchez-MecaJ. (2013). Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 576–594. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6
108.
*VergaraM.DelgadoP.SalmerónL.AltamuraL. (2020). [Unpublished raw data]. ERI Lectura, University of Valencia.
109.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
110.
ViechtbauerW. (2021). Model checking in meta-analysis. In SchmidC. H.StijnenT.WhiteI. R. (Eds.), Handbook of meta-analysis (pp. 219–254). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315119403
111.
ViechtbauerW.CheungM. W. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11
112.
WarrensM. J. (2010). A formal proof of a paradox associated with Cohen’s kappa. Journal of Classification, 27(3), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00357-010-9060-x
WilkinsonG. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (WRAT3). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.
115.
WilkinsonG. S.RobertsonG. J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test 4 (WRAT4). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
116.
WolfM. (2018). Reader, come home: The reading brain in a digital world. Harper.
117.
*WuJ. Y.PengY. C. (2017). The modality effect on reading literacy: Perspectives from students’ online reading habits, cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and web navigation skills across regions. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(7), 859–876. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1224251
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
