Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension

[1]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  J. Vrijens,et al.  [On the development of adolescents]. , 1969, Archives belges de medecine sociale, hygiene, medecine du travail et medecine legale. Belgisch archief van sociale geneeskunde, hygiene, arbeidsgeneeskunde en gerechtelijke geneeskunde.

[3]  R. Rosenthal.  The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results , 1979 .

[4]  L. Hedges,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis , 1987 .

[5]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[6]  Andrew Dillon,et al.  Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature , 1992 .

[7]  John Dunlosky,et al.  Toward a general model of self-regulated study: An analysis of selection of items for study and self-paced study time. , 1999 .

[8]  S. Morris,et al.  Distribution of the standardized mean change effect size for meta-analysis on repeated measures. , 2000, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[9]  Mark W. Lipsey,et al.  Practical Meta-Analysis , 2000 .

[10]  Douglas F. Becker,et al.  The Score Equivalence of Paper-and-Pencil and Computerized Versions of a Speeded Test of Reading Comprehension , 2002 .

[11]  Katharina Scheiter,et al.  Goal Configurations and Processing Strategies as Moderators Between Instructional Design and Cognitive Load: Evidence From Hypertext-Based Instruction , 2003 .

[12]  Guido Knapp,et al.  Improved tests for a random effects meta‐regression with a single covariate , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  Mary Pommerich,et al.  Developing Computerized Versions of Paper-and-Pencil Tests: Mode Effects for Passage-Based Tests , 2004 .

[14]  Thomas Hoffmann,et al.  Examining the Effect of Computer-Based Passage Presentation on Reading Test Performance , 2005 .

[15]  Sooyeon Kim,et al.  Evaluating the Comparability of Paper-and-Pencil and Computerized Versions of a Large-Scale Certification Test. Research Report. ETS RR-05-21. , 2005 .

[16]  Erik Wästlund,et al.  Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: Psychological and physiological factors , 2005, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[17]  Morris Goldsmith,et al.  Real-world cognitive--and metacognitive--dysfunction in schizophrenia: a new approach for measuring (and remediating) more "right stuff". , 2006, Schizophrenia bulletin.

[18]  Tania B. Huedo-Medina,et al.  Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? , 2006, Psychological methods.

[19]  Sonya Symons,et al.  Computerized Presentation of Text: Effects on Children’s Reading of Informational Material , 2006 .

[20]  P. Barrouillet,et al.  Time and cognitive load in working memory. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  Neal M. Kingston.  Comparability of Computer- and Paper-Administered Multiple-Choice Tests for K–12 Populations: A Synthesis , 2008 .

[22]  Kristen L. Beach.  The effect of media, text length, and reading rates on college student reading comprehension levels , 2008 .

[23]  Hong Jiao,et al.  Comparability of Computer-Based and Paper-and-Pencil Testing in K–12 Reading Assessments , 2008 .

[24]  J. Noyes,et al.  Computer- vs. paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent? , 2008, Ergonomics.

[25]  Joseph P. Magliano,et al.  Chapter 9 Toward a Comprehensive Model of Comprehension , 2009 .

[26]  A. Koriat,et al.  Memory accuracy in old age: Cognitive, metacognitive, and neurocognitive determinants , 2009 .

[27]  Stephen W. Raudenbush,et al.  Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models. , 2009 .

[28]  L. Hedges,et al.  Introduction to Meta‐Analysis , 2009, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[29]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[30]  M. Wolf,et al.  The Importance of Deep Reading , 2009 .

[31]  Rebecca Dawn Baker,et al.  Comparing the Readability of Text Displays on Paper, E-Book Readers, and Small Screen Devices , 2010 .

[32]  A. Taylor,et al.  Students Learn Equally Well From Digital as From Paperbound Texts , 2011 .

[33]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Computational Analyses of Multilevel Discourse Comprehension , 2011, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[34]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Metacognitive regulation of text learning: on screen versus on paper. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[35]  Noel A. Card.  Applied Meta-Analysis for Social Science Research , 2011 .

[36]  Hanho Jeong,et al.  A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception , 2012, Electron. Libr..

[37]  Casey L. Wells.  DO STUDENTS USING ELECTRONIC BOOKS DISPLAY DIFFERENT READING COMPREHENSION AND MOTIVATION LEVELS THAN STUDENTS USING TRADITIONAL PRINT BOOKS , 2012 .

[38]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[39]  Caroline Connell,et al.  Effects of eBook Readers and Tablet Computers on Reading Comprehension , 2012 .

[40]  Jennifer Little Kegler,et al.  E‐readers, Computer Screens, or Paper: Does Reading Comprehension Change Across Media Platforms? , 2013 .

[41]  Anne Mangen,et al.  Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension , 2013 .

[42]  Erol Duran.  Efficiency in Reading Comprehension: A Comparison of Students' Competency in Reading Printed and Digital Texts. , 2013 .

[43]  Mehmet Barış Horzum,et al.  The Effect of Reading from Screen on the 5th Grade Elementary Students' Level of Reading Comprehension on Informative and Narrative Type of Texts. , 2013 .

[44]  M. Schlesewsky,et al.  Subjective Impressions Do Not Mirror Online Reading Effort: Concurrent EEG-Eyetracking Evidence from the Reading of Books and Digital Media , 2013, PloS one.

[45]  Hak Joon Kim,et al.  Reading from an LCD monitor versus paper: Teenagers’ reading performance , 2013 .

[46]  T. Dörfler,et al.  Students' extracurricular reading behavior and the development of vocabulary and reading comprehension ☆ , 2013 .

[47]  The effect of liquid crystal displays on reading comprehension , 2013 .

[48]  David B. Daniel,et al.  E-textbooks at what cost? Performance and use of electronic v. print texts , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[49]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Overcoming screen inferiority in learning and calibration , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[50]  Anne Mangen,et al.  Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet , 2014 .

[51]  Gal Ben-Yehudah,et al.  The Influence of Text Annotation Tools on Print and Digital Reading Comprehension , 2014 .

[52]  Ken J Beath,et al.  A finite mixture method for outlier detection and robustness in meta‐analysis , 2014, Research synthesis methods.

[53]  Wei Cheng,et al.  A comparison of reading comprehension across paper, computer screens, and tablets: Does tablet familiarity matter? , 2014, Journal of Computers in Education.

[54]  S. Vaughn,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Interventions for Struggling Readers in Grades 4–12 , 2015, Journal of learning disabilities.

[55]  Devin M. Nishizaki.  The Effects of Tablets on Learning: Does Studying from a Tablet Computer Affect Student Learning Differently Across Educational Levels , 2015 .

[56]  Diane Mizrachi,et al.  Undergraduates' Academic Reading Format Preferences and Behaviors , 2015 .

[57]  S. Sackstein,et al.  Are e-books effective tools for learning? Reading speed and comprehension: iPad® vs. paper , 2015 .

[58]  Dar-Wei Chen.  Metacognitive prompts and the paper vs. screen debate: how both factors influence reading behavior , 2015 .

[59]  Thierry Baccino,et al.  The impact of paper-based versus computerized presentation on text comprehension and memorization , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[60]  Lynne G. Duncan,et al.  Adolescent reading skill and engagement with digital and traditional literacies as predictors of reading comprehension. , 2016, British journal of psychology.

[61]  H. Luyten,et al.  The contribution of schooling to learning gains of pupils in Years 1 to 6 , 2017 .

[62]  Rakefet Ackerman,et al.  Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing , 2017 .

[63]  Timothy R. Jordan,et al.  Reading Rate and Comprehension for Text Presented on Tablet and Paper: Evidence from Arabic , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[64]  Ulrich Schroeders,et al.  Equivalence of Screen Versus Print Reading Comprehension Depends on Task Complexity and Proficiency , 2017 .

[65]  P. Alexander,et al.  Reading on Paper and Digitally: What the Past Decades of Empirical Research Reveal , 2017 .

[66]  P. Alexander,et al.  Reading Across Mediums: Effects of Reading Digital and Print Texts on Comprehension and Calibration , 2017 .

[67]  Naomi S. Baron,et al.  The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study , 2017, Telematics Informatics.

[68]  M. Boekaerts,et al.  Cognitive load and self-regulation: Attempts to build a bridge , 2017 .

[69]  Emi Ishita,et al.  Print or digital? Reading behavior and preferences in Japan , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[70]  M. Courage.  Screen Media and the Youngest Viewers: Implications for Attention and Learning , 2017 .

[71]  Hannah R Rothstein,et al.  Basics of meta‐analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity , 2017, Research synthesis methods.

[72]  K. Lafreniere,et al.  Social Media, Texting, and Personality: A Test of the Shallowing Hypothesis , 2017 .

[73]  L. Salmerón,et al.  The development of adolescents' comprehension-based Internet reading activities , 2018 .

[74]  Ling Zhai,et al.  Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis , 2018, Comput. Educ..

[75]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.