Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

Background Given the increasing popularity of reading from screens, it is not surprising that numerous studies have been conducted comparing reading from paper and electronic sources. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to consolidate the findings on reading performance, reading times and calibration of performance (metacognition) between reading text from paper compared to screens. Methods A systematic literature search of reports of studies comparing reading from paper and screens was conducted in seven databases. Additional studies were identified by contacting researchers who have published on the topic, by a backwards search of the references of found reports and by a snowball search of reports citing what was initially found. Only studies that were experiments with random assignment and with participants who had fundamental reading skills and disseminated between 2008 and 2018 were included. Twenty‐nine reports with 33 identified studies met inclusion criteria experimentally comparing reading performance (k = 33; n = 2,799), reading time (k = 14; n = 1,233) and/or calibration (k = 11; n = 698) from paper and screens. Results Based on random effects models, reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper (g = −.25). Based on moderator analyses, this may have been limited to expository texts (g = −.32) as there was no difference with narrative texts (g = −.04). The findings were similar when analysing literal and inferential reading performance separately (g = −.33 and g = −.26, respectively). No reliable differences were found for reading time (g = .08). Readers had better calibrated (more accurate) judgement of their performance from paper compared to screens (g = .20). Conclusions Readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens.

How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate

“…These data are not in the article, but were kindly provided by the authors upon request.4 Reading on paper results in slightly better comprehension than reading on a screen(Clinton, 2019;Delgado, Vargas, Ackerman, & Salmerón, 2018;Kong, Seo, & Zhai, 2018). Reading times are very similar, except in the first studies when the quality of the screens was low.…”

Total Cost Analysis in Logistics : Practical Execution, Learning, and Teaching in Higher Education

“…As a complement to database searches, a backward snowball strategy is recommended (Wohlin and Prikladniki, 2013;Clinton, 2019). This strategy requires researchers to read the literature searching for relevant references and track them down.…”

“…To identify essential aspects of constructivist teaching approaches, I started with sources I was already familiar with that deal with constructivist teaching and with literature recommended to me by colleagues. Using a backward snowball approach 12 (Wohlin and Prikladniki, 2013;Clinton, 2019), I added literature referred to in these sources that seemed relevant to my project. After a first scan, about one half of the sources were eliminated, as they did not address essential aspects of constructivist teaching.…”

Society publishing: It's all about the community you serve

“…Print offers documented advantages over digital publication in the acquisition and retention of complex concepts (Clinton, ; Hom, ; Jabr, ). Regardless of age, readers routinely express a preference for the geography of a printed page in remembering what they have read, as well as the ability to physically take notes on it.…”