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

Clinton, V. Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 13 January 2019.

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. Based on random effects models, reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper. Based on moderator analyses, this may have been limited to expository texts as there was no difference with narrative texts. The findings were similar when analysing literal and inferential reading performance separately. No reliable differences were found for reading time. Readers had better calibrated (more accurate) judgement of their performance from paper compared to screens.

"Reading is not optional." —

Walter Dean Myers