Cited by 155Literacy and Educational PracticesReading and Literacy DevelopmentEducational Methods and Media Use

Students' extracurricular reading behavior and the development of vocabulary and reading comprehension

Pfost, Maximilian, Dörfler, Tobias, Artelt, Cordula·2013·Learning and Individual Differences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.04.008

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pfost, M., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Bamberg (DE)
  • Heidelberg University of Education (DE)
Corresponding author
Pfost, Maximilian
Venue
Learning and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-08
Volume
26
Pages
89-102
ISSN
1041-6080 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114804407
Cited by
155
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3
FWCI
25.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Learning and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Methods and Media Use
Keywords
extracurricular reading, reading behavior, vocabulary development, reading comprehension, reading literacy, online reading, email, chatting, high school students, latent class analysis, reading achievement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review