Cited by 363Reading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and LearningEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

Reading comprehension and its underlying components in second-language learners: A meta-analysis of studies comparing first- and second-language learners.

Open access
Melby-Lervåg, Monica, Lervåg, Arne·2014·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

We report a systematic meta-analytic review of studies comparing reading comprehension and its underlying components (language comprehension, decoding, and phonological awareness) in first- and second-language learners. The review included 82 studies, and 576 effect sizes were calculated for reading comprehension and underlying components. Key findings were that, compared to first-language learners, second-language learners display a medium-sized deficit in reading comprehension (pooled effect size d = -0.62), a large deficit in language comprehension (pooled effect size d = -1.12), but only small differences in phonological awareness (pooled effect size d = -0.08) and decoding (pooled effect size d = -0.12). A moderator analysis showed that characteristics related to the type of reading comprehension test reliably explained the variation in the differences in reading comprehension between first- and second-language learners. For language comprehension, studies of samples from low socioeconomic backgrounds and samples where only the first language was used at home generated the largest group differences in favor of first-language learners. Test characteristics and study origin reliably contributed to the variations between the studies of language comprehension. For decoding, Canadian studies showed group differences in favor of second-language learners, whereas the opposite was the case for U.S. studies. Regarding implications, unless specific decoding problems are detected,…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0033890

Cites

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?

  • L2 readers often have smaller vocabularies in the school language than L1 readers and consequently lag behind on reading comprehension.

    “These children often have smaller vocabularies in the school language than their monolingual peers (L1 readers), and consequently lag behind on reading comprehension (Melby- Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014).”

    From Use of morphological and contextual cues in children’s lexical inferencing in L1 and L2 (2021) · cites this paper as Melby- Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 175 · Cited by 363

Authors
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Lervåg, A.
Affiliations
University of Oslo (NO)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2014-03
Volume
140
Issue
2
Pages
409-433
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2171036725
Cited by
363
References
175
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Duo Research Archive (University of Oslo) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Norwegian Research Council (2020)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
reading comprehension, second language learners, first language learners, language comprehension, decoding, phonological awareness, reading comprehension difficulties, socioeconomic status, home language, reading intervention
MeSH terms
Humans, Language Development, Reading, Multilingualism, Comprehension

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