Reading comprehension and its underlying components in second-language learners: A meta-analysis of studies comparing first- and second-language learners.
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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)
- ORCID
- Lervåg, Arne
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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