Cited by 521Reading and Literacy DevelopmentCognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory

Open access
Peng, Peng, Barnes, Marcia, Wang, CuiCui, Wang, Wei, Li, Shan, Swanson, H. Lee, Dardick, William, Tao, Sha·2018·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the relation between reading and working memory (WM) in the context of 3 major theories: the domain-specificity theory (debate) of WM, the intrinsic cognitive load theory, and the dual process theory. A meta-analysis of 197 studies with 2026 effect sizes found a significant moderate correlation between reading and WM, r = .29, 95% CI [.27, .31]. Moderation analyses indicated that after controlling for publication type, bilingual status, domains of WM, and grade level, the relation between WM and reading was not affected by types of reading. The effects of WM domains were associated with grade level: before 4th grade, different domains of WM were related to reading to a similar degree, whereas verbal WM showed the strongest relations with reading at or beyond 4th grade. Further, the effect of WM on reading comprehension was partialed out when decoding and vocabulary were controlled for. Taken together, the findings are generally compatible with aspects of the domain-specificity theory of WM and the dual process theory, but, importantly, add a developmental component that is not currently reflected in models of the relation between reading and WM. The findings suggest that the domain-general central executive of WM is implicated in early reading acquisition, and verbal WM is more strongly implicated in later reading performance as readers gain more experience with reading. The implications of these findings for reading instruction and WM training are also discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000124

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 240 · Cited by 521

Authors
Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., Dardick, W., & Tao, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2018-01
Volume
144
Issue
1
Pages
48-76
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2766547072
Cited by
521
References
240
Citations by year
2026: 90 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 9
FWCI
44.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
reading, working memory, dual-process theory, intrinsic cognitive load, central executive, verbal working memory, reading comprehension, decoding, vocabulary, reading acquisition, grade level, reading instruction, working memory training
MeSH terms
Child, Child Development, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Reading, Executive Function

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