Cited by 77Reading and Literacy DevelopmentLiteracy and Educational PracticesSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

The relation between time spent reading and reading comprehension throughout the life course

Open access
Locher, Franziska, Pfost, Maximilian·2020·Journal of Research in Reading

Abstract

Background: In the present paper, we investigated the association between time spent reading and reading comprehension throughout the lifespan. According to the Matthew effect (or rich‐get‐richer and poor‐get‐poorer) model, interindividual differences in reading‐related skills between poor and average readers become wider as individuals grow older. Furthermore, the model states that these differences may be caused by different reading habits (i.e., the amount of time spent reading). Less competent readers tend to read less and therefore show less improvement in their reading skills. Competent readers tend to read more and therefore show greater improvement in their reading skills. Therefore, we propose that the correlation between time spent reading and reading comprehension should increase as people grow older. Method: To test this hypothesis, we analysed data from the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS). We used data from four cohorts ( N = 28,795) with an age range from preadolescence (Grade 5) to later adulthood (>55 years). Results: Our results showed a medium‐sized correlation between leisure‐time reading and reading comprehension for students attending secondary school (β ~ 0.20). Contrary to our expectations, the correlations decreased with age and reached a stable low level (β ~ 0.07) in adulthood. However, for adults, occupation‐related reading predicted reading comprehension (β = 0.13–0.23). Conclusion: According to our results, reading should be viewed as a process that changes throughout the lifespan. Furthermore, results and implications from previous studies on the relation between time spent reading and reading skills from research conducted on school students might not be generalisable to adults. With respect to the results of the present study, we might restrict the validity of the Matthew effect in reading to school students and young adolescents.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-9817.12289

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 42 · Cited by 77

Authors
Locher, F., & Pfost, M.
Affiliations
University of Bamberg (DE)
Corresponding author
Locher, Franziska
Venue
Journal of Research in Reading
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-12-08
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
57-77
ISSN
  • 0141-0423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9817
OpenAlex
W2994331475
Cited by
77
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5
FWCI
10.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Research in Reading (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Das Repository der Padagogischen Hoschule St. Gallen (Padagogischen Hoschule St. Gallen) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PHSG #Proforis (St.Gallen University of Teacher Education) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PHIQ - das Repository der Pädagogischen Hochschule St.Gallen
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (PF 840/2‐1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy and Educational Practices
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
reading comprehension, Matthew effect, reading habits, lifespan development, individual differences, high school students, adults, German National Educational Panel Study

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