Cited by 105Reading and Literacy DevelopmentLiteracy and Educational PracticesSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Adolescent reading skill and engagement with digital and traditional literacies as predictors of reading comprehension

Open access
Duncan, Lynne G., McGeown, Sarah P., Griffiths, Yvonne M., Stothard, Susan E., Dobai, Anna·2016·British Journal of Psychology

Abstract

This study investigates the concurrent predictors of adolescent reading comprehension (literal, inferential) for fiction and non-fiction texts. Predictors were examined from the cognitive (word identification, reading fluency), psychological (gender), and ecological (print exposure) domains. Print exposure to traditional and digital texts was surveyed using a diary method of reading habits. A cross-sectional sample of 312 students in early (11-13 years) or middle adolescence (14-15 years) participated from a range of SES backgrounds. Word identification emerged as a strong predictor of reading comprehension across adolescence and text genres. Gender effects favouring female students were evident for reading frequency but not for reading skill itself. Reading habits also differed, and comprehension advantages were observed among females for fiction and males for non-fiction. Age effects emerged for reading frequency, which was lower in middle adolescence. Although more time was spent on digital than on traditional texts, traditional extended text reading was the only reading habit to predict inference-making in comprehension and to distinguish skilled from less skilled comprehenders. The theoretical and educational implications of these results are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjop.12134

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Duncan, L. G., McGeown, S. P., Griffiths, Y. M., Stothard, S. E., & Dobai, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Dundee (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Duncan, Lynne G.
Venue
British Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06-12
Volume
107
Issue
2
Pages
209-238
ISSN
  • 0007-1269 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8295
OpenAlex
W1939125392
Cited by
105
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
FWCI
12.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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
digital literacy, traditional literacy, word recognition, reading fluency, reading habits, print exposure, gender differences in reading, inferential reasoning, reading frequency, age differences in reading
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Age Factors, Aptitude, Books, Child, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Reading, Sex Factors, Students, 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