Medium Matters? Comprehension and Lexical Processing in Digital and Printed Narrative Texts in Good and Poor Comprehenders

Abstract

The present study examined differences in reading comprehension performance between good and poor comprehenders, across paper-based and computer-based formats. The sample consisted of 197 students (Mage = 10.9, SDage = 1.22), categorized into three groups based on their reading comprehension proficiency: good (n = 73), average (n = 90), and poor (n = 33). Using a pseudo-randomized within-subjects design, participants read two texts and completed both a cloze task and a proofreading task in paper and digital formats. Results showed that poor comprehenders consistently performed worse on both tasks; however, group performances were not influenced by the modality. Both tasks required more time in the digital modality and were associated with greater calibration bias. In the proof-reading task, nouns and adjectives were more difficult to retrieve than verbs and function words, whereas in the cloze task, function words were the easiest to supply. The discussion emphasizes the need to account the for task type and linguistic complexity when evaluating comprehension. Importantly, the lack of interaction between reading proficiency and modality suggests that digital assessments are comparably effective and reliable across different levels of reading ability.