Abstract:Given the increasing popularity of reading from screens, it is not surprising that numerous studies have been conducted comparing reading from paper and electronic sources. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to consolidate the findings on reading performance, reading times and calibration of performance (metacognition) between reading text from paper compared to screens. A systematic literature search of reports of studies comparing reading from paper and screens was conducted in seven databases. Additional studies were identified by contacting researchers who have published on the topic, by a backwards search of the references of found reports and by a snowball search of reports citing what was initially found. Only studies that were experiments with random assignment and with participants who had fundamental reading skills and disseminated between 2008 and 2018 were included. Twenty‐nine reports with 33 identified studies met inclusion criteria experimentally comparing reading performance (k = 33; n = 2,799), reading time (k = 14; n = 1,233) and/or calibration (k = 11; n = 698) from paper and screens. Based on random effects models, reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper (g = −.25). Based on moderator analyses, this may have been limited to expository texts (g = −.32) as there was no difference with narrative texts (g = −.04). The findings were similar when analysing literal and inferential reading performance separately (g = −.33 and g = −.26, respectively). No reliable differences were found for reading time (g = .08). Readers had better calibrated (more accurate) judgement of their performance from paper compared to screens (g = .20). Readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens. What is already known about this topic Reading from screens is common. Many concerns exist about effects of medium on reading. Numerous studies on the topic have been conducted. What this paper adds Small benefit of paper on reading performance. No difference in reading times. Small benefit of paper on metacognition. Implications for theory, policy or practice Reading from paper may be more efficient. Better understanding of why paper has reading benefits is needed.

Screen and Paper Reading Research – A Literature Review

Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

An Exploratory Study on Academic Reading Contexts, Technology, and Strategies

Reading on Paper and Digitally: What the Past Decades of Empirical Research Reveal

Digital versus Paper Reading: A Systematic Literature Review on Contemporary Gaps According to Gender, Socioeconomic Status, and Rurality

Digital reading in a second or foreign language: A systematic literature review

Beyond print: reading digitally

A Systematic Review of E-Books in Academic Libraries: Access, Advantages, and Usage

The English literature researcher in the age of the Internet

A review of information literacy programmes in higher education

Advantages of Print Reading over Screen Reading: A Comparison of Visual Patterns, Reading Performance, and Reading Attitudes across Paper, Computers, and Tablets

Word, Text and Reading in the Digital Age

Digital literacy in the university setting: A literature review of empirical studies between 2010 and 2021

Book readers in the digital age: Reading practices and media technologies

Redefining Reading: The Impact of Digital Communication Media

Online Survey of Digital Reading by Adults with Low Vision

A systematic review on digital literacy

CRUISE-Screening: Living Literature Reviews Toolbox

Student perceptions of an online extensive reading platform

A Comparison of Children’s Reading on Paper Versus Screen: A Meta-Analysis

A Bibliometric Review Study on Reading Literacy over Fourteen Years