References
- Ainley, M. (2017). Interest: Knowns, unknowns, and basic processes. In P. A. O’Keefe & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), The science of interest (pp. 3–24). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55509-6_1
- Ainley, M., & Hidi, S. (2014). Interest and enjoyment. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 205–227). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203148211.ch11
- Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
- Akpan, B. B., Agam, B. M., & Bassey, S. A. (2018). The future of E-books in our contemporary world. Journal of Advances in Library and Information Science, 7(3), 246–249. http://jalis.in/pdf/7-3/Ben.pdf
- All, A., Plovie, B., Castellar, E. P. N., & Van Looy, J. (2017). Pre-test influences on the effectiveness of digital-game based learning: A case study of a fire safety game. Computers & Education, 114, 24–37. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.018
- Ardasheva, Y., Wang, Z., Roo, A. K., Adesope, O. O., & Morrison, J. A. (2018). Representation visuals' impacts on science interest and reading comprehension of adolescent English learners. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(5), 631–643. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1389681
- Asher, S. R., & Markell, R. A. (1974). Sex differences in comprehension of high-and low-interest reading material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 680–687. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037483
- Bando, R., Gallego, F., Gertler, P., & Romero, D. (2016). Books or laptops? The cost-effectiveness of shifting from printed to digital delivery of educational content, No 22928. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nbr:nberwo:2292
- Baron, N. S., Calixte, R. M., & Havewala, M. (2017). The persistence of print among university students: An exploratory study. Telematics and Informatics, 34(5), 590–604. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.11.008
- Bates, D. M. (2010). lme4: Mixed-effects modeling with R. http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/book
- Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). Linear mixed effects models package. http://cran.R-project.org/package=lme4.
- Ben-Yehudah, G., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2018). The contribution of text-highlighting to comprehension: A comparison of print and digital reading. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 27(2), 153–178. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/174353/
- Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(3), 206–219. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.003
- Bråten, I., Johansen, R. P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Effects of different ways of introducing a reading task on intrinsic motivation and comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12053
- Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of Internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 1027–1042. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.026
- Brown, J. I., Fishco, V. V., & Hanna, G. (1993). The Nelson–Denny reading Test. Riverside.
- Chung, S., Espin, C. A., & Stevenson, C. E. (2018). CBM maze-scores as indicators of reading level and growth for seventh-grade students. Reading and Writing, 31(3), 627–648. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9803-8
- Clinton, V. (2015). Examining associations between reading motivation and inference generation beyond reading comprehension skill. Reading Psychology, 36(6), 473–498. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2014.892040
- Clinton, V. (2014). The relationship between approaches to learning and the process of learning: An examination of the 3P model. Instructional Science, 42(5), 817–837. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9308-z
- Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Reading, 42(2), 288–325. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269
- Clinton, V., & van den Broek, P. (2012). Interest, inferences, and learning from texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 650–663. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.004
- Clinton, V., & Walkington, C. (2019). Interest-enhancing approaches to mathematics curriculum design: Illustrations and personalization. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(4), 495–411. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1568958
- D’Ambra, J., Wilson, C. S., & Akter, S. (2020). Continuance of e-textbook use by tertiary students: A qualitative approach. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 60(3), 223–232. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2018.1456987
- Delgado, P., & Salmerón, L. (2021). The inattentive on-screen reading: Reading medium affects attention and reading comprehension under time pressure. Learning and Instruction, 71, 101396. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101396
- Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
- Dobler, E. (2015). e‐Textbooks: A personalized learning experience or a digital distraction? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(6), 482–491. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.391
- Draaijer, S., Schoonenboom, J., Beishuizen, J., & Schuwirth, L. (2016). Supporting divergent and convergent production of test items for teachers in higher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 20, 1–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.12.003
- Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 597–610. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.597
- Florit, E., Cain, K., & Mason, L. (2020). Going beyond children's single-text comprehension: The role of fundamental and higher-level skills in 4th graders' multiple-document comprehension. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 449–472. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12288
- Flowerday, T., & Shell, D. F. (2015). Disentangling the effects of interest and choice on learning, engagement, and attitude. Learning and Individual Differences, 40, 134–140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.05.003
- Fulmer, S. M., D'Mello, S. K., Strain, A., & Graesser, A. C. (2015). Interest-based text preference moderates the effect of text difficulty on engagement and learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 98–110. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.12.005
- Gierl, M. J., Bulut, O., Guo, Q., & Zhang, X. (2017). Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1082–1116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317726529
- Grund, A., Schäfer, N., Sohlau, S., Uhlich, J., & Schmid, S. (2019). Mindfulness and situational interest. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 353–369. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1553296
- Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Perencevich, K. C. (2005). From spark to fire: Can situational reading interest lead to long‐term reading motivation? Literacy Research and Instruction, 45(2), 91–117. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070609558444
- Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232–246. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.4.232-246
- Haladyna, T. M., Downing, S. M., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines for classroom assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 309–333. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1503_5
- Halamish, V., & Elbaz, E. (2020). Children's reading comprehension and metacomprehension on screen versus on paper. Computers & Education, 145, 103737. Article 103737. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103737
- Hebbecker, K., Förster, N., & Souvignier, E. (2019). Reciprocal effects between reading achievement and intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23(5), 419–436. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1598413
- Hebert, M. (2016). An examination of reading comprehension and reading rate in university students. [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Alberta. Education & Research Archive. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7939/R3JD4Q202
- Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 191–209. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016667621114
- Hidi, S., Berndorff, D., & Ainley, M. (2002). Children's argument writing, interest and self-efficacy: An intervention study. Learning and Instruction, 12(4), 429–446. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(01)00009-3
- Hou, J., Rashid, J., & Lee, K. M. (2017). Cognitive map or medium materiality? Reading on paper and screen. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 84–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.014
- Hulleman, C. S., Durik, A. M., Schweigert, S. B., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2008). Task values, achievement goals, and interest: An integrative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 398–416. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.398
- Hyman, J., Moser, M., & Segala, L. (2014). Electronic reading and digital library technologies: understanding learner expectation and usage intent for mobile learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9330-5
- Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
- Johnson, M. G. (2016). The influence of student learning characteristics on purchase of paper book and eBook for university study and personal interest. Educational Psychology, 36(9), 1544–1559. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.1002831
- Kerr, M. A., & Symons, S. E. (2006). Computerized presentation of text: Effects on children's reading of informational material. Reading and Writing, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-003-8128-y
- Kimmel, M., & Aronson, A. (2011). Sociology now: The essentials (2nd ed.). Pearson.
- Knogler, M., Harackiewicz, J. M., Gegenfurtner, A., & Lewalter, D. (2015). How situational is situational interest? Investigating the longitudinal structure of situational interest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 39–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.004
- Kong, Y., Seo, Y. S., & Zhai, L. (2018). Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 123, 138–149. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005
- Kretzschmar, F., Pleimling, D., Hosemann, J., Füssel, S., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2013). Subjective impressions do not mirror online reading effort: Concurrent EEG-eyetracking evidence from the reading of books and digital media. PLoS One, 8(2), e56178. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056178
- Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M., & Isager, P. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 259–269. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963
- Latini, N., Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Salmerón, L. (2019). Investigating effects of reading medium and reading purpose on behavioral engagement and textual integration in a multiple text context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101797. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101797
- Latini, N., Bråten, I., & Salmerón, L. (2020). Does reading medium affect processing and integration of textual and pictorial information? A multimedia eye-tracking study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101870. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101870
- Lavery, M. R., Acharya, P., Sivo, S. A., & Xu, L. (2019). Number of predictors and multicollinearity: What are their effects on error and bias in regression? Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 48(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918.2017.1371750
- Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed‐effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65(S1), 185–207. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12117
- Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Messersmith, E. E. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of situational interest. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(Pt 4), 591–614. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02080.x
- List, A., Stephens, L. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Examining interest throughout multiple text use. Reading and Writing, 32(2), 307–333. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9863-4
- Lüdecke, D., Ben-Shachar, M. S., Patil, I., Waggoner, P., & Makowski, D. (2021). Performance: An R Package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60)Article, 3139. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139
- Magner, U. I., Schwonke, R., Aleven, V., Popescu, O., & Renkl, A. (2014). Triggering situational interest by decorative illustrations both fosters and hinders learning in computer-based learning environments. Learning and Instruction, 29, 141–152. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.07.002
- Mair, P. (2018). Modern psychometrics with R. Use R! Springer.
- Mangen, A., & Kuiken, D. (2014). Lost in an iPad: Narrative engagement on paper and tablet. Scientific Study of Literature, 4(2), 150–177. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/ssol.4.2.02man
- Mangen, A., Olivier, G., & Velay, J. L. (2019). Comparing comprehension of a long text read in print book and on Kindle: Where in the text and when in the story? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 38https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00038
- Mangen, A., & van der Weel, A. (2016). The evolution of reading in the age of digitisation: An integrative framework for reading research. Literacy, 50(3), 116–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12086
- Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 377–389. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.377
- Mayer, R. E. (2014a). Incorporating motivation into multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 171–173. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.003
- Mayer, R. E. (2014b). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139547369.005
- McGeown, S. P., Duncan, L. G., Griffiths, Y. M., & Stothard, S. E. (2015). Exploring the relationship between adolescent's reading skills, reading motivation and reading habits. Reading and Writing, 28(4), 545–569. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-014-9537-9
- McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000144
- Mills, M. S. (2016). A case for authoring multi-touch interactive Open Educational Resources. TechTrends, 60(5), 456–464. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0097-5
- Miyamoto, A., Pfost, M., & Artelt, C. (2018). Reciprocal relations between intrinsic reading motivation and reading competence: A comparison between native and immigrant students in Germany. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(1), 176–196. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12113
- Mizrachi, D., Salaz, A. M., Kurbanoglu, S., & Boustany, J. (2018). Academic reading format preferences and behaviors among university students worldwide: A comparative survey analysis. PLoS One, 13(5), e0197444. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197444
- Muijselaar, M. M., Kendeou, P., de Jong, P. F., & van den Broek, P. W. (2017). What does the CBM-Maze test measure? Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(2), 120–132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1263994
- Myrberg, C., & Wiberg, N. (2015). Screen vs. paper: What is the difference for reading and learning? Insights the UKSG Journal, 28(2), 49–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.236
- Nichols, M. (2016). Reading and studying on the screen: An overview of literature towards good learning design practice. Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 20(1), 33–43.
- Oakhill, J. V., & Petrides, A. (2007). Sex differences in the effects of interest on boys' and girls' reading comprehension. British Journal of Psychology, 98(Pt 2), 223–235. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X117649
- O’Keefe, P., Horberg, E. J., & Plante, I. (2017). The multi-faceted role of interest in motivation and engagement. In P. A. O’Keefe & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), The science of interest (pp. 49–68). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55509-6_3
- Ozuru, Y., Dempsey, K., & McNamara, D. S. (2009). Prior knowledge, reading skill, and text cohesion in the comprehension of science texts. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 228–242. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.04.003
- Palilonis, J. A. (2017). Multimedia active reading: A framework for understanding learning with tablet textbooks. In T. Kirr & L. R. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of research on instructional systems and educational technology. (pp. 153–163). IGI Global. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-2399-4.ch014
- Parkes, J., & Zimmaro, D. (2016). Learning and assessing with multiple-choice questions in college classrooms. Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315727769
- Payne, E. M., Hodges, R., & Hernandez, E. P. (2017). Changing demographics and needs assessment for learning centers in the 21st century. Learning Assistance Review, 22(1), 21–36. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1142572.pdf
- Peters, G.-J Y. (2014). The alpha and the omega of scale reliability and validity: Why and how to abandon Cronbach’s alpha and the route towards more comprehensive assessment of scale quality. European Health Psychologist, 16(2), 56–69. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h47fv
- Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. E. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement. Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315771045
- Revelle, W. (2018). Package “psych.” http://personality-project.org/r/psych/psych-manual.pdf
- Rose, E. (2011). The phenomenology of on‐screen reading: University students' lived experience of digitised text. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3), 515–526. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01043.x
- Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2017). Interest development: Arousing situational interest affects the growth trajectory of individual interest. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 175–184. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.02.003
- Sage, K., Augustine, H., Shand, H., Bakner, K., & Rayne, S. (2019). Reading from print, computer, and tablet: Equivalent learning in the digital age. Education and Information Technologies, 24(4), 2477–4502. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09887-2
- Saint-Mont, U. (2015). Randomization does not help much, comparability does. PLoS One, 10(7), e0132102. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132102
- Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350–353. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350
- Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211–224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016619705184
- Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23–52. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455
- Seufert, T., Wagner, F., & Westphal, J. (2017). The effects of different levels of disfluency on learning outcomes and cognitive load. Instructional Science, 45(2), 221–238. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9387-8
- Sidi, Y., Shpigelman, M., Zalmanov, H., & Ackerman, R. (2017). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learning and Instruction, 51, 61–73. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.002
- Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of Educational Research, 87(6), 1007–1041. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317722961
- Singer Trakhman, L. M., Alexander, P. A., & Berkowitz, L. E. (2019). Effects of processing time on comprehension and calibration in print and digital mediums. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1411877
- Soemer, A., & Schiefele, U. (2019). Text difficulty, topic interest, and mind wandering during reading. Learning and Instruction, 61, 12–22. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.12.006
- Springer, S. E., Dole, J. A., & Hacker, D. J. (2017). The role of interest in reading comprehension. In S. E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 519–542). The Guilford Press.
- Springer, S. E., Harris, S., & Dole, J. A. (2017). From surviving to thriving: Four research‐based principles to build students' reading interest. The Reading Teacher, 71(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1581
- Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2010). The role of personal epistemology in the self-regulation of internet-based learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 91–111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-009-9043-7
- Thomas, C. L., & Kirby, L. A. (2020). Situational interest helps correct misconceptions: An investigation of conceptual change in university students. Instructional Science, 48(3), 223–241. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09509-2
- Troyer, M., Kim, J. S., Hale, E., Wantchekon, K. A., & Armstrong, C. (2019). Relations among intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and comprehension: A conceptual replication. Reading and Writing, 32(5), 1197–1218. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9907-9
- van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers' goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1081–1087. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206376
- van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237
- Voss, J. F., & Silfies, L. N. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_2
- Willson, V. L., & Kim, E. S. (2010). Pretest sensitization. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 1092–1095). Sage. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019002249
- Willson, V. L., & Putnam, R. R. (1982). A meta-analysis of pretest sensitization effects in experimental design. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 249–258. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019002249
- Wylie, J., Thompson, J., Leppänen, P. H. T., Ackerman, R., Kanniainen, L., & Prieler, T. (2018). Cognitive processes and digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P. van den Broek, (Eds.) Learning to read in a digital world (pp. 57–90). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.17.10
- Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079