Abstract
BackgroundThe aims of this systematic review and meta-analyses were to determine if there is a statistically reliable association between poor reading and poor self-concept, and if such an association is moderated by domain of self-concept, type of reading impairment, or contextual factors including age, gender, reading instruction, and school environment.MethodologyWe searched 10 key databases for published and unpublished studies, as well as reference lists of included studies, and studies that cited included studies. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals for one primary outcome (average self-concept) and 10 secondary outcomes (10 domains of self-concept). We assessed the data for risk of bias, heterogeneity, sensitivity, reporting bias, and quality of evidence.ResultsThirteen studies with 3,348 participants met our selection criteria. Meta-analyses revealed statistically significant SMDs for average self-concept (−0.57) and five domains of self-concept (reading/writing/spelling: −1.03; academic: −0.67; math: −0.64; behaviour: −0.32; physical appearance: −0.28). The quality of evidence for the primary outcome was moderate, and for secondary outcomes was low, due to lack of data.ConclusionsThese outcomes suggest a probable moderate association between poor reading and average self-concept; a possible strong association between poor reading and reading-writing-spelling self-concept; and possible moderate associations between poor reading and self-concept in the self-concept domains of academia, mathematics, behaviour, and physical appearance.
Highlights
The ability to read is a normally-distributed cognitive skill, and 16 percent of people have reading skills that fall more than one standard deviation below the level expected for their age or grade (Shaywitz et al, 1992)
We currently do not know if poor reading is associated with poor self-concept because of inconsistent findings in the existing literature. These mixed findings might arise for a number of reasons: (1) poor reading is not associated with poor self-concept, producing spurious and unreliable outcomes; (2) poor reading is associated with some types of self-concept but not others; (3) poor self-concept is associated with some types of reading problems but not others; (4) poor reading is association with poor self-concept in some contexts but not others
In this systematic review, which identified 13 studies comprising 3,348 participants, we examined four explanations for these mixed findings: poor reading is not associated with poor self-concept (Explanation 1); poor reading is only associated with certain types of self-concept (Explanation 2); poor self-concept is only associated with certain types of reading problems (Explanation 3); and poor reading is more strongly associated with poor self-concept in some contexts more than others (Explanation 4)
Summary
The ability to read is a normally-distributed cognitive skill, and 16 percent of people have reading skills that fall more than one standard deviation below the level expected for their age or grade (Shaywitz et al, 1992). Despite this evidence, we currently lack a comprehensive theory explaining the mechanisms that link poor reading to emotional problems. These outcomes suggest a probable moderate association between poor reading and average self-concept; a possible strong association between poor reading and reading-writing-spelling self-concept; and possible moderate associations between poor reading and self-concept in the self-concept domains of academia, mathematics, behaviour, and physical appearance
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
