VDT versus paper-based text: reply to Mayes, Sims and Koonce

Abstract

Research into reading performance during the 1980s suggested that reading from video display terminals (VDTs) was slower and less accurate than reading from printed material. A recent study by Mayes et al. (Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 28 (2001) 367) reported in this journal also indicated that reading from a VDT took significantly longer than reading from paper. In reply to this, we report a study that examined directly comparable text in the two media in terms of study and reading times, number of correct answers and a memory retrieval measure. Neither study or reading times, nor the level of correct answers differed between the two forms of presentation, but the manner in which learned information was recalled did show a significant difference. It is suggested our replicated findings indicate that when material is adequately matched across media, reading times and number of correct answers do not differ, but differences in cognitive processing associated with memory assimilation do occur. This has major implications for the use of VDT presentation of knowledge. Further, the findings suggest that more traditional forms of performance measures, in particular reading speed, may be poor indicators of the amount and quality of information obtained from reading from VDTs in comparison to hard copy. Relevance to industry In the 1980s, research indicated reading performance was less for computers than paper. It is suggested this is not the case today, although the two media do have different effects on cognitive processing as measured by memory processes. This has important implications for using computers in learning and training activities.