Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Self-concept in poor readers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Self-concept in poor readers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Self-concept in poor readers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Self-concept in poor readers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2020
Overview
The 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.
We searched 10 key databases for published and unpublished studies, as well as reference lists of included studies, and studies that cited included studies.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.
Thirteen 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.
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.
