Challenging assumptions

Once again, I present three studies on very different topics, but each for me was a helpful correction to my own assumptions. First, Salmerón, Altamura, Delgado, Karagiorgi & Vargas (2023) published “Reading Comprehension on Handheld Devices Versus on Paper: A narrative review and meta-analysis of the medium effect and its moderators” in Journal of Educational Psychology. Here are the edited abstract and impact statements with my own added bold:

As handheld devices, such as tablets, become a common tool in schools, a critical and urgent question for the research community is to assess their potential impact on educational outcomes. Previous meta-analytic research has evidenced the “screen inferiority effect”: Readers tend to understand texts slightly worse when reading on-screen than when reading the same text in print. Most primary studies from those meta-analyses used computers as on-screen reading devices. Accordingly, the extent to which handheld devices, which provide a reading experience closer to books than computers, are affected by the screen inferiority effect remains an open question. To address this issue, we reviewed relevant literature regarding potential moderating factors for the screen inferiority effect through the lenses of the reading for understanding framework. We then performed two meta-analyses aimed at examining the differences in reading comprehension when reading on handheld devices, as compared to print. Results from the two multilevel random-effect meta-analyses, which included primary studies that used either between-participant (k = 38, g = −0.113) or within-participant (k = 21, g = −0.103) designs, consistently showed a significant small size effect favoring print text comprehension. Moderator analyses helped to partially clarify the results, indicating in some cases a higher screen inferiority effect for undergraduate students (as compared to primary and secondary school students) and for participants who were assessed individually (as opposed to in groups). We discuss the need to continue fostering print reading in schools while developing effective ways to incorporate handheld devices for reading purposes. Our synthesis of existing studies indicates that readers comprehend slightly better when they read a text in print as opposed to on a handheld device. In-print reading can be considered as an efficient way to promote students’ text comprehension. 

A someone who is not at all a digital native, I readily accepted the previous findings. What I like about this study is the finding that primary and secondary school students comprehend almost as well on handheld devices compared to printed text. I also find it interesting that, in groups, the difference between the two media is smaller than alone. There is still an advantage to print but that advantage is small. The next study takes on another assumption, this time about people on the autism spectrum. McKern, Dargue & Sweller (2023) published “Comparing Gesture Frequency Between Autistic and Neurotypical Individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis” in Psychological Bulletin.  Here are the edited abstract and impact statements with my own added bold:

While diagnostic assessments for autism routinely screen for reduced frequency of gestures, evidence supporting reduced gesture production in autism is inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify differences in frequency of gestures between autistic and neurotypical individuals. Included studies compared frequency of gestures between autistic and neurotypical individuals. Database searches (APA PsycInfo, ERIC, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) and a call for unpublished data on the International Society for Gesture Studies listserv identified research from January 1994 to March 2023. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Designs. Quantitative synthesis involved a narrative review of all findings and meta-analysis of articles allowing effect size calculations, stratified by the type of gesture. Thirty-one articles comparing frequency of gestures between 701 autistic and 860 neurotypical individuals were included in the narrative review, 25 of which were also included in the meta-analysis. Compared to neurotypical individuals, meta-analyses found that autistic individuals produced significantly less total, deictic, and emblematic gestures. While the number of iconic gestures appeared comparable between groups, studies investigating iconic gestures exhibited an almost equal trend of both positive and negative effect sizes, which were mostly nonsignificant. [deictic gestures involve simple pointing; emblematic gestures are culturally created signs, e.g., “hook ‘em Horns” for UT fans; while iconic gestures represent their referent, e.g., flapping one’s arms to represent a bird]. The way gesture production was measured, age, observer familiarity, and task structure (but not overall study quality) moderated the effect size, albeit inconsistently across the types of gestures. Findings have implications relating to profiling gesture use in diagnostic assessments for autism and highlight gaps in our understanding of differences in gesture production in autism. This systematic review and meta-analysis found that while autistic individuals tended to produce certain types of gestures less frequently than neurotypical individuals across studies, they produced other types of gestures at comparable or higher frequencies than neurotypical individuals. The way gesture production was measured, age, observer familiarity, and task structure impacted the pattern of results. Findings have implications for clinicians assessing gesture use in assessments for autism and highlight where further research is needed to better understand differences in gesture production in autism. 

This one seemed interesting in challenging the assumption that reduced frequency of gesture is a sign of an autism spectrum disorder. It’s a nice example of the need for attention to detail in a nuanced way. The final study makes a similar point about schizophrenia. Raugh, Bartolomeo, Zhang & Strauss (2023) published “Deconstructing Emotion Regulation in Schizophrenia: The nature of abnormalities at the selection and implementation stages” in Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science.  The edited abstract and impact statement follow:

Difficulties with emotion regulation are observed across psychiatric diagnoses, including psychotic disorders. Past studies using trait self-report indicate that people with schizophrenia (SZ) are less likely to use adaptive emotion regulation strategies and more likely to use maladaptive emotion regulation strategies than controls (CN). However, more recent evidence using ecological momentary assessment (EMA) indicates that regulation effectiveness and adaptiveness may vary across strategies. The present study aimed to systematically understand abnormalities in state-level emotion regulation strategy selection, effectiveness, and adaptiveness in SZ compared to CN using EMA. Participants (n = 50 SZ; n = 53 CN) completed 6 days of EMA surveys assessing emotional experience, emotion regulation, and symptoms. Results indicated that SZ selected interpersonal emotion regulation and avoidance more often than CN, while both groups selected reappraisal and distraction more often than avoidance and suppression. [Interpersonal emotion regulation involves someone else, e.g., venting; reappraisal involves reframing the meaning of the experience to alter its emotional impact, e.g., it was frustrating not a personal attack; suppression entails tamping down an emotional expression, e.g., reducing crying or forcing a smile]. Overall, strategies were effective at reducing negative emotion and adaptive for reducing delusions over time. Reappraisal, avoidance, and suppression all significantly down-regulated delusions over time. Although some selection abnormalities were present in terms of rate of selection and effort exertion, people with SZ select strategies which are effective and adaptive in the short term. The present results have implications for how cognitive therapy for psychosis may target delusions. This study finds that people with schizophrenia select similar strategies to controls in daily life and that these strategies reduce negative emotion and symptoms in the short term. 

Here again, it seems to me that this research suggests that professionals understand both the hard work that people with schizophrenia try to do to manage emotions and the ways in which therapy can assist them.