trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Reading on paper improves comprehension compared with reading on screens.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
3 sources for · 1 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that reading on paper improves comprehension compared with reading on screens?

Yes. A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 experiments found reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper, and a separate review reports that paper reading led to better reading comprehension than screens. One small classroom study found an online assessment tool improved comprehension more than paper-based assessment.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 3 sources for, 1 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence for · 3
Between Reading and Screens
2026
Get citation
Nolan, S., Shin, W., Day, K., & Pei, X. (2026). Between Reading and Screens. play.google.com. https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=OXnVEQAAQBAJ&source=gbs_api

Evidence against · 1
Socrative as Online Formative Assessment to Foster Reading Comprehension
2023
Get citation
Socrative as Online Formative Assessment to Foster Reading Comprehension. (2023). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.35961/salee.v4i1.582

See more details
More for · 2
Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
2019
Get citation
Clinton, V. (2019). Reading from paper compared to screens: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269

Digital versus Paper Reading: A Systematic Literature Review on Contemporary Gaps According to Gender, Socioeconomic Status, and Rurality -
Get citation
Digital versus Paper Reading: A Systematic Literature Review on Contemporary Gaps According to Gender, Socioeconomic Status, and Rurality - PMC Lock. (n.d.). pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13100142

Receipt History
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work