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

Reading on paper rather than screens helps students with dyslexia.

the verdict
INSUFFICIENT LEANING
Recorded sources
2 sources for · 0 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 rather than screens helps students with dyslexia?

Unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis of paper versus screen reading performance, plus one study of sixth-graders finding better comprehension from paper books than e-books, point toward a paper advantage in general student populations. Neither source specifically examines students with dyslexia, so the evidence only partially covers the claim.

Verdict: PARTIAL LEAN · 2 sources for, 0 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 · 2
Reading from Paper Compared to Screens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2019
Get citation
Virginia, C. (2019). Reading from Paper Compared to Screens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. eric.ed.gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12269

See more details
More for · 1
A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception
Get citation
A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. (n.d.). cir.nii.ac.jp. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471211241663

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