Digital reading, analog foundations: reading literacy in the digital age

Abstract

Abstract Background Digital reading has become an essential component of contemporary literacy, yet questions remain about whether digital reading assessments measure a construct distinct from traditional paper-based reading. This study examined whether variance unique to ePIRLS reflects a distinct digital-reading construct or is better explained by student background, engagement, and familiarity with digital task demands. Methods Data were drawn from the linked PIRLS 2016 and ePIRLS 2016 assessments, administered to the same students on consecutive days in 16 participating countries and benchmarking entities. Survey-weighted hierarchical linear regression models were estimated using five plausible values for PIRLS informational reading and ePIRLS achievement. Models were specified sequentially to examine the additional contributions of student background characteristics, digital self-efficacy, and behavioral engagement indicators derived from ePIRLS process data, including pages visited, ad clicks, and task enjoyment. This stepwise approach was used to evaluate whether digital reading performance reflected primarily general reading ability or additional variance associated with digital engagement and familiarity. Results Paper-based reading ability accounted for the majority of variance in ePIRLS digital reading performance, explaining 60.4% of score variance in the pooled analysis. Student background factors contributed a small but significant increment in explained variance, while digital self-efficacy and behavioral engagement indicators added further modest improvements in model fit. Performance was positively associated with pages visited and task enjoyment and negatively associated with off-task ad clicks. While country-level variation existed, paper-based reading remained the dominant predictor across all systems, accounting for 46% to 72% of the variance. Conclusions The findings indicate that ePIRLS primarily reflects traditional reading literacy assessed in a digital environment rather than a substantively distinct digital-reading construct. Process data provided useful supplementary evidence by clarifying how engagement-related behaviors shaped performance. These results have implications for construct validation and for the interpretation of scores from large-scale digital reading assessments.