In this study, a meta-analysis of reading and listening comprehension comparisons across age groups was conducted. Based on robust variance estimation (46 studies; N = 4,687), the overall difference between reading and listening comprehension was not reliably different (g = 0.07, p = .23). Reading was beneficial over listening when the reading condition was self-paced (g = 0.13, p = .049) rather than experimenter-paced (g = −0.32, p = .16). Reading also had a benefit when inferential and general comprehension rather than literal comprehension was assessed (g = 0.36, p = .02; g = .15, p = .05; g = −0.01, p = .93, respectively). There was some indication that reading and listening were more similar in languages with transparent orthographies than opaque orthographies (g = 0.001, p = .99; g = 0.10, p = .19, respectively). The findings may be used to inform theories of comprehension about modality influences in that both lower-level skill and affordances vary comparisons of reading and listening comprehension. Moreover, the findings may guide choices of modality; however, both audio and written options are needed for accessible instruction.

在这项研究中，对不同年龄组的阅读和听力理解比较进行了元分析。基于稳健的方差估计（46 项研究；N = 4,687），阅读和听力理解之间的总体差异并不可靠（g = 0.07，p = .23）。当阅读条件是自定进度（g = 0.13，p = .049）而不是实验者进度（g = -0.32，p = .16）时，阅读比听力有益。在评估推理和一般理解而不是字面理解时，阅读也有好处（分别为 g = 0.36，p = .02；g = .15，p = .05；g = -0.01，p = .93）。有迹象表明，与不透明拼写法相比，使用透明拼写法的语言的阅读和听力更相似（分别为 g = 0.001，p = .99；g = 0.10，p = .19）。这些发现可用于为理解模态影响的理论提供信息，因为较低水平的技能和可供性会改变阅读和听力理解的比较。此外，研究结果可以指导方式的选择；然而，无障碍教学需要音频和书面选项。