Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository texts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Inferential comprehension is necessary to connect ideas in a text together in a meaningful manner. There have been multiple studies on inferential comprehension involving texts of different genres (narrative and expository), but not a coherent overview of the findings of inferential comprehension by genre. The purpose of this study is to provide a coherent overview by conducting a meta-analysis of the findings of inferential comprehension by genre. A systematic review of the literature yielded 18 reports with 19 independent studies involving 1714 participants in which inferential comprehension was compared by genre. Based on robust variance estimation, scores on measures of inferential comprehension were higher for narrative texts than expository texts (g = .36, p = .02). This effect did not vary depending on whether inferential comprehension was assessed during or after reading, whether the texts for each genre were matched for readability, whether the reader was an adult or child, and whether the inference connected different ideas in the text (text connecting) or the text to background knowledge (knowledge based). Potential explanations of genre differences in inferential comprehension and future directions for research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arfé, B., Mason, L., & Fajardo, I. (2018). Simplifying informational text structure for struggling readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31, 2191–2210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9785-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L., & Stein, N. (1981). The development of prose comprehension skills. In C. Santa & B. Hayes (Eds.), Children’s prose comprehension: Research and practice. Newark: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beers, S. F., & Nagy, W. E. (2011). Writing development in four genres from grades three to seven: Syntactic complexity and genre differentiation. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9264-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, R., Ozuru, Y., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. (2006). Children’s text comprehension: Effects of genre, knowledge, and text cohesion. In ICLS 2006—International conference of the learning sciences, proceedings (vol. 1, pp. 37–42).

  • Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & McNamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29, 137–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710801963951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, M. (2014). Meta-analysis and moderator analysis: Can the field develop further? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 53, 135–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2013.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Kendeou, P. (2014). The interplay of reader goals, working memory, and text structure during reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowyer-Crane, C. (2002). The relationship between reading comprehension and online inference generation in children. Doctoral thesis. Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/14165.

  • Bridge, C. A., & Tierney, R. J. (1981). The inferential operations of children across text with narrative and expository tendencies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 13, 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968109547408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004a). Children’s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (2004b). Individual differences in the inference of word meanings from context: The influence of reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 671. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (1999). Inference making ability and its relation to comprehension failure in young children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(5–6), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008084120205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. F. (1989). The use of the sentence verification technique in diagnostic assessment of listening and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Research, 5, 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinton, V., & Van den Broek, P. (2012). Interest, inferences, and learning from texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. A., Compton, D. L., Lindström, E. R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2019). Performance variations across reading comprehension assessments: Examining the unique contributions of text, activity, and reader. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09972-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins-Thompson, K. (2014). Computational assessment of text readability: A survey of current and future research. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 165(2), 97–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Predicting second language writing proficiency: The roles of cohesion and linguistic sophistication. Journal of Research in Reading, 35, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01449.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Beni, R., Borella, E., & Carretti, B. (2007). Reading comprehension in aging: The role of working memory and metacomprehension. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 14, 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825580500229213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Beni, R., Palladino, P., Borella, E., & Presti, S. (2003). Reading comprehension and aging: Does an age-related difference necessarily mean impairment? Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 15, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, C. A., Enos, M., York, M. J., Francis, D. J., Barnes, M. A., Kulesz, P. A., et al. (2015). Text-processing differences in adolescent adequate and poor comprehenders reading accessible and challenging narrative and informational text. Reading Research Quarterly, 50, 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elleman, A. M. (2017). Examining the impact of inference instruction on the literal and inferential comprehension of skilled and less skilled readers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 761–781. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to study thinking in everyday life: Contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5, 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Z., & Tipton, E. (2014). robumeta: An R-package for robust variance estimation in meta-analysis. Retrieved from arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02220.

  • Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53, 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks, B. A. (1997). Deductive reasoning with prose passages: Effects of age, inference form, prior knowledge, and reading skill. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 501–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, D. (2004). Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A comparison of words found in children’s narrative and expository reading materials. Applied Linguistics, 25(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90001-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Hauft-Smith, K., Cohen, A. D., & Pyles, L. D. (1980). Advanced outlines, familiarity, and text genre on retention of prose. The Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1980.11011745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh-metrix: Providing multilevel analyses of text characteristics. Educational Researcher, 40, 223–234. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11413260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, G. G., Sohlberg, M. M., Kirk, C., Fickas, S., & Biancarosa, G. (2016). Evaluation of use of reading comprehension strategies to improve reading comprehension of adult college students with acquired brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 26, 161–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2015.1007878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberlandt, K. F., & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.114.3.357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, S., Freed, E., & Long, D. L. (2016). Word-decoding skill interacts with working memory capacity to influence inference generation during reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebert, M., Bohaty, J. J., Nelson, J. R., & Brown, J. (2016). The effects of text structure instruction on expository reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 609. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, S., Miles, J. N., Booth, M. J., Wang, Z., Morton, S. C., & Shekelle, P. G. (2013). Risk of bias: A simulation study of power to detect study-level moderator effects in meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 2, 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. www.handbook.cochrane.org.

  • Hynd, C. R., & Chase, N. D. (1991). The relation between text type, tone, and written response. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969109547743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, J., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., Hickendorff, M., Koornneef, A., & van Leijenhorst, L. (2018). Profiles of young readers: Evidence from thinking aloud while reading narrative and expository texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P. (2015). A general inference skill. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch Jr. (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 160–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., Bohn-Gettler, C., White, M. J., & Van Den Broek, P. (2008). Children’s inference generation across different media. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.00370.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Institute for Simulation and Training, 56. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/istlibrary/56.

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraal, A., Koornneef, A. W., Saab, N., & van den Broek, P. W. (2018). Processing of expository and narrative texts by low- and high-comprehending children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31, 2017–2040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9789-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraal, A., van den Broek, P. W., Koornneef, A. W., Ganushchak, L. Y., & Saab, N. (2019). Differences in text processing by low-and high-comprehending beginning readers of expository and narrative texts: Evidence from eye movements. Learning and Individual Differences, 74, 101752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulesz, P. A., Francis, D. J., Barnes, M. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2016). The influence of properties of the test and their interactions with reader characteristics on reading comprehension: An explanatory item response study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. C. (2014). Inferencing behaviour of ESL readers. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 11, 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehto, J. E., & Anttila, M. (2003). Listening comprehension in primary level grades two, four and six. Scandinavian Journal of Educational research, 47, 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830308615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F. (2015). What about expository text? In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 348–361). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Magliano, J. P., Trabasso, T., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). Strategic processing during comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, S. J., Driscoll, C., Toland, M. J., & Kegler, J. L. (2013). E-readers, computer screens, or paper: Does reading comprehension change across media platforms? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMaster, K. L., Van den Broek, P., Espin, C. A., White, M. J., Rapp, D. N., Kendeou, P., et al. (2012). Making the right connections: Differential effects of reading intervention for subgroups of comprehenders. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 100–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., & Louwerse, M. M. (2012). Sources of text difficulty: Across genres and grades. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 89–116). Lanham: R&L Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F. (1987). Following the author’s top-level organization: An important skill for reading comprehension. In R. J. Tierney, P. L. Anders, & J. Nichols Mitchell (Eds.), Understanding readers’ understanding: Theory and practice (pp. 59–76). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narvaez, D., van den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. W. (1985). Text type and reader ability: The effects on paraphrase and text-based inference questions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968509547540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oudega, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Standards of coherence in reading variations in processing and comprehension of text. In K. Millis, D. Long, J. Magliano, & K. Wiemer (Eds.), Deep comprehension: Multidiciplinary approaches to understanding, enhancing, and measuring comprehension (pp. 41–51). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. A., & Stafura, J. Z. (2015). Comprehending implicit meanings in text without making inferences. In E. J. O’Brien, A. E. Cook, & R. F. Lorch Jr. (Eds.), Inferences during reading (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanin, J. R., Hennessy, E. A., & Tanner-Smith, E. E. (2017). A review of meta-analysis packages in R. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 42, 206–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998616674315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal reports of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyle, N., Vasquez, A. C., Lignugaris, K. B., Gillam, S. L., Reutzel, D. R., Olszewski, A., et al. (2017). Effects of expository text structure interventions on comprehension: A meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 52, 469–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saadatnia, M., Ketabi, S., & Tavakoli, M. (2017). Levels of reading comprehension across text types: A comparison of literal and inferential comprehension of expository and narrative texts in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 1087–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9481-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sáenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus narrative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250202300105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz, A., Gräsel, C., & Rothstein, B. (2017). Students’ genre expectations and the effects of text cohesion on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30, 1115–1135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9714-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seipel, B., Carlson, S. E., & Clinton, V. E. (2017). When do comprehender groups differ? A moment-by-moment analysis of think-aloud protocols of good and poor comprehenders. Reading Psychology, 38, 39–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2016.1216489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M. (2007). Inference processing in discourse comprehension. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 343–359). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M., Andruslak, P., Reisdorf, P., & Black, N. L. (1992). Individual differences in bridging inference processes. Memory and Cognition, 20, 539–548. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strickland, B., Barrie, S., & Williams, R. (2011). Discourse structure and word learning. Pragmatics and Society, 2, 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.2.2.07str.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner-Smith, E. E., Tipton, E., & Polanin, J. R. (2016). Handling complex meta-analytic data structures using robust variance estimates: A tutorial in R. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 2, 85–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-016-0026-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tipton, E., & Pustejovsky, J. E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40, 604–634. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615606099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Bohn-Gettler, C. M., Kendeou, P., Carlson, S., & White, M. J. (2011). When a reader meets a text: The role of standards of coherence in reading comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 123–139). Charlotte: IAP Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., & Gustafson, M. (1999). Comprehension and memory for texts: Three generations of reading research. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 15–34). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., Lousberg, S., & Visser, G. (2017). Preparing for reading comprehension: Fostering text comprehension skills in preschool and early elementary school children. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4, 259–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., Tzeng, Y., Risden, K., Trabasso, T., & Basche, P. (2001). Inferential questioning: Effects on comprehension of narrative texts as a function of grade and timing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 521–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Broek, P., White, M. J., Kendeou, P., & Carlson, S. (2009). Reading between the lines: Developmental and individual differences in cognitive processes in reading comprehension. In R. K. Wagner, C. Schatschneider, & C. Phythian-Sence (Eds.), Beyond decoding: The behavioral and biological foundations of reading comprehension (pp. 107–123). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hell, J. G., Verhoeven, L., Tak, M., & Van Oosterhout, M. (2005). To take a stance: a developmental study of the use of pronouns and passives in spoken and written narrative and expository texts in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 239–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(04)00190-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52, 47–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.905237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Virtue, S., van den Broek, P., & Linderholm, T. (2006). Hemispheric processing of inferences: The effects of textual constraint and working memory capacity. Memory and Cognition, 34, 1341–1354. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walkington, C., Clinton, V., Ritter, S. N., & Nathan, M. J. (2015). How readability and topic incidence relate to performance on mathematics story problems in computer-based curricula. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 1051–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walkington, C., Clinton, V., & Sparks, A. (2019). The effect of language modification of mathematics story problems on problem solving in online homework. Instructional Science, 47, 499–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-019-09481-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P. (1993). Comprehension of students with and without learning disabilities: Identification of narrative themes and idiosyncratic text representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 631–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, M. B. W., & Woodwyk, J. M. (2010). Processing and memory of information presented in narrative or expository texts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X485700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 920–933. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 725–764). Cambridge: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A180417 to California State University, Chico. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, USA

    Virginia Clinton, Terrill Taylor & Surjya Bajpayee

  2. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

    Mark L. Davison

  3. Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA

    Sarah E. Carlson

  4. California State University, Chico, Chico, USA

    Ben Seipel

Authors
  1. Virginia Clinton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Terrill Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Surjya Bajpayee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark L. Davison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah E. Carlson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ben Seipel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginia Clinton.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clinton, V., Taylor, T., Bajpayee, S. et al. Inferential comprehension differences between narrative and expository texts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Read Writ 33, 2223–2248 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10044-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10044-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation