psychology research papers for students

Tips for Writing Your Best Psychology Research Paper

A checklist of do's and don'ts for students to write papers people want to read..

Posted July 17, 2022 | Reviewed by Tyler Woods

• What Is a Career
• Find a career counselor near me
• Scientific writing is non-intuitive in many ways.
• When it comes to writing psychology research reports, a primary goal should be clear communication.
• Here is a list of tips to help behavioral scientists, at all levels, to best communicate ideas regarding psychological research findings.

When it comes to reading academic research reports in the behavioral sciences, I'm no different than anyone else. I often find myself thinking "what is the point?" Reading academic papers is not always rainbows, balloons, and unicorns.

As a teacher and researcher, I regularly provide commentary on student research papers, with the primary goal of helping students best express complex ideas. Based on this experience, here is something of a checklist of issues to think about when writing a psychology research report.

Write as you speak.

So often, I read student papers that sound much more like someone trying to sound smart than like someone trying to communicate ideas. You made it into college—you're likely plenty smart. Don't worry about using big words.

The point of summarizing your research is to present it to others so that they understand what you are saying.

One way to achieve this outcome is simply to write as you speak. When you speak to others, you are trying to get them to understand something. This same goal is true when you are writing a scientific research report. Sure, avoid informalities, slang, and profanity in scientific writing—but beyond that, I suggest that you simply write how you speak.

Never copy and paste so much as a letter from another source.

In this day and age, it is common for students to copy and paste content from others' papers into their own. From there, students will often edit, modify, etc. Regarding this practice, I say this: Never do that! Not only does this practice have you dancing dangerously on the edge of plagiarism, but it is just a poor way to communicate.

When it comes to summarizing ideas from past researchers, your best bet is to read their work to the point that you really understand it and then to write your ideas out as if you are describing the ideas to a friend or family member. Doing so will ensure that your voice comes through.

Only summarize parts of past research that are relevant to your own research.

Sometimes, students feel that they have to summarize everything that they find in a relevant article connected with their research. Not so.

Imagine that you are writing a paper about how academic self-esteem (belief in oneself in academic contexts) relates to academic success (e.g., grade point average).

Now suppose that in your review of past work on this topic, you find a paper that summarizes five different studies that another researcher conducted on this topic. Imagine that one of the five studies examined the relationship between general self-esteem and academic self-esteem. Now imagine that this particular issue is unrelated to your own study. In this case, it would be a mistake to elaborate on this particular feature of this past work in detail.

Sometimes it feels like a student describing irrelevant details of others' work is intentionally trying to add length to their paper. Honestly, don't ever do that! Only include content that is relevant to your point. If there is a part of a prior paper that is not related to the point of your work, don't include it.

Avoid writing superfluous details about past studies (sample sizes, specific statistical findings, and ancillary findings) that do not relate to your own work.

Here's something that students often do not know. When very in-the-weeds details about a prior study make it into your paper, it comes across as a rookie mistake.

Such details often include the sample size from a prior study (e.g., "In Smith and Johnson's (2019) study, 632 young adult participants from a large, midwestern university were studied..."). Honestly, no one cares! In your own research report, describe your sample in detail—but not such details of past work.

Describing samples of other studies in detail in your own paper automatically puts the reader in zone-out mode.

This same rule applies to statistical findings from past studies. Suppose that Smith and Johnson found that high academic self-esteem corresponded to high GPAs in a sample of students from a community college. That's all you need to say! If you go on and describe the r-value and the p-value and the N of that prior research, you are once again inviting your reader to go into zone-out mode.

Include a brief summary at the end of your Introduction that includes clearly specified hypotheses.

The whole point of your Introduction is to get the reader to see the problem that you are studying and to see the value of studying that problem. A strong way to communicate all of this is to make sure to specify your hypotheses (or predictions) clearly in a section that completes your Introduction. Summarizing your specific predictions in detail in this section helps to provide a bridge between your Introduction and your Methods sections.

Make sure that each variable in your study is described in your Introduction so that the reader knows why it is included.

When a variable shows up in your Methods section that was not introduced in the Introduction, the reader will automatically be confused. The reader may think, "Wait, what? The intro didn't say anything about this variable. I have no idea what the relevance is here!" Each variable included in your Methods section should be described in some detail in your Introduction section—especially as it relates to the main predictions of your study.

Include sub-sections in your Introduction to help guide your reader to your broader points.

Reading scientific papers is not easy. One way to help make your presentation easier on your reader is by including sub-sections in your Introduction. APA style fully allows you to include as many sub-sections as you want in your Introduction.

You can create sections for each variable that you study in your project. You can create sections that describe past work related to the topic, etc. A sub-section will usually have between two and five paragraphs, just as a rule of thumb. Doing this will help in making your ideas clear to your reader.

Refer to hypotheses in words and not by some arbitrary numbers.

Near the end of the Introduction, as noted above, it is best practice to demarcate your specific hypotheses. Sometimes, a researcher will describe these in numbered form (e.g., Hypothesis 1: We predict that high levels of academic self-esteem will be positively related to cumulative grade point average . Hypothesis 2...).

In the hypothesis section of your Introduction, it is fine to number your hypotheses in this way. That said, later in your paper, it is not good practice to refer to your hypotheses by number. For instance, in your results section, you can imagine saying something like, "Hypothesis 1 was supported by a correlation."

By the time I get to the Results section, I usually don't recall which particular prediction comprised "Hypothesis 1." It's best practice to refer to your hypotheses in terms of the actual, relevant content. You could call it "the hypothesis suggesting that academic self-esteem is positively related to GPA." Such an approach will make it so that your reader is not flipping back to a prior section.

In your Methods section, describe each measuring instrument in detail and include academic citations that point to the full scale when appropriate.

In your Methods section, it is best practice to describe each measure in enough detail so that your audience has a solid idea as to how the measuring instrument works.

For instance, if you use a published scale of general self-esteem in your study, you should not only provide the full academic citation to this scale, but you should also give one example item (e.g., "Here is an example item: 'Generally speaking, I like myself.'") and you should describe the measuring system in sufficient detail (e.g., are the items on a 1-5 Likert scale, anchored with Strong Disagree and Strongly Agree? If so, say that.). This basic process should be used for each measuring instrument included in your study.

Never end your paper with a limitation of your work.

Life is hard enough and there are endless critics out there. It is appropriate to describe limitations to your work in your Discussion section, but it is not great practice to end your paper with limitations of your work. That could leave the reader with something we call the recency effect —where they primarily remember the final information that was presented. You don't want your reader to walk away thinking that the main point of your work is that you had a small sample size in your research, for instance. Your ending should bring the paper full circle and focus on the value of your work as well as potential implications.

Bottom Line

In my work as a psychology professor, I both produce psychological research reports and I read and comment on many student papers that summarize research. In my efforts to help students hone their skills in this realm, I recently published a book: Own Your Psychology Major (Geher, 2019) , which helps guide students on various facets of the field of psychology, including the presentation of research findings.

People often find the process of scientific writing a bit non-intuitive. Following the tips above can help behavioral scientists at all levels communicate their ideas clearly, with the goal of having their ideas heard. Ultimately, this is the goal of all writing, including scientific writing.

Geher, G. (2019). Own Your Psychology Major! A Guide to Student Success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Glenn Geher, Ph.D. , is professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. He is founding director of the campus’ Evolutionary Studies (EvoS) program.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Collection  06 March 2024

Psychology Top 100 of 2023

This collection highlights the most downloaded* psychology research papers published by Scientific Reports in 2023. Featuring authors from around the world, these papers highlight valuable research from an international community.

You can also view the journal's overall Top 100 or the Top 100 within various subject areas . *Data obtained from SN Insights, which is based on Digital Science’s Dimensions.

Mild internet use is associated with epigenetic alterations of key neurotransmission genes in salivary DNA of young university students

• Eugenia Annunzi
• Loreta Cannito
• Claudio D’Addario

Association between cannabis use and blood pressure levels according to comorbidities and socioeconomic status

• Alexandre Vallée

Effect of breathwork on stress and mental health: A meta-analysis of randomised-controlled trials

• Guy William Fincham
• Clara Strauss
• Kate Cavanagh

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder traits are a more important predictor of internalising problems than autistic traits

• Luca D. Hargitai
• Lucy A. Livingston

Married women with children experience greater intrasexual competition than their male counterparts

• Joyce F. Benenson
• Henry Markovits

Treatment of 95 post-Covid patients with SSRIs

• Carla P. Rus
• Bert E. K. de Vries
• J. J. Sandra Kooij

Co-use of MDMA with psilocybin/LSD may buffer against challenging experiences and enhance positive experiences

• Richard J. Zeifman
• Hannes Kettner
• Robin L. Carhart-Harris

Learning and memory deficits produced by aspartame are heritable via the paternal lineage

• Sara K. Jones
• Deirdre M. McCarthy
• Pradeep G. Bhide

Exercising is good for the brain but exercising outside is potentially better

• Katherine Boere
• Kelsey Lloyd
• Olave E. Krigolson

Modulation of amygdala activity for emotional faces due to botulinum toxin type A injections that prevent frowning

• Shauna Stark
• Craig Stark
• Mitchell F. Brin

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide metabolism and arterial stiffness after long-term nicotinamide mononucleotide supplementation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

• Takeshi Katayoshi
• Sachi Uehata
• Kentaro Tsuji-Naito

Measuring acute effects of subanesthetic ketamine on cerebrovascular hemodynamics in humans using TD-fNIRS

• Adelaida Castillo
• Julien Dubois
• Moriah Taylor

Cerebral hypoperfusion in post-COVID-19 cognitively impaired subjects revealed by arterial spin labeling MRI

• Miloš Ajčević
• Katerina Iscra
• Paolo Manganotti

Circulating microRNA expression signatures accurately discriminate myalgic encephalomyelitis from fibromyalgia and comorbid conditions

• Evguenia Nepotchatykh
• Iurie Caraus
• Alain Moreau

Examining the association between social media fatigue, cognitive ability, narcissism and misinformation sharing: cross-national evidence from eight countries

• Saifuddin Ahmed
• Muhammad Ehab Rasul

The illusion of the mind–body divide is attenuated in males

• Iris Berent

Genome-wide association study of school grades identifies genetic overlap between language ability, psychopathology and creativity

• Veera M. Rajagopal
• Andrea Ganna
• Ditte Demontis

Reverse effect of home-use binaural beats brain stimulation

• Michal Klichowski
• Andrzej Wicher
• Roman Golebiewski

Impacts of spaceflight experience on human brain structure

• Heather R. McGregor
• Kathleen E. Hupfeld
• Rachael D. Seidler

Frequency and characteristics of patients with bispectral index values of 60 or higher during the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia with remimazolam

• Byung-Moon Choi
• Ju-Seung Lee
• Gyu-Jeong Noh

Cognitive impairment in young adults with post COVID-19 syndrome

• Elena Herrera
• María del Carmen Pérez-Sánchez
• María González-Nosti

Giraffes make decisions based on statistical information

• Alvaro L. Caicoya
• Montserrat Colell
• Federica Amici

Genetic insights into the causal relationship between physical activity and cognitive functioning

• Boris Cheval
• Liza Darrous
• Matthieu P. Boisgontier

Nicotine exposure decreases likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 RNA expression and neuropathology in the hACE2 mouse brain but not moribundity

• Ayland C. Letsinger
• James M. Ward
• Jerrel L. Yakel

Presenting rose odor during learning, sleep and retrieval helps to improve memory consolidation: a real-life study

• Jessica Knötzele
• Dieter Riemann
• Jürgen Kornmeier

Brain activity during a working memory task after daily caffeine intake and caffeine withdrawal: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

• Yu-Shiuan Lin
• Janine Weibel
• Carolin Franziska Reichert

Autistic traits associated with dichotomic thinking mediated by intolerance of uncertainty

• Masahiro Hirai

Love and affectionate touch toward romantic partners all over the world

• Agnieszka Sorokowska
• Marta Kowal

Semaglutide and Tirzepatide reduce alcohol consumption in individuals with obesity

• Fatima Quddos
• Zachary Hubshman
• Warren K. Bickel

Daily exposure to virtual nature reduces symptoms of anxiety in college students

• Matthew H. E. M. Browning
• Seunguk Shin
• Wendy Heller

The role of cognitive flexibility in moderating the effect of school-related stress exposure

• Einat Levy-Gigi

Association of preexisting psychiatric disorders with post-COVID-19 prevalence: a cross-sectional study

• Mayumi Kataoka
• Megumi Hazumi
• Daisuke Nishi

Evaluating the complete (44-item), short (20-item) and ultra-short (10-item) versions of the Big Five Inventory (BFI) in the Brazilian population

• Raul Costa Mastrascusa
• Matheus Loli de Oliveira Fenili Antunes
• Tatiana Quarti Irigaray

Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain

• Agnieszka Pluta
• Joanna Mazurek
• Michał Bilewicz

Drug-induced social connection: both MDMA and methamphetamine increase feelings of connectedness during controlled dyadic conversations

• Hanna Molla
• Harriet de Wit

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in depression induces structural plasticity

• Mayank A Jog
• Cole Anderson
• Katherine Narr

A whole-brain model of the neural entropy increase elicited by psychedelic drugs

• Rubén Herzog
• Pedro A. M. Mediano
• Rodrigo Cofre

Impact and centrality of attention dysregulation on cognition, anxiety, and low mood in adolescents

• Clark Roberts
• Barbara J. Sahakian
• Graham K. Murray

Change in brain asymmetry reflects level of acute alcohol intoxication and impacts on inhibitory control

• Ryan M. Field

A generalized reinforcement learning based deep neural network agent model for diverse cognitive constructs

• Sandeep Sathyanandan Nair
• Vignayanandam Ravindernath Muddapu
• V. Srinivasa Chakravarthy

Exploring the role of empathy in prolonged grief reactions to bereavement

• Takuya Yoshiike
• Francesco Benedetti
• Kenichi Kuriyama

Children and adults rely on different heuristics for estimation of durations

• Sandra Stojić
• Vanja Topić
• Zoltan Nadasdy

Horses discriminate human body odors between fear and joy contexts in a habituation-discrimination protocol

• Plotine Jardat
• Alexandra Destrez
• Léa Lansade

Prognosis prediction in traumatic brain injury patients using machine learning algorithms

• Hosseinali Khalili
• Maziyar Rismani
• U. Rajendra Acharya

Results of a phase Ib study of SB-121, an investigational probiotic formulation, a randomized controlled trial in participants with autism spectrum disorder

• Lauren M. Schmitt
• Elizabeth G. Smith
• Craig A. Erickson

Light exposure behaviors predict mood, memory and sleep quality

• Mushfiqul Anwar Siraji
• Manuel Spitschan
• Shamsul Haque

Personality traits and dimensions of mental health

• Francois Steffens
• Antonio Malvaso

Neuroplasticity enables bio-cultural feedback in Paleolithic stone-tool making

• Erin Elisabeth Hecht
• Justin Pargeter
• Dietrich Stout

APOE ɛ4, but not polygenic Alzheimer’s disease risk, is related to longitudinal decrease in hippocampal brain activity in non-demented individuals

• Sofia Håglin
• Karolina Kauppi

Exploring regional aspects of 3D facial variation within European individuals

• Franziska Wilke
• Noah Herrick
• Susan Walsh

Personality traits and decision-making styles among obstetricians and gynecologists managing childbirth emergencies

• Gabriel Raoust
• Petri Kajonius
• Stefan Hansson

Greater traditionalism predicts COVID-19 precautionary behaviors across 27 societies

• Theodore Samore
• Daniel M. T. Fessler
• Xiao-Tian Wang

Gray matter differences associated with menopausal hormone therapy in menopausal women: a DARTEL-based VBM study

• Tae-Hoon Kim
• ByoungRyun Kim
• Young Hwan Lee

Prevalence and therapeutic impact of adverse life event reexperiencing under ceremonial ayahuasca

• Brandon Weiss
• Aleksandra Wingert
• W. Keith Campbell

Mindfulness may be associated with less prosocial engagement among high intelligence individuals

Proteomic association with age-dependent sex differences in Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance in healthy Thai subjects

• Bupachad Khanthiyong
• Sutisa Nudmamud-Thanoi

Contribution of sustained attention abilities to real-world academic skills in children

• Courtney L. Gallen
• Simon Schaerlaeken
• Adam Gazzaley

Synchrony to a beat predicts synchrony with other minds

• Sophie Wohltjen
• Brigitta Toth
• Thalia Wheatley

Spicy food intake predicts Alzheimer-related cognitive decline in older adults with low physical activity

• Jaeuk Hwang
• Young Min Choe
• Jee Wook Kim

Academic burnout among master and doctoral students during the COVID-19 pandemic

• Diego Andrade
• Icaro J. S. Ribeiro
• Orsolya Máté

Ketogenic diet for epilepsy control and enhancement in adaptive behavior

• Omnia Fathy El-Rashidy
• May Fouad Nassar
• Yasmin Gamal Abdou El Gendy

Imaginary pills and open-label placebos can reduce test anxiety by means of placebo mechanisms

• Sarah Buergler
• Dilan Sezer

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people with and without pre-existing mental health problems

• Ronja Kleine
• Artur Galimov
• Julia Hansen

Dysfunction of the hypothalamic-pituitary adrenal axis and its influence on aging: the role of the hypothalamus

• Melanie Spindler
• Marco Palombo
• Christiane M. Thiel

LPS induces microglial activation and GABAergic synaptic deficits in the hippocampus accompanied by prolonged cognitive impairment

Dynamic effects of bilingualism on brain structure map onto general principles of experience-based neuroplasticity

• J. Treffers-Daller
• C. Pliatsikas

Alternative beliefs in psychedelic drug users

• Alexander V. Lebedev
• Predrag Petrovic

Psychological profiles of anti-vaccination argument endorsement

• Dawn L. Holford
• Angelo Fasce
• Stephan Lewandowsky

Memory compensation strategies in everyday life: similarities and differences between younger and older adults

• Madeleine J. Radnan
• Riley Nicholson
• Celia B. Harris

Long-lasting effects of World War II trauma on PTSD symptoms and embodiment levels in a national sample of Poles

• Marcin Rzeszutek
• Małgorzata Dragan
• Szymon Szumiał

Overlap in meaning is a stronger predictor of semantic activation in GPT-3 than in humans

• Jan Digutsch
• Michal Kosinski

Poorer sleep impairs brain health at midlife

• Tergel Namsrai
• Ananthan Ambikairajah
• Nicolas Cherbuin

Screen time, impulsivity, neuropsychological functions and their relationship to growth in adolescent attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms

• Jasmina Wallace
• Elroy Boers
• Patricia Conrod

Linguistic identity as a modulator of gaze cueing of attention

• Anna Lorenzoni
• Giulia Calignano
• Eduardo Navarrete

Serum ferritin level during hospitalization is associated with Brain Fog after COVID-19

• Teruyuki Ishikura
• Tomohito Nakano
• Takashi Naka

Articulatory effects on perceptions of men’s status and attractiveness

• Sethu Karthikeyan
• David A. Puts
• Glenn Geher

Altered functional connectivity of the ascending reticular activating system in obstructive sleep apnea

• Jung-Ick Byun
• Geon-Ho Jahng
• Won Chul Shin

Exploring individual differences in musical rhythm and grammar skills in school-aged children with typically developing language

• Rachana Nitin
• Daniel E. Gustavson
• Reyna L. Gordon

Experiencing sweet taste is associated with an increase in prosocial behavior

• Michael Schaefer
• Anja Kühnel
• Matti Gärtner

Hypnotic suggestions cognitively penetrate tactile perception through top-down modulation of semantic contents

• Marius Markmann
• Melanie Lenz
• Albert Newen

Long-term high-fat diet increases glymphatic activity in the hypothalamus in mice

• Christine Delle
• Neža Cankar

Emotional face expression recognition in problematic Internet use and excessive smartphone use: task-based fMRI study

• Szilvia Anett Nagy
• Gergely Darnai

Conflict experience and resolution underlying obedience to authority

• Felix J. Götz
• Vanessa Mitschke
• Andreas B. Eder

Comparative efficacy of onsite, digital, and other settings for cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

• Laura Simon
• Lisa Steinmetz
• Harald Baumeister

Simultaneous multimodal fNIRS-EEG recordings reveal new insights in neural activity during motor execution, observation, and imagery

• Wan-Chun Su
• Hadis Dashtestani
• Amir Gandjbakhche

Facial emotion recognition in patients with depression compared to healthy controls when using human avatars

• Marta Monferrer
• Arturo S. García
• Patricia Fernández-Sotos

Evidence that the aesthetic preference for Hogarth’s Line of Beauty is an evolutionary by-product

• Ronald Hübner
• David M. G. Lewis
• Jonathon Flores

Effects of COVID-19 pandemic on structural brain development in early adolescence

• L. van Drunen
• Y. J. Toenders
• E. A. Crone

Improving stress management, anxiety, and mental well-being in medical students through an online Mindfulness-Based Intervention: a randomized study

• Teresa Fazia
• Francesco Bubbico
• Luisa Bernardinelli

Sex-related differences in parental rearing patterns in young adults with bipolar disorder

• Huifang Zhao
• Xujing Zhang
• Fengchun Wu

A follow-up study of early intensive behavioral intervention program for children with Autism in Syria

• Wissam Mounzer
• Donald M. Stenhoff
• Amal J. Al Khatib

Dog owner mental health is associated with dog behavioural problems, dog care and dog-facilitated social interaction: a prospective cohort study

• Ana Maria Barcelos
• Niko Kargas
• Daniel S. Mills

Languages with more speakers tend to be harder to (machine-)learn

• Alexander Koplenig
• Sascha Wolfer

How priming with body odors affects decision speeds in consumer behavior

• Mariano Alcañiz
• Irene Alice Chicchi Giglioli
• Gün R. Semin

Relationship between asymmetric nostril use and human emotional odours in cats

• Serenella d’Ingeo
• Marcello Siniscalchi
• Angelo Quaranta

Social support enhances the mediating effect of psychological resilience on the relationship between life satisfaction and depressive symptom severity

• Yun-Hsuan Chang
• Cheng-Ta Yang
• Shulan Hsieh

Predicting wellbeing over one year using sociodemographic factors, personality, health behaviours, cognition, and life events

• Miranda R. Chilver
• Elyse Champaigne-Klassen
• Justine M. Gatt

Multimodal assessment of the spatial correspondence between fNIRS and fMRI hemodynamic responses in motor tasks

• João Pereira
• Bruno Direito
• Teresa Sousa

Childhood maltreatment and emotion regulation in everyday life: an experience sampling study

• Mirela I. Bîlc
• Andrei C. Miu

Individual personality predicts social network assemblages in a colonial bird

• Fionnuala R. McCully
• Paul E. Rose

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Find Psychology Sources for Research Papers

Tips for finding reputable experts

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

So now that you've chosen a topic for your research paper, it's time to find trustworthy, verifiable psychology sources to guide your explorations and support your claims—not always an easy or straightforward task. Follow these steps to find reputable psychological sources.

1. Find Basic Background Information

At this stage, you're mostly looking for introductory information, but many sources contain information on the sources they used.

For example, when reading any study or evaluation, note the sources cited in these readings so you can look into them further during the next phase of the research process.

Finding sources often involves following a trail of leads, starting with general information and drilling down to more specific ones.

2. Use Your Library

The next step is to visit your library in person or online. The basic background research from the previous step should have yielded hints on what to look for. If you get stuck, ask a librarian for assistance.

When you've located some books on your topic, browse through the references listed in each. Think of the bibliography in each book as a guide to possible sources.

Finding a Good Research Topic

The ideal research topic is neither too broad nor too narrow: Too general a topic, and you'll probably be overwhelmed by too much information—but too specific means too little information.

For example, " substance use disorder " is too wide a topic to fully cover in a limited number of pages. To narrow it down, think of specific questions people might have, such as "How does drug use affect the health and well-being of college students ?" Often, this yields a topic to delve into fully.

3. Use Online Databases to Access Periodicals

PsycINFO, PsycNET, EBSCOhostOnline, and other relevant databases are typically available through your library or educational institution. If you're not sure how to access them or perform a search, seek assistance from a librarian.

4. Search for Online Sources

Check with your instructor about acceptable or preferred kinds of online sources. These might take the form of forums, blogs, informational websites, or articles from journals, newspapers, and magazines.

Some publishers offer free access to full-text articles .

5. Critically Evaluate Each Source

Carefully investigate each source to determine if it's credible and appropriate for your paper. Note the authors, publisher, sponsors, and age of the information,

6. Create a Working Bibliography

Even if your instructor doesn't require a bibliography, It can be a very helpful tool. A bibliography is a list of all the sources you might use in your paper. For your personal use, briefly annotate each entry in your list with a description. As you outline your paper, refer back to your working bibliography for sources that back your arguments, analysis, and claims.

Peter Cade/Getty Images

A Few More Tips for Finding Psychology Sources

In general:

• Work from the broad to the specific—from general resources down to more specific references such as journal articles .
• Keep track of where you got your information. Maintain careful notes or a working bibliography so you can cite each source in your paper properly.
• Don't be afraid to ask a librarian for help. Many libraries offer assistance through social media, email, and chat, but you can call if you feel most comfortable doing so.

 A Word From Verywell

Although finding psychology sources for your papers can be challenging, breaking the process down into steps can make it a lot less daunting. Most importantly, don't be afraid to ask your instructor or library staff for help—it's what they do.

American Psychological Association.  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association  (7th ed.). Washington DC: The American Psychological Association; 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

61 intriguing psychology research topics to explore

Last updated

11 January 2024

Reviewed by

Brittany Ferri, PhD, OTR/L

Psychology is an incredibly diverse, critical, and ever-changing area of study in the medical and health industries. Because of this, it’s a common area of study for students and healthcare professionals.

We’re walking you through picking the perfect topic for your upcoming paper or study. Keep reading for plenty of example topics to pique your interest and curiosity.

• How to choose a psychology research topic

Exploring a psychology-based topic for your research project? You need to pick a specific area of interest to collect compelling data. 

Use these tips to help you narrow down which psychology topics to research:

Focus on a particular area of psychology

The most effective psychological research focuses on a smaller, niche concept or disorder within the scope of a study. 

Psychology is a broad and fascinating area of science, including everything from diagnosed mental health disorders to sports performance mindset assessments. 

This gives you plenty of different avenues to explore. Having a hard time choosing? Check out our list of 61 ideas further down in this article to get started.

Read the latest clinical studies

Once you’ve picked a more niche topic to explore, you need to do your due diligence and explore other research projects on the same topic. 

This practice will help you learn more about your chosen topic, ask more specific questions, and avoid covering existing projects. 

For the best results, we recommend creating a research folder of associated published papers to reference throughout your project. This makes it much easier to cite direct references and find inspiration down the line.

Find a topic you enjoy and ask questions

Once you’ve spent time researching and collecting references for your study, you finally get to explore. 

Whether this research project is for work, school, or just for fun, having a passion for your research will make the project much more enjoyable. (Trust us, there will be times when that is the only thing that keeps you going.) 

Now you’ve decided on the topic, ask more nuanced questions you might want to explore. 

If you can, pick the direction that interests you the most to make the research process much more enjoyable.

• 61 psychology topics to research in 2024

Need some extra help starting your psychology research project on the right foot? Explore our list of 61 cutting-edge, in-demand psychology research topics to use as a starting point for your research journey.

• Psychology research topics for university students

As a university student, it can be hard to pick a research topic that fits the scope of your classes and is still compelling and unique. 

Here are a few exciting topics we recommend exploring for your next assigned research project:

Mental health in post-secondary students

Seeking post-secondary education is a stressful and overwhelming experience for most students, making this topic a great choice to explore for your in-class research paper. 

Examples of post-secondary mental health research topics include:

Student mental health status during exam season

Mental health disorder prevalence based on study major

The impact of chronic school stress on overall quality of life

The impacts of cyberbullying

Cyberbullying can occur at all ages, starting as early as elementary school and carrying through into professional workplaces. 

Examples of cyberbullying-based research topics you can study include:

The impact of cyberbullying on self-esteem

Common reasons people engage in cyberbullying 

Cyberbullying themes and commonly used terms

Cyberbullying habits in children vs. adults

The long-term effects of cyberbullying

• Clinical psychology research topics

If you’re looking to take a more clinical approach to your next project, here are a few topics that involve direct patient assessment for you to consider:

Chronic pain and mental health

Living with chronic pain dramatically impacts every aspect of a person’s life, including their mental and emotional health. 

Here are a few examples of in-demand pain-related psychology research topics:

The connection between diabetic neuropathy and depression

Neurological pain and its connection to mental health disorders

Efficacy of meditation and mindfulness for pain management

The long-term effects of insomnia

Insomnia is where you have difficulty falling or staying asleep. It’s a common health concern that impacts millions of people worldwide. 

This is an excellent topic because insomnia can have a variety of causes, offering many research possibilities. 

Here are a few compelling psychology research topics about insomnia you could investigate:

The prevalence of insomnia based on age, gender, and ethnicity

Insomnia and its impact on workplace productivity

The connection between insomnia and mental health disorders

Efficacy and use of melatonin supplements for insomnia

The risks and benefits of prescription insomnia medications

Lifestyle options for managing insomnia symptoms

The efficacy of mental health treatment options

Management and treatment of mental health conditions is an ever-changing area of study. If you can witness or participate in mental health therapies, this can make a great research project. 

Examples of mental health treatment-related psychology research topics include:

The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients with severe anxiety

The benefits and drawbacks of group vs. individual therapy sessions

Music therapy for mental health disorders

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for patients with depression 

• Controversial psychology research paper topics

If you are looking to explore a more cutting-edge or modern psychology topic, you can delve into a variety of controversial and topical options:

The impact of social media and digital platforms

Ever since access to internet forums and video games became more commonplace, there’s been growing concern about the impact these digital platforms have on mental health. 

Examples of social media and video game-related psychology research topics include:

The effect of edited images on self-confidence

How social media platforms impact social behavior

Video games and their impact on teenage anger and violence

Digital communication and the rapid spread of misinformation

The development of digital friendships

Psychotropic medications for mental health

In recent years, the interest in using psychoactive medications to treat and manage health conditions has increased despite their inherently controversial nature. 

Examples of psychotropic medication-related research topics include:

The risks and benefits of using psilocybin mushrooms for managing anxiety

The impact of marijuana on early-onset psychosis

Childhood marijuana use and related prevalence of mental health conditions

Ketamine and its use for complex PTSD (C-PTSD) symptom management

The effect of long-term psychedelic use and mental health conditions

• Mental health disorder research topics

As one of the most popular subsections of psychology, studying mental health disorders and how they impact quality of life is an essential and impactful area of research. 

While studies in these areas are common, there’s always room for additional exploration, including the following hot-button topics:

Anxiety and depression disorders

Anxiety and depression are well-known and heavily researched mental health disorders. 

Despite this, we still don’t know many things about these conditions, making them great candidates for psychology research projects:

Social anxiety and its connection to chronic loneliness

C-PTSD symptoms and causes

The development of phobias

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) behaviors and symptoms

Depression triggers and causes

Self-care tools and resources for depression

The prevalence of anxiety and depression in particular age groups or geographic areas

Bipolar disorder

Bipolar disorder is a complex and multi-faceted area of psychology research. 

Use your research skills to learn more about this condition and its impact by choosing any of the following topics:

Early signs of bipolar disorder

The incidence of bipolar disorder in young adults

The efficacy of existing bipolar treatment options

Bipolar medication side effects

Cognitive behavioral therapy for people with bipolar 

Schizoaffective disorder

Schizoaffective disorder is often stigmatized, and less common mental health disorders are a hotbed for new and exciting research. 

Here are a few examples of interesting research topics related to this mental health disorder:

The prevalence of schizoaffective disorder by certain age groups or geographic locations

Risk factors for developing schizoaffective disorder

The prevalence and content of auditory and visual hallucinations

Alternative therapies for schizoaffective disorder

• Societal and systematic psychology research topics

Modern society’s impact is deeply enmeshed in our mental and emotional health on a personal and community level. 

Here are a few examples of societal and systemic psychology research topics to explore in more detail:

Access to mental health services

While mental health awareness has risen over the past few decades, access to quality mental health treatment and resources is still not equitable. 

This can significantly impact the severity of a person’s mental health symptoms, which can result in worse health outcomes if left untreated. 

Explore this crucial issue and provide information about the need for improved mental health resource access by studying any of the following topics:

Rural vs. urban access to mental health resources

Access to crisis lines by location

Wait times for emergency mental health services

Inequities in mental health access based on income and location

Insurance coverage for mental health services

Systemic racism and mental health

Societal systems and the prevalence of systemic racism heavily impact every aspect of a person’s overall health.

Researching these topics draws attention to existing problems and contributes valuable insights into ways to improve access to care moving forward.

Examples of systemic racism-related psychology research topics include: 

Access to mental health resources based on race

The prevalence of BIPOC mental health therapists in a chosen area

The impact of systemic racism on mental health and self-worth

Racism training for mental health workers

The prevalence of mental health disorders in discriminated groups

LGBTQIA+ mental health concerns

Research about LGBTQIA+ people and their mental health needs is a unique area of study to explore for your next research project. It’s a commonly overlooked and underserved community.

Examples of LGBTQIA+ psychology research topics to consider include:

Mental health supports for queer teens and children

The impact of queer safe spaces on mental health

The prevalence of mental health disorders in the LGBTQIA+ community

The benefits of queer mentorship and found family

Substance misuse in LQBTQIA+ youth and adults

• Collect data and identify trends with Dovetail

Psychology research is an exciting and competitive study area, making it the perfect choice for projects or papers.

Take the headache out of analyzing your data and instantly access the insights you need to complete your next psychology research project by teaming up with Dovetail today.

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 11 January 2024

Last updated: 15 January 2024

Last updated: 25 November 2023

Last updated: 12 May 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 18 May 2023

Last updated: 10 April 2023

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Cognitive Psychology Research Paper Topics

This page provides a comprehensive list of cognitive psychology research paper topics , curated to inspire and assist students in their exploration of how humans perceive, remember, think, speak, and solve problems. Cognitive psychology, a discipline pivotal to understanding the intricacies of the human mind, encompasses a wide array of fascinating topics that delve into the mental processes underlying our daily functioning and well-being. From investigating the mechanisms of memory and the complexities of language acquisition to exploring the influence of emotion on cognition and the application of cognitive principles in technology, these topics offer students a rich terrain for academic inquiry. Designed to cater to a broad spectrum of interests and academic objectives, this list serves as a starting point for students aiming to contribute meaningful insights into the cognitive processes that define human experience.

100 Cognitive Psychology Research Paper Topics

Cognitive psychology stands at the forefront of exploring the vast capabilities and intricacies of the human mind, offering profound insights into our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. This branch of psychology delves into how people understand, diagnose, and interact with the world around them, influencing various aspects of human functioning and societal development. The research topics within cognitive psychology are as varied as they are dynamic, reflecting the continuous evolution of the field in response to new scientific discoveries and technological advancements. From the fundamental processes of perception and memory to the complex interplay between emotion and cognition, these topics not only contribute to our scientific knowledge but also have practical applications in education, mental health, artificial intelligence, and beyond.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

• The psychology of visual illusions
• Cross-modal perception and sensory integration
• The impact of aging on sensory processing
• Auditory perception and its cognitive implications
• The role of attention in shaping perception
• Taste, smell, and flavor perception
• Sensory deprivation and its effects on cognition
• Perception of pain and its cognitive modulation
• The neuroscience of touch
• Multisensory experiences and their cognitive effects
• Short-term versus long-term memory processes
• The effects of sleep on memory consolidation
• Autobiographical memory and self-identity
• Cognitive strategies to enhance memory retention
• The role of emotion in memory formation and recall
• False memories and their implications
• The cognitive neuroscience of working memory
• Memory disorders and cognitive rehabilitation
• The impact of technology on memory skills
• Eyewitness memory and cognitive psychology
• Models of attention and cognitive processing
• The impact of multitasking on cognitive performance
• Attentional biases and their psychological implications
• Cognitive load theory and information processing
• The role of attention in learning and memory
• Neural mechanisms underlying attention
• Distraction and cognitive control mechanisms
• The psychology of vigilance and sustained attention
• Attention deficits and hyperactivity disorders
• Selective attention and perceptual filtering
• The cognitive basis of language development
• Bilingualism and cognitive flexibility
• Language disorders and cognitive psychology
• The relationship between thought and language
• Cognitive neuroscience of reading and literacy
• Language processing in the brain
• Pragmatics and cognitive implications of language use
• The role of language in categorization and concept formation
• Sign language and cognitive processing
• Cognitive aspects of language evolution
• Cognitive strategies in problem-solving
• Decision-making processes and biases
• The psychology of judgment and choice
• Heuristics and cognitive shortcuts
• The role of intuition in decision-making
• Problem-solving in groups versus individually
• Cognitive biases and their impact on decision quality
• Risk assessment and decision-making under uncertainty
• The neuroscience of decision-making
• Creativity and cognitive processes in problem-solving
• Stages of cognitive development in children
• Cognitive theories of learning and instruction
• The role of play in cognitive development
• Adolescent cognitive development and risk-taking behavior
• Adult learning and cognitive change
• The impact of cognitive styles on learning outcomes
• Cognitive development in aging populations
• The role of technology in cognitive learning processes
• Cognitive enhancers and their impact on learning
• Metacognition and self-regulated learning
• Cognitive aspects of Alzheimer’s disease
• The neuropsychology of Parkinson’s disease
• Cognitive impairments in traumatic brain injury
• Neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia
• Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults
• Autism spectrum disorders and cognitive functioning
• The impact of stroke on cognitive functions
• Dementia and cognitive interventions
• Mild cognitive impairment and its progression
• Cognitive rehabilitation techniques for neurocognitive disorders
• The influence of emotion on cognitive processes
• Cognitive appraisal theories of emotion
• The role of cognition in emotional regulation
• Emotional intelligence and cognitive abilities
• The neuroscience of emotions and feelings
• Mood disorders and cognitive functioning
• The impact of stress on cognitive performance
• Emotion-cognition interactions in decision-making
• The cognitive psychology of happiness and well-being
• Emotional memory and its persistence
• Cognitive biases in social judgment and perception
• Theory of mind and perspective-taking
• Social cognition in interpersonal relationships
• The role of stereotypes in cognitive processing
• Cognitive underpinnings of prejudice and discrimination
• Social identity and cognition
• Moral reasoning and cognitive psychology
• The cognitive basis of empathy and altruism
• Social cognition and group dynamics
• Cognitive approaches to understanding social influence
• Cognitive psychology in human-computer interaction
• Virtual reality and its cognitive implications
• The impact of social media on cognition and social behavior
• Cognitive psychology principles in user experience design
• Artificial intelligence and cognitive modeling
• Gaming and cognitive skill development
• Cognitive training apps and their effectiveness
• Neurotechnology and cognitive enhancement
• The role of cognitive psychology in digital education
• Wearable technology and cognitive monitoring

The exploration of cognitive psychology research paper topics presents an unparalleled opportunity to delve into the mechanisms that underpin human cognition and behavior. Each category and topic not only contributes to the rich tapestry of cognitive psychology but also holds the potential for groundbreaking research that can influence educational practices, therapeutic approaches, and policy development. Students are encouraged to engage deeply with these topics, leveraging their curiosity and analytical skills to advance the field and contribute valuable insights into the complex world of human cognition.

What is Cognitive Psychology

Cognitive Psychology as a Discipline

The development of cognitive psychology marked a significant shift from the behaviorist perspective that dominated psychology for much of the early 20th century, which largely ignored mental processes. Instead, cognitive psychology focuses on understanding internal mental states and processes, utilizing this understanding to explain behavioral patterns. This focus on the internal workings of the mind has not only expanded the scope of psychological research but has also had practical applications in various fields such as education, mental health, artificial intelligence, and more, demonstrating the discipline’s broad impact.

The Importance of Research in Expanding Our Understanding of Cognitive Processes

Research in cognitive psychology plays a crucial role in expanding our understanding of the human mind and behavior. Through empirical studies, experiments, and longitudinal research, cognitive psychologists seek to build a body of knowledge about how cognitive processes work, how they change over time, and how they can be improved or altered. This research is fundamental to developing new theories of cognition that can explain complex human behaviors and cognitive anomalies.

One of the key contributions of cognitive psychology research is the development of models that describe various cognitive processes. For example, research on memory has led to the formulation of the multi-store model, which outlines how information flows from sensory memory to short-term memory and finally to long-term memory. Similarly, studies on decision-making and problem-solving have introduced several cognitive biases that influence human judgment, such as confirmation bias and availability heuristic. These models and theories are crucial for understanding the limitations and capabilities of human cognition, informing approaches in education, cognitive therapy, and even interface design in technology.

Moreover, cognitive psychology research has a significant impact on diagnosing and treating cognitive disorders. Studies on neurocognitive disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), provide insights into their cognitive underpinnings, leading to better diagnostic criteria and treatment options. Research in this field also supports the development of cognitive rehabilitation techniques and cognitive-behavioral therapies, demonstrating its vital role in improving mental health and cognitive function.

The Variety of Research Topics within Cognitive Psychology and Their Relevance to Real-World Applications

Cognitive psychology encompasses a wide array of research topics, each with direct implications for real-world applications. For instance, research in perception and sensation enhances our understanding of how sensory information is interpreted by the brain, influencing fields such as marketing, design, and even virtual reality development. Studies on attention and information processing have led to improvements in educational strategies, helping to develop teaching methods that align with cognitive load theory and the attentional needs of students.

Language and cognition research has profound implications for language teaching methodologies, speech therapy, and understanding language disorders. Insights from this research help in designing interventions for individuals with dyslexia or aphasia, facilitating better communication and learning outcomes. Additionally, the study of problem-solving and decision-making is pivotal for the development of artificial intelligence, providing algorithms with models of human cognition that can be simulated in computational systems.

The exploration of memory and recall has applications in legal settings, especially in eyewitness testimony and the reliability of memory. Cognitive psychology’s findings on the malleability of human memory and the conditions under which memories are accurately or inaccurately recalled are crucial for informing judicial processes and policies. Furthermore, the study of social cognition, which examines how individuals perceive, think about, and interact with others, is essential for understanding social behavior, improving interpersonal relationships, and addressing societal issues such as prejudice and discrimination.

Recent Advancements in Cognitive Psychology Research

Recent advancements in cognitive psychology research have been facilitated by technological innovations, allowing for more sophisticated exploration of cognitive processes. Neuroimaging techniques such as fMRI and PET scans have provided insights into the neural substrates of various cognitive functions, bridging the gap between cognitive psychology and neuroscience. These advancements have led to a deeper understanding of how different brain regions are involved in specific cognitive tasks, such as memory recall or language processing.

Additionally, the integration of machine learning and artificial intelligence in cognitive research has opened new avenues for analyzing large datasets, leading to more nuanced understandings of cognitive patterns and anomalies. This intersection of cognitive psychology and computational modeling has also advanced the development of intelligent systems capable of mimicking human cognitive functions, from language understanding to pattern recognition.

Another significant advancement is in the realm of cognitive enhancement, where research is exploring ways to improve cognitive functions through pharmacological means, cognitive training exercises, and even non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. These studies hold the potential for significant impacts on education, mental health treatment, and the general enhancement of cognitive abilities in healthy individuals.

Ethical Issues Inherent in Cognitive Psychology Research

Cognitive psychology research, while offering vast potential for understanding and enhancing human cognition, also presents several ethical considerations. Issues such as informed consent, privacy, and the potential for misuse of cognitive data are paramount concerns. The use of neuroimaging and other biometric data, for instance, raises questions about the privacy of mental states and the potential for such information to be used in ways that could infringe on individual rights or autonomy.

Additionally, the ethical implications of cognitive enhancement and the potential societal impacts of creating disparities between those who have access to cognitive enhancement technologies and those who do not are areas of ongoing debate. Cognitive psychology researchers must navigate these ethical waters carefully, ensuring that their work promotes the welfare and dignity of all individuals while advancing scientific knowledge.

Future Directions for Research in Cognitive Psychology

The future of cognitive psychology research promises further integration with neuroscience, the application of advanced computational models, and the exploration of how cognitive processes evolve in a rapidly changing digital world. An exciting direction for future research is the investigation of how digital technologies, such as smartphones and social media, are affecting cognitive development, attention spans, and social cognition. Understanding these impacts is crucial for developing strategies to mitigate potential negative effects while harnessing technology’s power to enhance cognitive function.

Another area of future research is the exploration of individual differences in cognition, understanding how genetic, environmental, and cultural factors contribute to the diversity of cognitive processes among individuals. This line of research holds the promise of personalizing educational and therapeutic approaches to cater to individual cognitive profiles.

The Transformative Potential of Research in Cognitive Psychology

Research in cognitive psychology holds transformative potential for numerous aspects of human life, from education and mental health to technology and social interaction. By continuing to explore the intricacies of cognitive processes and their neural underpinnings, cognitive psychology can contribute to a deeper understanding of what it means to be human. The ongoing exploration of cognitive phenomena not only enriches our knowledge of the mind but also translates into practical applications that can improve individual well-being and societal health. As cognitive psychology advances, its research continues to shape our world, demonstrating the enduring power of understanding the human mind.

iResearchNet’s Writing Services

In the intricate and evolving field of cognitive psychology, where the depth and breadth of research topics extend far into the understanding of the human mind, iResearchNet stands as a beacon of support for students embarking on their academic journey. Recognizing the challenges students face in navigating the complex landscape of cognitive psychology research, iResearchNet offers bespoke writing services tailored to meet the unique needs of each research endeavor. Our mission is to facilitate your academic success by providing customized, high-quality research papers that reflect the latest advancements and ethical standards in cognitive psychology.

• Expert Writers Holding Advanced Degrees in Cognitive Psychology : Our team comprises seasoned professionals who not only hold advanced degrees in cognitive psychology but also bring a wealth of research and practical experience to your project.
• Customized Papers That Precisely Meet Academic and Research Needs : Every paper is crafted with the utmost attention to detail, ensuring that it meets your specific academic guidelines and research objectives.
• In-Depth Research Leveraging the Latest Cognitive Psychology Studies : We conduct comprehensive research, utilizing the most current studies and findings in cognitive psychology to enrich your paper with cutting-edge insights.
• Strict Adherence to Academic Formatting Standards : Whether you require APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, or Harvard formatting, our writers are well-versed in all academic formatting guidelines, guaranteeing that your paper meets the highest scholarly standards.
• Commitment to Delivering Top-Quality Scholarly Work : Quality underpins everything we do. We’re committed to producing scholarly work that not only meets but exceeds academic expectations.
• Tailored Solutions Addressing Specific Research Questions : Recognizing the uniqueness of each research question, we offer tailored writing solutions that directly address your specific research focus.
• Competitively Priced Services for Students : Understanding the financial constraints faced by many students, our services are priced competitively, providing access to quality writing services without breaking the bank.
• Capability to Meet Tight Deadlines, Ensuring Timely Submissions : We pride ourselves on our ability to handle tight deadlines, ensuring that your project is delivered on time, every time, without compromising quality.
• Pledge of Punctual Delivery for Every Project : Timeliness is key in academic submissions. We pledge to deliver your project on or before the deadline, helping you avoid any last-minute stress.
• Continuous Support Available Any Time of the Day : Our support team is available 24/7, ready to answer your questions, provide updates, and offer the assistance you need at any stage of your project.
• Guarantee of Absolute Privacy for All Client Details : Your privacy is paramount. We adhere to strict confidentiality policies, ensuring that all your personal and project details remain private and secure.
• User-Friendly Platform for Effortless Order Tracking : Our online platform is designed for ease of use, allowing you to track your order’s progress with ease and confidence.
• Money-Back Guarantee for Unsatisfactory Results : While we strive for perfection, we offer a money-back guarantee if the final product does not meet your expectations, ensuring your complete satisfaction.

At iResearchNet, our unwavering dedication to supporting students in their cognitive psychology research endeavors is matched only by our commitment to excellence. By choosing our customized writing services, you’re not just getting a research paper; you’re gaining a partner dedicated to helping you succeed academically and professionally. We understand the transformative potential of cognitive psychology research and are here to ensure that your academic journey in this fascinating field is both successful and rewarding. Trust iResearchNet to be your ally in navigating the complexities of cognitive psychology research.

Unlock the Potential of Your Cognitive Psychology Research with iResearchNet!

Dive into the depths of cognitive psychology with confidence and let iResearchNet be your guide to academic excellence. Our expert writing services are specifically designed to cater to your cognitive psychology research paper needs, ensuring that your exploration into the human mind is not only insightful but also academically rewarding. Whether you’re unraveling the complexities of memory, perception, decision-making, or any other area within this fascinating field, our team is here to support your academic journey every step of the way.

Embrace the opportunity to elevate your research with the backing of iResearchNet’s seasoned professionals, who bring a wealth of knowledge and expertise to your project. Our customized writing solutions are tailored to your unique research questions and academic requirements, ensuring that your paper stands out in both depth and quality. With iResearchNet, navigating the intricate world of cognitive psychology research becomes a seamless and stress-free experience.

We understand the pressures of academic deadlines and the demand for high-quality research. That’s why our ordering process is designed to be as straightforward as possible, allowing you to quickly secure the expert assistance you need without any hassle. From the moment you reach out, you’ll enjoy comprehensive support, detailed updates, and continuous communication, ensuring a smooth and successful completion of your project.

Don’t let the challenge of crafting a top-notch cognitive psychology research paper hold you back. Choose iResearchNet and unlock the full potential of your academic endeavors. Our commitment to quality, combined with competitive pricing and a user-friendly platform, makes us the ideal partner for your cognitive psychology research needs. Start your journey to academic success today and experience the difference that professional, customized writing services can make.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Correlates of K-12 Students’ Intertextual Integration

• REVIEW ARTICLE
• Open access
• Published: 07 May 2024
• Volume 36 , article number  48 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Daniel R. Espinas 1 , 2 &
• Brennan W. Chandler 2  

180 Accesses

8 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

We conducted a systematic review of research involving K-12 students that examined associations among individual differences factors (e.g., working memory) and intertextual integration. We identified 25 studies published in 23 peer-reviewed journal articles and two dissertations/theses. These examined a wide range of individual difference factors, which we organized into four categories: (a) language and literacy, (b) cognition and metacognition, (c) knowledge and beliefs, and (d) motivation, emotion, and personality. We found large variation in the participants, tasks, and document types, and little systematic replication across studies. Nonetheless, results generally showed that variation in literacy, cognition, metacognition, knowledge, beliefs, and motivation are positively and moderately associated with intertextual integration. We discuss the limitations of this work and offer four recommendations for future research.

Similar content being viewed by others

The association between sourcing skills and intertextual integration in lower secondary school students

Diversity in Online Learning Interaction and Participation

The link between high-impact practices and student learning: some longitudinal evidence.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Reading is a social practice defined by one’s historical and cultural context (Gee, 2007 ). Indeed, from its on origins on clay pots, advances in writing technology (e.g., printing press) have radically changed the forms that texts can take; how they are shared and accessed; their roles in social, cultural, and economic practices; and expectations for who should be able to read and produce them (Manguel, 1996 ; Olson, 1994 ). This gradual evolution has seen rapid developments over the past 30 years, with advances in digital technology now offering near universal access to text documents, and in effect changing what readers read (Mackey, 2020 ), how they do it (Baron, 2021 ; Rouet, 2005 ; Wolf, 2018 ), and for what purposes (Coiro, 2021 ; Leu et al., 2019 ; Magliano et al., 2018 ). Consequently, what is now regarded as literate differs markedly from that of even several decades ago (Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Laboratory 2012 ; Britt et al., 2018 ). It is within this new context that we consider one aspect of literacy that has become increasingly common: intertextual integration.

The matter of integrating multiple information sources has been a topic of great interest in several fields (Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory, 2012 ; Braasch et al., 2018 ; Nelson & King, 2022 ). Given our interest in applications for K-12 literacy learning and instruction, we focus in this study on intertextual integration as it has been conceptualized within educational psychology. In this context, intertextual integration refers to the mental process of selecting, organizing, corroborating, and synthesizing information from multiple document sources for the purpose of constructing a coherent representation of the situation presented among them (Barzilai et al., 2018 ; Brand-Gruwel et al., 2009 ; Britt et al., 1999 ; Leu et al., 2015 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ; Wineburg, 1991 ). We focus here primarily on connections among text documents made during reading and writing, rather than connections made between information presented in other types of media (e.g., pictures, videos) or in other forms of discourse (e.g., conversations). Note that this definition of intertextual integration overlaps with the concept of intertextuality (Allen, 2022 ; Bazerman, 2004 ; Lemke, 2004 ). The latter has been defined in a variety of ways but generally refers to connections a person makes between texts and their store of accumulated textual, contextual, and cultural knowledge.

The remainder of this introduction is organized into three parts. First, we discuss the importance of intertextual integration in K-12 educational contexts. Second, provide a capsule summary of how intertextual integration has been conceptualized in frameworks, theories, and models of multiple document use. Third, we discuss hypothesized predictors of intertextual integration, and previous efforts to review this literature.

Intertextual Integration in K-12 Education

Over the past century, reading research and practice have focused largely on processes involved in reading single, carefully curated documents for a small range of academic purposes (Anderson et al., 1985 ; Gibson & Levin, 1975 ; Huey, 1908 ; Perfetti, 1985 ; Reichle, 2021 ; Scammacca et al., 2016 ). This work has shown that reading depends on learning how oral and written language are structured and connected (Adams, 1990 ; Byrne, 1998 ; Castles et al., 2018 ; Ehri, 2014 ); acquiring rich, well-connected, and easily accessible stores of word, domain, disciplinary, and cultural knowledge (Goldman et al., 2016 ; Hwang et al., 2022 ; Lee, 2007 ; McCarthy & McNamara, 2021 ; Perfetti & Helder, 2022 ); and efficient use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies to monitor and construct meaning within a document (Garner, 1987 ; Graesser, 2007 ). A large body of work has also shown that reader characteristics (e.g., motivation) interact with features of the document (e.g., length, genre) and task (e.g., form an argument) to influence comprehension processes and outcomes (Afflerbach 2016 ; Snow, 2002 ).

Although skillful single document reading remains vital, present-day readers often encounter tasks involving multiple printed and digital text documents (Baron, 2021 ). Therefore, beyond the skills just outlined, readers must now also develop facility with a variety of multiple document use skills, to include searching for, selecting, navigating, evaluating, and integrating multiple printed and digital documents (Britt et al., 2018 ). Such skills are critical for academic achievement (Alexander & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Laboratory, 2012 ; National Assessment Governing Board, 2021 ; National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ; National Research Council, 2013 ), to competitively participate in information-based economies (National Research Council, 2012a , 2012b ; Rouet et al., 2021 ), and to engage in informed civic discourse on matters of science, history, and culture (Goldman et al., 2016 ; Leinhardt & Young, 1996 ; List, 2023 ; Stadtler & Bromme, 2013 ).

Among the skills of multiple document use, intertextual integration plays a prominent role in current college- and career-readiness standards (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013 ; National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ; National Research Council, 2013 ), in national and international assessment frameworks for K-12 students and adults (National Assessment Governing Board, 2021 ; Rouet et al., 2021 ; Sparks & Deane, 2015 ), and in conceptual frameworks for disciplinary and digital literacy (Coiro, 2021 ; Goldman et al., 2016 ; Leu et al., 2019 ). For example, the Common Core State Standards state that kindergarten students should be able to, “…identify similarities in and differences between two texts on the same topic…” (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ). Fifth graders are to “[d]raw on information from multiple print or digital sources…” and “[i]ntegrate information from several texts on the same topic…” And by 11th and 12th grade, students are to “[i]ntegrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in different media formats…” Similarly, it is expected in K-12 standards for social studies (National Council for the Social Studies, 2013 ) and science (National Research Council, 2013 ) that students develop competency with gathering, evaluating, and integrating information from multiple sources.

Tasks involving intertextual integration unfortunately prove difficult for many readers (Cho, 2013 ; Goldman et al., 2012 ; Many, 1996 ; McGrew et al., 2018 ; Raphael & Boyd, 1991 ; Rott & Gavin, 2015 ; Segev-Miller, 2007 ; Yang, 2002 ). Indeed, although children and adolescents regularly work with multiple documents in language arts, social studies, and science, they rarely form spontaneous intertextual connections (Cho et al., 2018 ; Many, 1996 ; Many et al., 1996 ; Stahl et al., 1996 ; VanSledright, 2002 ; VanSledright & Kelly, 1998 ; Wolfe & Goldman, 2005 ). This has been found even for college-level students (Greene, 1993 ; Kennedy, 1985 ; McGinley, 1992 ; Rott & Gavin, 2015 ; Segev-Miller, 2007 ; Yang, 2002 ). As we will discuss in the following sections, many factors have been proposed for why intertextual integration proves so difficult.

As with single document comprehension (Magliano et al., 2023 ; Wang et al., 2019 ), it is possible that intertextual integration skills cannot fully develop until foundational reading and writing skills are secured. However, evidence from at least one study suggests that intertextual integration is possible even with impaired word-level reading skills (Andresen, Anmarkrud, Salmerón, et al., 2019 ). Furthermore, even as children are developing word-level reading skills, they can be capable of performing complex comprehension tasks (Williams et al., 2016 ). Moreover, even by the age of six, children are able to monitor information sources (Drummey & Newcombe, 2002 ; Lindsay et al., 1991 ) and even critically evaluate their trustworthiness (Koenig & Harris, 2005 ). As reflected in current instructional standards (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ), it is not unreasonable to expect that even in kindergarten, and certainly by the upper elementary grades, children may be capable of integrating information from multiple text sources. In the following sections, we discuss what is known about intertextual integration and its predictors.

Frameworks, Theories, and Models of Intertextual Integration

Many psychological frameworks, theories, and models have been proposed to account for intertextual integration within the broader context of multiple document use (Afflerbach et al., 2014 ; Afflerbach & Cho, 2009 ; Bråten et al., 2020 ; Britt et al., 2018 ; Butterfuss & Kendeou, 2021 ; Cho & Afflerbach, 2017 ; Leu et al., 2019 ; List, 2020 ; List & Alexander, 2017a , 2019 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ; Richter & Maier, 2017 ; Rouet et al., 2017 ; Segev-Miller, 2007 ; Stadtler & Bromme, 2014 ; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2022 ; Yang, 2002 ). In Table A1 , we have listed a selection of 12, ranging from generalized to specialized accounts. We have provided summaries in the table of the major points of each and have noted the cognitive and affective factors that are explicitly specified in them. As context for the rest of the article, we provide a detailed description of the Documents Model Framework (DMF; Britt et al., 1999 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ) as it has provided the foundation for much of the theorizing and empirical work that has followed.

The DMF provided the first attempt at a psychological account of how meaning is constructed from multiple documents. It emerged from research on text-based history learning (Perfetti et al., 1995 ), in which it is common for readers to engage with multiple documents that present discrepant information and often vary in length, layout, format, structure, purpose, and reliability. Within the discipline of history, it is important to evaluate features of the document sources (i.e., sourcing) and consider how information presented among them is related (i.e., corroborate; Wineburg, 1991 ). Notably, intertextual integration proves important also in science and literature (Goldman et al., 2016 ).

It is proposed in the DMF that integration is accomplished by constructing two representations: an integrated situations model and an inter-text model (Britt et al., 1999 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ). The integrated situations model contains from each document semantic information about the common topic or issue being discussed. The inter-text model comprises meta-document information, such as the source author, publication, date, and purpose. This information is captured in networks of source-document nodes (Perfetti et al., 1999 ).

The reader’s comprehension will depend on the forms of these two models (Britt et al., 1999 ). Following Britt et al.'s ( 1999 ) framework, three possible outcomes are illustrated in Fig.  1 : (a) a mush model, (b) a separate representation model, and (c) a document model. A mush model is one in which the reader constructs a well-formed integrated situation model but a undeveloped inter-text model. In this case, information from across the documents is well represented but not linked to the sources from which it originated. Moreover, information about the sources and links among them are not captured. The opposite pattern can be seen in the separate representations model , wherein the inter-text model is well developed but the situation model is unformed. In this case, content is recalled and linked to each source but is not cohesively integrated. With the documents model , both the situation model and the inter-text model are well-formed. Information is clearly linked to the documents from which it originated, relations among the documents are captured (e.g., agree, disagree), and a well-integrated representation of the situation is formed.

Adapted from Fig.  3 in List et al. ( 2019 ), Fig. 1 in Saux et al. ( 2021 ), and Fig. 4.2a in Perfetti et al. ( 1999 )

Multiple document representations. 

Forming intertextual connections is highly effortful—requiring both bottom-up and top-down processes (Kurby et al., 2005 ; van den Broek & Kendeou, 2022 ). Accordingly, these connections may not be formed in cases where the reader views them as unnecessary or is unable to do so. In certain contexts (e.g., history class) and for certain tasks (e.g., research report), though, it may be important to construct well-formed intertextual representations (e.g., documents model). Certain tasks can also promote greater intertextual integration than others (e.g., arguments vs. summaries; McNamara et al., 2023 ; Wiley & Voss, 1999 ). However, in other contexts, and for other tasks, the high cognitive effort may outweigh the need. Therefore, the likelihood that a reader will construct a particular representational form (e.g., mush model) depends in part on the context and task at hand (Frederiksen, 1975 ; Rouet & Britt, 2011 ; Rouet et al., 2017 ; Spivey, 1995 ; Van Dijk, 1979 ). In the following section, we turn the role played by individual differences in shaping intertextual integration.

Individual Differences in Intertextual Integration

A sizeable literature has examined the role that individual differences play in intertextual integration (Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ). However, few of these studies have used intervention, longitudinal, or computational designs. This has greatly limited what can be concluded about the existence, direction, or magnitude of any potential causal relations. However, predictors of intertextual integration have been studied in many cross-sectional investigations. As an initial step toward synthesizing this literature, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting concurrent associations among individual differences factors (e.g., working memory) and intertextual integration.

Previous efforts to review this literature have revealed many useful insights (Alexander & Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory, 2020 ; Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ; Bråten et al., 2011 ; List & Sun, 2023 ; Richter & Maier, 2017 ; Tarchi et al., 2021 ) but are limited by several factors. First, only several reviews have used systematic and transparent search procedures (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; List & Sun, 2023 ; Richter & Maier, 2017 ; Tarchi et al., 2021 ). This is critical for reducing sampling error and for ensuring replicability (Alexander, 2020 ; Cumming et al., 2023 ). Second, previous reviews have synthesized results from studies involving K-12, college, and adult readers (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ). This approach has the benefit of comprehensively mapping the terrain. However, combining such a broad range of ages can obscure potential developmental differences. Moreover, it complicates interpretation for both K-12 and college educators. Finally, most previous reviews have examined a wide range of multiple document use processes (e.g., source selection, source evaluation, intertextual integration) without clearly distinguishing how each is associated with particular individual differences factors.

Despite these limitations, previous reviews have provided useful insights into the roles that individual differences play in intertextual integration. For example, Barzilai and Strømsø ( 2018 ) identified a broad range of individual differences factors (cognition, metacognition, motivation, affect, socio-culture) that are associated with searching for, selecting, evaluating, and integrating information from multiple documents. Furthermore, they found evidence that these individual difference factors interact with one other, the reading task, and the context to produce different comprehension outcomes. However, few sources were cited for most factors and there were often large differences in the populations, documents, and tasks that were studied. This may point to limitations within the literature.

Other reviews have adopted narrower approaches. For example, Richter and Maier ( 2017 ) examined how individual differences in cognition and affect influence how readers identify and resolve discrepancies encountered across multiple documents. Using systematic search procedures, they identified 18 studies involving adolescent and adult readers. They found that readers’ prior beliefs about a topic and epistemic monitoring will determine whether a reader detects belief-inconsistent information. Then, once an inconsistency is detected, the reader’s epistemic goals and beliefs, background knowledge, working memory resources, and store of metacognitive strategies will influence whether they simply form a belief-consistent representation of the controversy or a more balanced mental model. Bråten et al. ( 2011 ) also exampled how beliefs influence multiple document comprehension. With a focus on expository texts, they found that epistemological beliefs (i.e., simplicity, certainty, source, justification) play important roles in creating and updating a task model, assessing information from each source and its relevance for the task, processing source contents, and creating and updating intertextual representations.

Finally, Tarchi et al. ( 2021 ) examined how executive functions (e.g., inhibition) are associated with multiple document use and comprehension. However, by including a wide variety of executive functions (working memory span, working memory reading span, working memory updating, problem solving, strategic processing, regulation, fluid reasoning), a mix of multiple document comprehension processes (intertextual integration, sourcing), and a broad age range (secondary school, undergraduate, adults), they were unable to any find robust patterns of association.

Present Study

The present study advances upon previous reviews in four ways. First, to reduce sampling error and to ensure transparency, we have used systematic search, selection, and coding procedures (Alexander, 2020 ; Cumming et al., 2023 ). Furthermore, to reduce publication bias, we included both peer-reviewed journal articles and dissertation/theses. Second, whereas others have combined results for K-12, college, and adult populations, we focused only on K-12 students. As noted, although intertextual integration is a cognitive taxing processes, it is an integral component of K-12 education (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 , 2010). However, in comparison to undergraduate and adult readers, K-12 students have been studied far less in research on multiple document use (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ). By focusing exclusively on this age range, implications for K-12 educators may be more clearly understood.

Third, whereas most other reviews have examined the roles played by individual differences factors in several components of multiple document use (e.g., search, selection, evaluation, integration), we focused here only on intertextual integration. To this end, we included only studies that clearly measured intertextual integration; not, as others have, combinations of document searching, selecting, evaluating, and integrating sources. In doing so, we provide a clearer assessment of associations among individual differences and intertextual integration. We decided to focus exclusively on intertextual integration for several reasons. First, intertextual integration is clearly referenced in K-12 standards and assessment frameworks (National Assessment Governing Board, 2021 ; National Council for the Social Studies, 2013 ; National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ; National Research Council, 2013 ). Therefore, there is clear practical importance for understanding the factors associated with this skill. Second, although individual differences in multiple document sourcing have been the subject of a recent and comprehensive systematic review (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ), previous reviews of intertextual integration have either not used systematic search procedures or focused more narrowly on specific individual differences factors or task types.

Fourth, whereas previous reviews have combined findings from studies with markedly different designs (e.g., cross-sectional, longitudinal, intervention), we examine only concurrent associations among individual differences factors and intertextual integration. This provides for a clearer interpretation of the results. In these four ways, this systematic review provides a systematic and transparent assessment of the nature, features, and volume of research that has examined associations among individual differences factors and intertextual integration with K-12 students.

Research Questions

Our review was guided by four primary questions.

First, what are the characteristics of the participants involved in research on individual differences in intertextual integration? We predicted that more studies would involve secondary than elementary-level students. Furthermore, we predicted that studies would involve participants from a broad range of Western countries, language backgrounds, and socio-economic backgrounds. Finally, we predicted that few studies would involve participants with educational disabilities (e.g., dyslexia).

Second, what are the features of studies that have examined intertextual integration among K-12 students? Specifically, what kinds of tasks (e.g., form an argument, synthesize the information), documents (e.g., domain, genre, number of texts), and measures (e.g., essay, multiple choice) have been used? Based on previous reviews (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Primor & Katzir, 2018 ), we predicted that a wide range of tasks, document types, and measures would be represented. Argumentation tasks, essay measures, and informational documents would be the most common, and narrative tasks, oral response measures, and narrative documents would be used infrequently.

Third, which types of individual differences factors have been studied? Based on previous reviews (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ) and the frameworks, theories, and models of multiple document use and comprehension listed in Table A1 , we predicted that the following types of factors would be examined: language and literacy skills (e.g., word-level reading); cognition and metacognition; motivation, emotion, and personality; and knowledge and beliefs. Given the selected age range, we predicted that language and literacy skills would be studied the most and personality the least. Semantic knowledge (e.g., domain, topic) and cognitive processes (e.g., working memory, attention) would be well represented, whereas emotion and epistemic beliefs would not.

Fourth, what is the direction and strength of associations among individual differences factors and intertextual integration? We predicted that certain epistemic beliefs (e.g., belief in authority) would be negatively and moderately correlated with intertextual integration (Bråten et al., 2011 ). All other factors would be positively correlated with intertextual integration, with literacy and knowledge being strongly correlated and cognitive skills and emotions being moderately correlated (Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ).

We conducted two rounds of searches. The first was in May 2022 and the second in February 2024. For the first round, we used three methods: (1) an electronic database search, (2) a backward search, and (3) a forward search. For the second round, we used a snowballing approach.

Electronic Database Search

We consulted a university librarian to identify databases and search terms to capture relevant records. On 2 May 2022, we searched PsycInfo, ERIC, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases for articles and theses/dissertations published prior to 2022. We used the following terms to search titles and abstracts: (noft("multiple text" OR "multiple texts" OR "multi-text" OR ("multiple source" OR "multiple sources") OR ("multiple document" OR "multiple documents") OR ("intertext" OR "intertexual")) AND ti,ab,su("read*" OR "write*" OR "process*" OR "navigat*" OR "integrat*" OR "teach*" OR "instruct*" OR "histor*" OR "scien*" OR "socioscientific") AND noft("elementary" OR "primary" OR "middle*" OR "high* " OR "secondary*")). These terms reflect the various ways multiple text use and comprehension have been defined (Goldman & Scardamalia, 2013 ), the disciplines in which this work has been conducted (Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ), and the targeted age range (i.e., K-12). The search yielded 4,667 sources.

Backward, Forward, and Snowballing Search

We also conducted a backward search of references from seven reviews and conceptual articles on multiple document comprehension (i.e., Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai et al., 2018 ; Bråten et al., 2020 ; List & Alexander, 2019 ; Nelson & King, 2022 ; Primor & Katzir, 2018 ; Saux et al., 2021 ). Then, using Google Scholar, we conducted an initial forward search for any records that had cited these reviews. Through these methods, we identified 294 sources.

In February 2024, we updated our search using the SnowGlobe application (McWeeny et al., 2021 ). SnowGlobe using a snowballing approach to search the references and citations of selected records. We used the 23 records identified through our initial searches. Using SnowGlobe, we identified 1115 records, of which 186 were duplicates. We used the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in the following section to screen studies in both rounds of searches.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We included only sources that met the following six criteria in this review:

The record was a peer-reviewed journal article, dissertation, or thesis. We excluded technical reports, conference abstracts, books, and book chapters. If the study was published as both a dissertation/thesis and journal article, we selected the journal version.

Study participants were enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade (i.e., elementary, middle, or secondary/high school). We excluded studies that only involved undergraduate, graduate, or adult participants. We also excluded studies that did not disaggregate K-12 and adult populations. However, we did include studies involving participants attending prevocational programs.

The study reported original data from a cross-sectional, longitudinal, or group experimental design. We excluded studies that used qualitative or single-case designs.

The study included at least one measure of participants’ intertextual integration. We excluded studies that measured a dimension of multiple document use (e.g., search, selection, evaluation) but not intertextual integration and studies that only measured intertextual integration in combination with another skill (e.g., source evaluation).

The study reported at least one direct (i.e., not partial correlation) and concurrent correlation between an intertextual integration measure and an individual differences measure. If the study used an experimental or quasi-experimental design, measures had to be collected prior to the intervention. Data from any measures collected during or after the intervention were excluded.

The study was published in English prior to February 2024.

Screening and Data Extraction

We used covidence, a commercial web-based platform, for screening and data extraction. As illustrated in Fig.  2 , the process involved three successive stages: (a) title and abstract screening, (b) full text screening, and (c) data extraction.

PRISMA diagram

Title/Abstract and Full-Text Screening

Results from the three search procedures produced 4961 records. After removing duplicates ( k  = 512), we (the first and second author) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the 4449 records identified in the first round of screening. The first author independently screened the titles and abstracts of the 1115 records identified in the second round. For title and abstract screening, we used the above noted inclusion and exclusion criteria. When it was unclear whether a record met the inclusion criteria, we advanced it to full-text screening for further review. We addressed all discrepancies through discussions.

Based on the exclusion criteria, we deemed 5561 irrelevant. We independently reviewed the full texts of the remaining 293 from the first search and six from the second. For the first search, we met after coding the first 20 records and then again after the next 50 to discuss discrepancies. After coding the initial 70, we revised wording for several of the exclusion criteria to improve clarity. We met again after the next 100 and then once all the records had been screened to discuss discrepancies. Total agreement for title/abstract screening was 95%, and Cohen’s \(\kappa\) was 0.63. For full-text screening, total agreement was 94% and Cohen’s \(\kappa\) was 0.67. We excluded 274 for various reasons reported in Fig.  2 . This resulted in 25 records that met the full inclusion criteria. These are listed in the Appendix.

Data Extraction

We developed a codebook based on variables included in several previous reviews of single and multiple document comprehension (Anmarkrud et al., 2022 ; Barzilai & Strømsø, 2018 ; Primor & Katzir, 2018 ; Toste et al., 2020 ). The codebook included general information (study ID, publication year, country where the study was conducted, type of source, research question), information about participants (inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, sample size, demographic information), documents information (number, length, format, mode, type, agreement, difficulty), the intertextual integration task (directions, genre, format), and individual differences in literacy skills (e.g., phonological awareness, rapid naming, decoding, single-text comprehension, written composition), cognition and metacognition (e.g., working memory, attention, processing speed, metacognition), motivation and emotion (e.g., self-efficacy, interest, emotional reactivity), personality (e.g., conscientiousness, need for cognition), knowledge and beliefs (e.g., content/topic knowledge, epistemic cognition), sourcing ability (e.g., trustworthiness), and demographics (e.g., age, sex/gender). We independently coded 24% ( k  = 6) of the sources. Total agreement was 87%, and Cohen’s \(\kappa\) was 0.73. We handled all disagreements through discussion. We made several revisions to the codebook to capture the full range of individual differences that were studied. The first author then independently coded the remaining 19 sources. Coded studies are available through the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/xqb4h/ ). 

Participant Characteristics

Records included 23 peer-reviewed journal articles (92%) and two dissertations/theses (8%), all published within a 13-year range from 2009 to 2022. Each record reported results from a single study with an independent sample. Across the studies, 5600 participants were included (median = 99, range = 44–1434). Twenty-two studies (96%) reported sex or gender, of which there 53% were female. Studies were conducted in five countries: Norway ( k  = 9, 36%), Italy ( k  = 6, 24%), the USA ( k  = 5, 20%), the Netherlands ( k  = 3, 12%), Israel ( k  = 1, 4%), and Hong Kong ( k  = 1, 4%). Mean participant age was reported in 21 studies (84%) and ranged from 9 years 7 months (Florit, Cain, Mason  2020 ) to 18 years 6 months (Strømsø et al., 2010 ). Grade levels ranged from fourth to twelfth, with five studies (20%) involving students at the elementary level (grades K-5) and (80%) at the secondary level (grades 6–12). Eight (32%) of the secondary-level studies involved students enrolled in college preparatory and prevocational programs. Although we consider these as part of the K-12 span, specific grade-level correspondences are unclear.

Authors in 19 (76%) and 20 (80%) of the studies did not report inclusionary or exclusionary criteria, respectively. Exclusionary criteria included having a disability ( k  = 2, 8%), being a minority language speaker ( k  = 1, 4%), and having poor eye movement registration ( k  = 2, 8%). Twenty studies (80%) did not report the number of disabled participants included. The two (8%) that did included students with developmental dyslexia ( n  = 27 across the two studies; Andresen et al., 2019a , 2019b ; de Ruyter, 2020 ). The number of multilingual participants was reported in 15 studies (60%), with percentages ranging from 0% (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ; Florit, De Carli, et al., 2020 ) to 72% (Davis et al., 2017 ). Sixteen studies (64%) reported participants’ socioeconomic status. Of these, 14 reported that their samples were largely homogenous and from middle-class families. In the other two studies, participants came from lower socioeconomic families.

Features of Tasks, Measures, and Documents

In each study, participants performed a task requiring them to independently read a set of multiple documents. The most common task ( k  = 16, 64%) involved having participants read the documents for the purpose of writing an essay. These included writing arguments ( k  = 9, 36%), opinions ( k  = 1, 4%), or combinations of arguments and summaries/syntheses ( k  = 5, 20%). In other studies, participants answered verification questions ( k  = 6, 24%), oral open-ended questions ( k  = 2, 8%), multiple-choice questions ( k  = 1, 4%), or application questions ( k  = 1, 4%). In 16 of the studies (64%), participants were provided with information about the document source (e.g., author, publication, date).

The number of documents per set ranged from 2 to 10 (mean = 4.72, SD  = 1.86), with an average of 2.6 (SD = 0.54) at the elementary level and 5.25 (SD = 1.68) at the secondary. In several studies, participants read multiple sets of documents (e.g., Beker et al., 2019 ; Mason et al., 2020 ), bringing the total number of documents read between 2 and 40. In all the studies, the documents were informational rather than narrative. Most studies ( k  = 23, 92%) involved document sets that addressed socioscientific topics (e.g., human impact on climate change) and presented a combination of complementary and contrasting viewpoints ( k  = 18, 72%). Of the 20 (80%) studies that reported document format, nine (36%) used only digital documents, ten (40%) used only print documents, and one (4%) used both. Ten (40%) studies reported whether multimedia documents (e.g., text with image) were used. Of these, multimedia documents were used in six (24%) text only documents in four (16%). Seventeen studies (68%) reported efforts to evaluate text difficulty. In each case, a readability formula was used. Several also reported consulting with content-area experts in developing the texts.

Generally similar tasks, measures, and document formats were used at the elementary and secondary levels. For both levels, argumentative essays and inference verification questions were used to measure intertextual integration. However, application questions were used only at the elementary level and multiple-choice questions, open-ended questions, and summary essays were used only at the secondary level. At both levels, print and digital formatted documents were used. Finally, the average number of documents per set differed across these two developmental spans, with a mean 2.6 (SD = 0.55) at the elementary level and 5.25 (SD = 1.68) at the secondary level.

Associations with Individual Differences

Tables 2 – 4 report zero-order correlations between performance on measures of intertextual integration and measures of individual differences in language and literacy, cognition and metacognition, knowledge and beliefs, and motivation, emotion, and personality. Results are discussed in the following four sections. To avoid redundancy, we provide information about the participants (e.g., nationality, age, sample size) and measures only once for each study.

Language and Literacy

Eighteen studies (72%) examined associations among intertextual integration, language, and literacy (see Table  1 ). Single-document comprehension was the most studied ( k  = 12, 48%), followed by word-level reading ( k  = 6, 24%), and then a variety of other factors (e.g., strategy knowledge). In the following sections, we discuss results first for elementary- and then secondary-level participants.

Elementary-Level. Four studies (16%) examined associations between intertextual integration and literacy factors among elementary-level students. Three of these examined associations with single document comprehension. Beker et al., 2019 ) had fourth- and sixth-grade Dutch children ( n  = 105) read 20 brief (i.e., about eight sentences) expository text pairs (40 individual texts in total). In each pair, the second text contained an internal inconsistency. Across pairs, they randomly varied whether the first text contained an explanation that could help to resolve the inconsistency presented in the second text. To assess intertextual integration, they asked participants open-ended questions after every fourth pair of texts. They assessed single document comprehension by having participants answer multiple-choice questions about several brief texts. They found an association of r  = 0.39 ( p  < 0.001) between these two factors.

In two studies, Florit and colleagues (Florit, Cain, Mason, 2020 ; Florit et al. 2020 ) had Italian participants complete two multiple document tasks that each involved reading three texts about a socioscientific issue (e.g., “Are videogames beneficial?”) and then writing an argumentative essay (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ; Florit et al., 2020 ). They assessed single-document comprehension by having students answer inferential and literal questions about an informational text. Florit, De Carli, et al. ( 2020 ) found associations of r  = 0.06 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.15 ( p  < 0.05) between single document comprehension and intertextual integration for a sample of fourth- and fifth-grade students ( n  = 184).

With a separate sample of fourth-grade students ( n  = 94), Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) found associations of r  = 0.23 ( p  < 0.05) and r  = 0.47 ( p  < 0.01). In the same study, they also assessed students’ comprehension monitoring with a task that measured their ability to detect inconsistencies in 24 six-sentence texts. Correlations between comprehension monitoring and intertextual integration were r  = 0.22 ( p  < 0.05) and r  = 0.35 ( p  < 0.01).

Three studies involving Italian children also examined associations between word reading fluency and intertextual integration. Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) had fourth-grade students ( n  = 94) read 112 words and 48 non-words as quickly as they could; for their analyses, they combined scores from these two tasks. Correlations between word-level reading and intertextual integration were r  = 0.14 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.36 ( p  < 0.01). Florit, De Carli, et al. ( 2020 ) tested a separate sample of four- and fifth-grade students ( n  = 184) with the same word-level reading and intertextual integration tasks, and found correlations of r  = 0.10 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.16 ( p  < 0.05). Finally, Raccanello et al. ( 2022 ) found a correlation of r  = 0.21 ( p  < 0.001) between fourth- and fifth-grade students’ ( n  = 334) word reading fluency and intertextual integration, as measured by an argumentative essay based on a document set.

Secondary-Level. Fourteen studies (56%) examined associations between intertextual integration and literacy factors among secondary-level students. Nine (36%) measured students’ single document comprehension, three of which were conducted by Bråten and colleagues and involved Norwegian students enrolled in college preparatory or prevocational courses. Bråten et al. ( 2018 ) had participants ( n  = 127) complete a cloze comprehension measure involving narrative and expository texts. They randomly divided students into two groups, each assigned to read a document set of ten texts about either climate change or nuclear power. To measure intertextual integration, they had students in both conditions write argumentative essays based on the document sets. Correlations between single document comprehension and intertextual integration ranged from r  = 0.20 ( p  > 0.05) to r  = 0.28 ( p  < 0.05).

Strømsø and Bråten ( 2009 ) had participants ( n  = 282) read a document set comprising seven texts on different aspects of climate change. After reading, they assessed students’ single document comprehension for each of texts using sentence and intratextual inference verification measures; scores were summed across texts for analyses. They also had students complete an intertextual inference verification task based on the document set that they had read. They found an association of r  = 0.52 ( p  < 0.001) between intertextual integration and sentence verification (single document comprehension), and a correlation of r  = 0.54 ( p  < 0.001) between intertextual integration and intratextual integration (single document comprehension). Finally, Strømsø et al. ( 2010 ) had participants ( n  = 233) complete intratextual and intertextual inference verification tasks based on the same set of seven text documents and found a correlation of r  = 0.57 ( p  < 0.01) between them.

de Ruyter ( 2020 ) had Dutch prevocational students ( n  = 83) write argumentative essays after reading a set of four digital documents. They measured students’ single document comprehension by having them read five texts, and after each, answering a series of multiple-choice and open-ended questions. They found a correlation of r  = 0.28 ( p  < 0.05) between these two variables. Finally, Wang et al. ( 2021 ) had US ninth-twelfth students’ ( n  = 1107) read four digital text documents and measured their intertextual integration with a multiple-choice and yes/no questions. To measure single document comprehension, they had students read 10 short passages and answer questions about key ideas and details for each. The correlation between these two variables was r  = 0.57 ( p  < 0.01).

Four studies examined associations among single document comprehension and intertextual integration among seventh-grade students. Mason and colleagues conducted three with Italian students (samples ranged from 47 to 104). In each, they used a multiple-choice task to measure single document comprehension and an argumentative essay task to measure intertextual integration. Across these studies, correlations between these two variables ranged from r  = 0.18 ( p  > 0.05; Mason et al., 2017 ) to r  = 0.48 ( p  < 0.01; Mason et al., 2020 ). Mason et al. ( 2017 ) also measured single document comprehension with a sentence verification task and found a correlation of r  = 0.13 ( p  > 0.05) between it and intertextual integration. Forzani ( 2016 ) had US seventh-grade students’ ( n  = 1434) complete an online research and comprehension assessment. As part of this, they assessed students’ ability to synthesize information (i.e., intertextual integration) by writing argumentative essays. They also assessed students’ single document comprehension by having them read several brief passages and answer multiple-choice questions about them. The correlation between single document comprehension and intertextual integration was r  = 0.37 ( p  < 0.01).

Six studies examined associations among word-level reading and intertextual integration. In each, researchers used measures that involved reading from word lists with accuracy and speed (i.e., fluency). Three involved Norwegian students and used a word chain task involving 360 words arranged in 30 rows. Across these studies, correlations between word chain reading (i.e., word-level reading) and intertextual integration ranged from r  = 0.16 ( p  > 0.05) to r  = 0.43 ( p  < 0.001). Bråten et al., ( 2013a , 2013b ) had tenth-grade students ( n  = 65) read six digital text documents and assessed their intertextual integration by having them write brief essays. The correlation between word-level reading and intertextual integration was r  = 0.43 ( p  < 0.001). Andresen et al., ( 2019a , 2019b ) also examined the association between word-level reading and intertextual integration with tenth-grade students ( n  = 44), half of whom were neurotypical in reading (i.e., > 20th percentile on a national standardized reading test) and half of whom had school-based diagnoses of developmental dyslexia. Participants viewed three webpages containing information presented through video, text, and pictures. Intertextual integration was assessed by having students orally respond to two open-ended questions about the document set. They found an association of r  = 0.45 ( p  < 0.01) between word reading and intertextual integration for the entire sample. Finally, Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) had college preparatory students ( n  = 59) read six printed documents about assessed intertextual integration with an inference verification task. The correlation between this and word-level reading was r  = 0.22 ( p  > 0.05).

Beyond word level reading and single document comprehension, researchers also examined associations between intertextual and several additional language and literacy skills. For example, Davis et al. ( 2017 ) examined associations among US fifth- to seventh-grade students’ intertextual integration and receptive ( r  = 0.47, p  < 0.01) and productive syntax ( r  = 0.24, p  < 0.05). To measure intertextual integration, they had students read two informational texts about a scientific issue and then complete a sentence and inference verification task. Wang et al. ( 2021 ) found an association of r  = 0.53 ( p  < 0.01) between US ninth-twelfth grade students’ sentence processing and intertextual integration.

Finally, Cheong et al. ( 2019 ) examined the association between intertextual integration and written composition among secondary-level Hong Konger students ( n  = 415). They presented students with two, parallel-structured multiple documents tasks in Chinese (L1) and English (L2). For both tasks, students read six documents. They measured intertextual integration and written composition in Chinese and English with inference verification and argumentative essay tasks, respectively. Associations between Chinese intertextual integration and written composition in Chinese ( r  = 0.41, p  < 0.01) and English ( r  = 0.28, p  < 0.05) were similar to associated between English intertextual integration and written composition in Chinese ( r  = 0.30, p  < 0.01) and English ( r  = 0.41, p  < . 01).

Cognition and Metacognition

Fourteen studies (56%) examined associations between intertextual integration, cognition, and metacognition (Table  2 ). Of these, five (20%) examined associations between verbal working memory and intertextual integration, with correlations ranging from r  = 0.06 ( p  > 0.05) to r  = 0.538 ( p  < 0.001). Two were conducted with elementary-level students. Beker et al. ( 2019 ) measured Dutch fourth- and sixth-grade children’s ( n  = 105) verbal working memory with a task adapted from Daneman and Carpenter ( 1980 ). They had students listen to sets of unrelated sentences, answer a comprehension-related question about one of them, and then recall the last word of each sentence. Performance on this task correlated r  = 0.13 ( p  = 0.183) with intertextual integration, as measured by the open-ended questions task described in the preceding section (Beker et al., 2019 ). Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) measured fourth-grade Italian students’ ( n  = 94) verbal working memory with a task involving six lists of nouns. For each list, students had to remember and write down the nouns representing the three smallest objects in the list, and in the order in which they were presented. Correlations between performance on this working memory task and the two intertextual integration measures described above were r  = 0.18 ( p  > 0.05) and r  = 0.22 ( p  < 0.05).

The three studies that examined associations between intertextual integration and verbal working memory with secondary-level students, all measured working memory with a version of a task developed by Daneman and Carpenter ( 1980 ). As described above for Beker et al. ( 2019 ), Andresen et al., ( 2019a , 2019b ), and Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) had students listen to sets of sentences, answer comprehension-related questions about them, and then recall the last word of each. Andresen et al., ( 2019a , 2019b ) found a correlation of r  = 0.54 ( p  < 0.001) between Norwegian tenth-grade students’ ( n  = 44) working memory and intertextual integration, as measured with the oral opened-ended questions task described in the preceding section. Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) found a correlation of r  = 0.29 ( p  < 0.05) between Norwegian secondary-level students ( n  = 59) working memory and intertextual integration, as measured by the inference verification task also described above. Mason et al. ( 2017 ) adapted the working memory task to have students read the sentences themselves. They found that performance on this task correlated r  = 0.06 ( p  > 0.05) with intertextual integration, as measured with the previously described argumentative essay task.

Twelve (48%) studies examined associations between metacognition and intertextual integration. Florit, Cain, et al. ( 2020 ) measured Italian fourth-grade children’s ( n  = 94) comprehension monitoring by assessing their ability to detect inconsistencies in stories with and without inconsistent sentences. They found that comprehension monitoring was weakly but significantly associated with intertextual integration ( r s = 0.22–0.35, p  < 0.05), as measured by two essay tasks. Braasch et al. ( 2022 ) examined the association between sixth-grade US students ( n  = 54) metacognitive awareness and an argumentative essay task. They measured metacognitive awareness by having students rate items designed to measure their knowledge and regulation of cognition. They found that metacognitive scores were weakly correlated with students’ inclusion of belief-consistent ( r  = 0.11 ( p  > 0.05) and belief-inconsistent ( r  = 0.10 ( p  > 0.05) ideas in their writing. Davis et al. ( 2017 ) examined associations between intertextual integration and fifth- through seventh-grade US students’ ( n  = 83) comprehension strategy knowledge (i.e., predicting and verifying predictions, previewing, purpose setting, self-questioning, using background knowledge, and summarizing; r  = 0.23, p  < 0.05) and strategy awareness/use ( r  = 0.05, p  > 0.05). Bråten et al. ( 2014 ) surveyed Norwegian students in the first year of secondary school ( n  = 279) about their use of strategies for comparing, contrasting, and integrating multiple texts, finding a correlation of r  = 0.36 ( p  < 0.001) between this and intertextual integration. Cheong et al. ( 2019 ) surveyed students’ use of self-regulatory, discourse synthesis, and test-taking strategies before, during, and after writing. They found this to be weakly correlated with intertextual integration measured in Chinese ( r  = 0.10, p  < 0.05) and English ( r  = 0.19, p  < 0.01). Finally, Stang Lund et al. ( 2019 ) assessed secondary-level Norwegian students’ ( n  = 86) knowledge and potential use of reading strategies, such as how they would deal with information about scientific issues presented in various media sources. They found a moderate association between students’ comprehension strategies and their intertextual integration ( r  = 0.29, p  < 0.05), as measured by a verification task.

Ten (40%) studies examined associations between intertextual integration and document sourcing skills. Only one involved students at the elementary level (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ). In that study, students’ essays were coded for intertextual integration and the inclusion of source-content links, with the correlation between them being r  = 0.24 ( p  < 0.05). A variety of sourcing dimensions were examined in nine (36%) studies involving secondary-level students. These included students’ source selection (Bråten et al., 2018 ; Forzani, 2016 ), source evaluation (Braasch et al., 2014 ; Forzani, 2016 ), links made between sources and their contents (Braasch et al., 2022 ; Mason et al., 2017 , 2018 ), and memory for sources (Stang Lund et al., 2019 ; Strømsø et al., 2010 ). Intertextual integration was measured with essay tasks in six of these studies and with verification tasks in three. Associations between intertextual integration and sourcing were all positive and small to moderate in magnitude (range = 0.05 to 41).

Knowledge and Beliefs

Nineteen studies (76%) examined associations among students’ knowledge, beliefs, and intertextual integration (Table  3 ). At the elementary level, Florit, De Carli, et al. ( 2020 ) assessed Italian fourth- and fifth-grade students’ topic knowledge, general vocabulary knowledge, and theory of mind. Correlations with their two measures of intertextual integration were as follows: topic knowledge = 0.08–0.15, vocabulary = 0.24–0.27, and theory of mind = 0.15–0.26. Davis et al. ( 2017 ) assessed US fifth- through seventh-grade students’ topic knowledge, general vocabulary knowledge, morphological knowledge, and two measures of epistemic beliefs: stability and structure of knowledge. Associations among intertextual integration and performance on these measures were as follows: topic knowledge = 0.42 ( p  < 0.01), general vocabulary knowledge = 0.56 ( p  < 0.01), morphological knowledge = 0.52 ( p  < 0.01), stability of knowledge =  − 0.10 ( p  > 0.05), and structure of knowledge = 0.27 ( p  < 0.05).

At the secondary level, researchers examined associations among intertextual integration and domain knowledge ( k  = 1), topic knowledge ( k  = 18), epistemic beliefs ( k  = 7), and vocabulary and morphological knowledge ( k  = 2). Wang et al. ( 2021 ) assessed US ninth-twelfth grade students’ domain knowledge with 25-item multiple-choice tests in history and science. Correlations with performance on an intertextual integration task about American football were r  = 0.53 ( p  < 0.01) for history and r  = 0.57 ( p  < 0.01) for science. They also assessed students’ knowledge of football, which was slightly less correlated with intertextual integration ( r  = 0.50, p  < 0.01). Topic knowledge was assessed in ten studies with multiple-choice tests (Andresen et al., 2019a , 2019b ; Bråten et al., 2014 , 2018 , 2013a , 2013b ; Stang Lund et al., 2017 ; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ; Strømsø et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2021 ), in five with open-ended questions (Barzilai & Ka’adan, 2017 ; Braasch et al., 2014 ; Mason, 2018 ; Mason et al., 2017 , 2020 ), in one with a verification task (Davis et al., 2017 ), and in two with rating scales (Braasch et al., 2022 ; Griffin et al., 2012 ). Correlations with intertextual integration ranged between − 0.03 (Strømsø et al., 2016 ) and 0.50 (Wang et al., 2021 ). Given the variation in how topic knowledge and intertextual integration were measured across these studies, patterns in the magnitude of these correlations are unclear. Moreover, the smallest and largest correlations were both found with secondary-level students and used multiple-choice tests to measure topic knowledge (Strømsø et al., 2016 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). However, these studies differed in the number (4 vs. 5) and format (digital vs. print) of the texts, the topic (American football vs. health), language (American English vs. Norwegian), and how intertextual integration was measured (multiple choice vs. essay).

Additionally, two studies (8%) examined associations among intertextual integration, vocabulary, and morphological knowledge. Results from Davis et al. ( 2017 ) were discussed above. Wang et al. ( 2021 ) found a correlation of r  = 0.50 ( p  < 0.01) between intertextual integration and morphology and r  = 0.54 ( p  > 0.05) with vocabulary.

Epistemic beliefs were assessed in eight studies (32%) with a variety of methods. For example, Barzilai and Ka’adan ( 2017 ) used a scenario-based approach to assess students’ topic-specific perspectives (i.e., absolutism, multiplism, evaluativism) about the nature, sources, certainty, validity, and justification of knowledge. In contrast, Strømsø et al. ( 2016 ) assessed students’ beliefs in the justification of knowledge by personal accounts, authority figures, or multiple sources. Across the studies, correlations with intertextual integration ranged from r  =  − 0.04 (Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ) to r  =  − 0.43 (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ). This wide range is expected, as the direction and magnitude of association is thought to vary by belief type (Bråten et al., 2011 ).

Motivation, Emotion, and Personality

Fourteen studies (56%) examined associations among students’ intertextual integration, motivation ( k  = 11), emotion ( k  = 4), and personality ( k  = 2) (Table  4 ). At the elementary-level, Raccanello et al. ( 2022 ) examined how Italian fourth- and fifth-grade students’ performance on an intertextual integration task was associated with how they valued the task ( r  = 0.18, p  < 0.01) and their level of boredom with it ( r  =  − 0.05, p  > 0.05). At the secondary level, studies examined associations between intertextual integration and several dimensions of motivation: self-efficacy (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ; de Ruyter, 2020 ), task value (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ), effort (de Ruyter, 2020 ), engagement (de Ruyter, 2020 ), and interest (Bråten et al., 2014 , 2018 ; Griffin et al., 2012 ; Stang Lund et al., 2017 ; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ; Strømsø et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). Correlations were all small and in the range of − 0.04 to 0.39.

Three studies (12%), all involving Italian seventh-grade students, examined associations between intertextual integration and emotion (Mason, 2018 ; Mason et al., 2017 , 2020 ). In each study, students’ emotional reactivity was assessed during reading with a heart rate monitor. Correlations with intertextual integration ranged from r  = 0.02 ( p  > 0.05; Mason et al., 2017 ) to r  = 0.25 ( p  > 0.05; Mason, 2018 ). Two studies, both with secondary-level Norwegian students, examined associations between intertextual integration and personality. Bråten et al. ( 2014 ) found an association of r  = 0.14 between students’ need for cognition and their intertextual integration performance. Braasch et al. ( 2014 ) found an association of r  = 0.02 ( p  > 0.05) between intertextual integration and an entity theory of intelligence (i.e., fixed mindset); the correlation with an incremental theory of intelligence (i.e., growth mindset) was r  = 0.19 ( p  > 0.05).

We begin this section by discussing characteristics of the participants that have been studied (research question 1) and features of the tasks and materials that have been used (research question 2). We then discuss what types of individual differences factors have been studied (research question 3) and what has been learned about their associations with intertextual integration (research question 4). We will then conclude by offering four recommendations for future research.

Research Questions 1 and 2: Participant Characteristics and Materials

Given the many potential ways that multiple document comprehension has been studied, we were interested in first taking stock of the types of participants, tasks, measures, and documents that have been used. As predicted, there was wide variation in each of these parameters. However, certain grade levels, tasks, measures, and types of documents were examined more frequently than others.

As expected, we located more studies involving secondary- than elementary-level participants. At the secondary level, participants ranged from grade 6 to 12. Although it was encouraging to find that intertextual integration had been studied with elementary-level children, only five did so and none involved children below grade 4. Furthermore, few authors reported clear inclusion/exclusionary criteria and demographic information.

Nonetheless, several findings are important to discuss. First, individuals with disabilities were clearly included in only two studies, both of which were at the secondary level. Moreover, in several studies, disabled participants were purposely excluded. Second, in contrast to most other reading research (Share, 2008 ), relatively few studies involved English L1 participants. Finally, of the few studies that reported information about participants’ socioeconomic status, most were from middle-class backgrounds. We were limited, though, by our decision to include only studies reported in English. It may studies reported in other languages include more diverse populations. Nonetheless, we can draw two clear conclusions. First, improved demographic reporting is needed to better understand to whom these findings may apply. Second, efforts are needed to study more diverse populations, to include individuals with disabilities, those from different socioeconomic strata, individuals from non-Western societies, and those who speak multiple languages.

Tasks, Measures, and Documents

Consistent with Primor and Katzir’s ( 2018 ) findings, we found that intertextual integration was measured in a variety of ways, with essay tasks being the most widely used. The reason for this is unclear. It may be that essays are viewed as a particularly valid form of assessment. However, few studies clearly defined intertextual integration or provided a justification for why and how they selected their measure(s). Perhaps as a result, even with the stringent inclusion criteria that we set, we are not confident that the same construct was measured in each of the studies. For the field to advance, work is needed to better define intertextual integration and to develop more standardized and comparable methods for measuring it (Flake & Fried, 2020 ).

In contrast, there was consistency in the genres, structures, and topics of the documents. This allowed for much clearer comparisons across studies, particularly when considering associations with topic, domain, and disciplinary knowledge. Interestingly, the documents were nearly evenly split between print and digital formats. Although print documents still have a place in formal educational settings, they are quickly being replaced by digital ones. There is a pressing need, then, to better understand how young readers process and comprehend information distributed across multiple digital documents.

Research Questions 3 and 4: Individual Differences Factors and Intertextual Integration

In research questions 2 and 4, we asked what types of individual differences factors had been examined and the direction and strength of their associations with intertextual integration. As predicted, a wide range of individual differences factors had indeed been examined. However, few appeared in more than one study. Therefore, although nearly all were positively correlated with intertextual integration, variation in the samples, tasks, measures, and documents greatly limit what can be concluded about these relations.

Language and literacy were investigated in 72% ( k  = 18) of the studies. This was somewhat unexpected; although language and literacy are acknowledged as an obviously important factor in intertextual integration, they have received less attention than other factors in in frameworks, theories, and models of multiple document use (see Table A1 ). This is likely because most theorizing has been based on secondary, undergraduate, and adult readers, for whom word-level reading and single document comprehension skills are likely assumed to be well developed. Nonetheless, it would appear safe to assume that intertextual integration depends on both skillsets.

Only six studies examined word-level reading skills. Results indicated small associations with intertextual integration (0.14 to 0.36) in the upper elementary grades and small to moderate associations (0.22 to 0.45) at the secondary level. Word-level reading has been clearly shown to affect single document comprehension performance (Perfetti & Helder, 2022 ). Although these six studies are not much to draw strong conclusions from, they do suggest a role for word-level reading in intertextual integration as well. Interestingly, the three elementary-level studies were conducted in Italian. In comparison to English, Italian has a relatively transparent alphabetic writing system (i.e., clear and consistent mappings between units of sound and print), which on average, proves easier for learning to read and write (Job et al., 2006 ). The three secondary-level studies were conducted in English and Norwegian, which in comparison to Italian, have considerably more opaque alphabetic systems (Hagtvet et al., 2006 ; Perfetti & Harris, 2017 ). Consequently, in addition to developmental differences, these writing system differences further complicate how we might interpret the results.

Across the 12 (48%) studies that examined single document comprehension, the magnitude of associations with intertextual integration ranged widely (0.06 to 0.57). A variety of factors undoubtedly account for this variation. Among them, the different ways that both constructs were measured likely played a role. For example, the smallest association was found in a study involving fourth- and fifth-grade Italian students (Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ). Intertextual integration was assessed with an argumentative essay task and single document comprehension with a standardized measure of inferential and literal questions. In the two studies with the largest associations (Strømsø et al., 2010 ; Wang et al., 2021 ), there was much closer alignment between the single and multiple document comprehension measures. In both studies, for example, the single document comprehension and intertextual integration measures involved texts written about the same topics and used the same response formats. In one of the studies (Strømsø et al., 2010 ), the same texts were even used for both measures. Different approaches to measuring single document comprehension tap different underlying skills (Cutting & Scarborough, 2006 ; Keenan et al., 2008 ), and therefore, single indicators of single document comprehension should be not assumed to be interchangeable (Clemens & Fuchs, 2022 ). The same likely holds for measures of intertextual integration, which introduce even greater complexity. In sum, we can conclude from these results only that there is emerging evidence of associations between literacy skills—both word-level and comprehension focused—and intertextual integration.

Given the complexity of involved with intertextual integration, many cognitive and metacognitive skills have been hypothesized to play important roles (Follmer & Tise, 2022 ; Tarchi et al., 2021 ; see also Table A1 ). Cognition and metacognition were examined in a little over half (56%, k  = 14) of the studies, with cognition examined in five (20%) and metacognition in nine (36%).

From among the multitude of cognitive variables (e.g., working memory, attention, intelligence) and operations (e.g., searching, monitoring, assembling, rehearsing, translating; Winne, 2018 ) that have been discussed within the multiple document literature, only verbal working memory was examined in these studies. Across the studies, associations between verbal working memory and intertextual ranged widely from r  = 0.05 to r  = 0.54. Although similar methods were used to measure verbal working memory, the number of studies was small and there was wide variation in the sampled populations, documents, and tasks. Accordingly, the results provide little insight into how individual differences in cognition—broadly or narrowly defined—are associated with intertextual integration. This stands in stark contrast to the extensive body of work that has examined associations between cognition, word-level reading, and single document comprehension (Butterfuss & Kendeou, 2018 ; Follmer, 2018 ; Peng et al., 2018 , 2022 ).

Metacognition was examined in 12 (48%) of the studies. In two of these, metacognitive strategy knowledge was assessed (Braasch et al., 2022 ; Davis et al., 2017 ), with results showing small associations with intertextual integration. Results were mixed, though, for the three that examined metacognitive strategy use. In one study, the association between strategy use and intertextual integration was small and insignificant (Davis et al., 2017 ), However, in the other two, the relations were both moderate and signification (Bråten et al., 2014 ; Florit, Cain, et al., 2020 ). These results suggest that while knowledge of metacognitive strategies is unrelated to intertextual integration, actual metacognitive strategy use may be. However, with only four studies—and large differences in the populations and materials used among them—any conclusions are at best tentative.

Sourcing skills were examined in ten studies (40%). As noted above, a variety of sourcing skills were examined, to include source selection, source evaluation, source-content links, and source memory. Results ranged from almost no association ( r  = 0.05) to one of moderate magnitude ( r  = 0.41). This wide range is likely due to variation in the dimensions of sourcing that were examined, the different ways intertextual integration was measured, and differences in the populations that were sampled. In sum, it appears that various dimensions of sourcing may be differentially associated with intertextual integration.

Knowledge and beliefs appeared in 19 studies (76%), the most frequent of the four individual differences categories. Correlations with intertextual integration ranged widely (− 0.39 to 0.57). The bulk of studies involved secondary-level participants and examined associations between topic/domain knowledge and intertextual integration. Vocabulary and morphological knowledge were examined in four studies (16%). Various dimensions of knowledge, spanning from word to disciplinary, have been discussed extensively in theories of single and multiple document comprehension (Alexander, 2005 ; Goldman et al., 2016 ; Kintsch, 1988 ; Perfetti & Helder, 2022 ; Perfetti et al., 1999 ). As Kintsch ( 1974 , p. 10) observed, for example, “understanding a text…consists of assimilating it with one’s general store of knowledge…[s]ince every person’s knowledge and experience is somewhat different…the way in which different people understand the same text may not always be the same.” Knowledge in its various forms is generally understood to facilitate comprehension and learning (Ackerman, 1991 ; Alexander et al., 1994 ; Cabell & Hwang, 2020 ; Hwang et al., 2022 ). However, in certain cases, it can be an impediment (Simonsmeier et al., 2022 ). For instance, one’s knowledge of a topic can stand stubbornly in the way of learning new concepts (Vosniadou, 1992 ). Furthermore, possessing relevant knowledge does not ensure that it will be effectively used to aid comprehension. Indeed, Wolfe and Goldman ( 2005 ) found that some adolescents sometimes use their background knowledge to make irrelevant elaborations that do help in building a coherent multiple document representation.

As many have noted, there is unfortunately little consistency in how knowledge is conceptualized, defined, and measured (Alexander et al., 1991 ; McCarthy & McNamara, 2021 ; Murphy et al., 2012 , 2018 ). This was certainly what we found. Although the bulk of studies examined topic knowledge, this was done in a variety of ways. Moreover, the specific topics that were examined varied across studies. It is unclear, then, how comparable scores from these different measures may be. Additionally, few studies examined more than one dimension of knowledge. In any study, it is perhaps impossible to measure the full extent of a single domain or discipline much less multiple. However, the narrow focus on topic knowledge in this literature provides little insight into how other dimensions (e.g., domain, disciplinary) may influence intertextual integration. Nonetheless, it appears from these studies that knowing something of the documents’ topic, domain, or discipline is associated with better intertextual integration.

Epistemic beliefs were examined in seven studies (28%). Much research has shown that epistemic beliefs are an important factor in learning (Mason, 2010 ) and that variation in them is associated with literacy performance (Bråten et al., 2016 ; Lee et al., 2016 ). This may be the case particularly when engaging with multiple documents of varying quality and perspectives (Bråten et al., 2011 ; Strømsø & Kammerer, 2016 ). Consistent with previous research (Bråten et al., 2011 ), results indicated that endorsing certain beliefs is associated with better intertextual integration than others. For example, Davis et al. ( 2017 ) found that the belief that knowledge is singular and absolute was more weakly associated with intertextual integration ( r  =  − 0.10) than the belief that there are multiple forms of knowledge but that certain forms are more valid than others ( r  = 0.27). There were similar patterns in several of the other studies (Barzilai & Ka’adan, 2017 ; Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ; Strømsø & Bråten, 2009 ). Using a slightly different framework, Bråten et al., ( 2013a , 2013b ) found that intertextual integration was negatively associated with beliefs that knowledge is justified by personal knowledge (− 0.43) and authority (− 0.08), but positively associated with the belief that it is justified by multiple sources (0.17). In sum, whereas absolutist beliefs about knowledge (i.e., “knowledge come from an external source and is certain,” Kuhn, 1999 , p. 23) appear to be negatively associated with intertextual integration, multiplist or evaluative beliefs (“knowledge comes from human minds and is uncertain,” Kuhn, 1999 , p. 23) appear to be positively correlated. However, due to the variability in how epistemic beliefs were measured and considerable differences in the tasks, document sets, and participants involved, more research is needed to confirm the robustness of these findings. It is important to also note that in addition to individual differences, beliefs can vary across cultures (Buehl, 2008 ). Further research is therefore needed to systematically examine how epistemic beliefs may shape multiple document use and comprehension across different conditions, points in development, and cultural contexts.

The final category represents a broad mixture of affective processes and personality variables. Motivational factors (e.g., self-efficacy, interest, task value) appeared the most frequently ( k  = 11, 44%). Whereas there is no evidence that self-efficacy is meaningfully associated with intertextual integration (Bråten et al., 2013a , 2013b ; de Ruyter, 2020 ), several studies reported small to moderate associations with interest and task value. As has become a common theme in this review, wide variation in the tasks, documents, and participants renders what can be claimed about any potential patterns unclear.

Emotion was examined in three studies (12%), all with Italian seventh-grade participants, representing a rare case of systematic replication. Correlations for these three studies ranged from − 0.28 to 0.02. Not much can be concluded from this other than that certain emotions, such as boredom, appear to be negatively associated with intertextual integration. Future work should examine how motivation and emotion interact with specific types of documents and tasks over microperiods (e.g., minutes, hours) and macroperiods (e.g., days, months, years) of development (e.g., Neugebauer & Gilmour, 2020 ).

Personality was examined in only two studies (8%), both of which involved Norwegian secondary-level participants. Given that they measured different facets of personality, not much can be said beyond what is reported in the individual studies. Although personality is a major branch of psychology (Burger, 2015 ), and has been shown be associated with a broad range of human functioning (Anglim et al., 2022 ; Komarraju et al., 2011 ), it has not be a topic of much interest in reading research. The small correlations observed in these two studies do not inspire much confidence that this is a promising area for much further investigation.

General Discussion

Much has been proposed about the roles that various individual differences factors play in intertextual integration (see Table A1 ). However, much of this theorizing has been based on undergraduate and adult readers. It is unclear, then, how existing conceptualizations may apply to younger readers. In this review, we did not attempt to answer that question. Rather, we examined the nature, features, and volume of research that has examined associations between individual differences and intertextual integration. These associations are shown in Fig.  3 with an evidence gap map (Polanin et al., 2022 ). The map reveals that many of the factors specified in frameworks, theories, and models listed in Table A1 have been examined alongside intertextual integration with K-12 students. Noticeably, though, the coverage is uneven and incomplete. This greatly limits what can be concluded about the reliability and generalizability of these findings. Indeed, even in the two-dimensional map, we can see that many cells are blank and that few are shaded darker than the lightest tone. Were dimensions added for contexts, tasks, documents, and additional participant characteristics, the map would reveal even sparser coverage. Although there are few fields for which such a map would be fully darkened, it is clear far more research is needed.

Evidence gap map of associations among individual difference factors and intertextual integration. Shading corresponds to the number of studies that have examined an association between a particular individual differences factor (listed along the vertical axis) and intertextual integration at particular grade level (listed along the horizontal axis). As the number of studies increases, the shading darkens. White cells indicate that no study has examined the association between that particular factor and intertextual integration at that particular grade level. Studies that involved unspecified secondary-level students are not represented. SD, single document. ESs, effect sizes (i.e., zero-order correlation coefficients)

Recommendations

As for how the field might productively advance, we offer four recommendations. First, as has been observed for the broader social sciences (Shrout & Rodgers, 2018 ), more replication is needed. Indeed, as we have noted throughout this review, no associations have been studied under similar enough conditions to discern reliable patterns. Moreover, none of the factors reviewed have been studied across the full span of K-12 development. To build a fuller and more reliable understanding of how individual differences are associated with intertextual integration, a program of replicated research is needed that carefully examines relations among specific factors across the K-12 developmental span with well specified populations and comparable tasks, measures, and document sets.

Our second recommendation is for greater attention is needed to how intertextual integration is measured. There are several examples in the literature of well-validated measures of intertextual integration and multiple document use more broadly (Goldman et al., 2013 ; Hastings et al., 2012 ; Leu et al., 2015 ). However, most of the studies in this review used unvalidated measures, with little attention matters of dimensionality, reliability, or validity. These issues are characteristic of the broader psychological field (Flake & Fried, 2020 ). Although developing a measure involves many considerations (Lane et al., 2016 ), we will focus here on four points that have gone largely unaddressed.

First, research is needed to examine the dimensionality of intertextual integration. The definition we supplied in the introduction indicates that multiple subprocesses may be involved. In all the studies we reviewed, though, intertextual integration was treated as unidimensional. However, efforts generally were not made to test this assumption. Moving forward, this should be a priority. Care should also be taken to ensure that measures are invariant across participant subgroups, to ensure that individual items are unbiased, and that tests and items are well calibrated for their targeted populations. Second, greater attention is needed to score reliability. Although many of the studies reported internal consistency estimates, few considered other types of reliability (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014 ). Moreover, some of the measures suffered from poor internal consistency. The implications of this are not trivial. For the simple bivariate relations examined in this review, measurement error can attenuate effects. In multivariate models, the effects are less predictable (Bollen, 1989 ). Accordingly, developing measures that produce reliable scores is imperative. Third, it will be important to consider the validity of different types of intertextual integration measures (e.g., inference verification, essays. That is, are certain measures better at capturing intertextual integration than others? Furthermore, how should performance on different measures be interpreted? Finally, and related to our third recommendation, research is needed to understand which measures are best suited for assessing intertextual integration at different points in development and for tracking short- and long-term growth.

Our third recommendation is for research examining the precursors and early development of intertextual integration. We found only five studies that involved elementary-level participants, and none with children below grade 4. It is possible that the complex reasoning involved in many multiple document tasks may be viewed as too challenging for young children. However, current instructional standards make it clear that beginning in kindergarten, children are expected to engage with multiple documents for a variety of purposes (National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010 ). Although this initially involves being read multiple documents, the expectations quickly shift to children themselves reading, searching for, selecting, evaluating, and integrating multiple documents. Current theories and empirical findings provide little insight into how children first develop these skills and the factors that give rise to early and perhaps ongoing performance differences.

A large body of work has shown that even preschool-aged children can adopt a critical stance when presented with information from multiple informants (for reviews, see Harris et al., 2018 ; Mills, 2013 ). This work has yet to involve textual sources and often requires participants to select the testimony from one of several informants rather than to integrate information from among them. Nonetheless, the insights garnered from research on the early development of source memory and evaluation may provide an entry point into understanding how children later develop multiple document use skills.

Young children are already exposed to multiple text documents in many early literacy programs. Take for instance a first-grade lesson from a language arts curriculum (Author, 2013 ) used in approximately 20% of US schools (Kaufman et al., 2017 ). In the lesson, children are read different versions of the same fable and are then asked to compare them (Author, 2013 ). In other programs, young children are read multiple informational texts on the same topic (Kim et al., 2021 ; Language and Reading Research Consortium et al., 2014 ). There is not an explicit focus in these programs on sourcing or intertextual integration. However, attention to these skills could easily be incorporated. Such research could provide useful insights into the early development of intertextual integration, particularly if studied alongside other literacy, cognitive, and affective factors.

Our fourth and final recommendation is to develop more formalized theories Footnote 1 of intertextual integration. The proposals listed in Table A1 have proven useful for guiding and interpreting research on the role that individual differences play in shaping intertextual integration. Indeed, many have proposed how particular factors (e.g., working memory) are involved in forming intertextual representations, with some offering hypotheses about the direction and general magnitude of these relations. However, these verbal theories are best suited for significance testing, which alone cannot corroborate a theory (Meehl, 1978 ; Robinaugh et al., 2021 ). Greater specificity is needed for more risky tests that could falsify or advance a theory (Frankenhuis et al., 2023 ; Gershman, 2019 ; Meehl, 1978 ; Robinaugh et al., 2021 ).

Formal theories and models have been used extensively in research on word-level reading and to a lesser extent on single-document comprehension (Goldman et al., 2007 ; Reichle, 2021 ). This approach has proven critical for testing how specific factors (e.g., phonological processing, background knowledge) are associated with reading (Harm & Seidenberg, 1999 ; Van Den Broek et al., 1996 ) and for understanding psychological and inter-agent processes more generally (Sun et al., 2005 ). Similar advantages may be found in developing formalized theories of intertextual integration and multiple document use. For instance, a formalized theory of intertextual integration could be used to construct a computational model. It would then be possible to test the effects of particular individual differences factors through experimental manipulations with actual and simulated data (Goldman et al., 2007 ; J. A. Greene, 2022 ; Robinaugh et al., 2021 ). Such work might provide useful insights into key pressure points in the processes and development of intertextual integration that could be targeted for assessment and intervention. To these ends, we recommend supplementing the proposals listed in Table A1 with formalized theories that more clearly state their constraints and explicate the circumstances under which they may be falsified.

Limitations

As with any study, this review is limited by several factors. First, although we placed no restrictions on the types of individual differences included, we adopted a much narrower approach than has been used in most previous reviews by focusing on only one component of multiple document comprehension (i.e., intertextual integration). Second, we examined only concurrent associations and included only studies that involved K-12 participants. In doing so, we omitted work that has examined other components (e.g., sourcing) and involved other populations. Furthermore, by examining only concurrent associations, we were unable to consider matters of causality, which is critical for an explanatory theory. However, we believe our approach provided for a more precise and measured assessment of findings relevant for K-12 students than has been offered in the past. Even with this more circumscribed approach, though, limitations within the literature made it difficult to find clear and reliable patterns.

In theorizing about how readers use and make sense of multiple documents, much has been hypothesized about the roles played by a wide range of cognitive and affective factors (see Table A1 ). We found that many of these have been examined in the context of K-12 students’ intertextual integration. However, much remains to be learned about how variation in them gives rise to differences in multiple document processing across the span of K-12 development. Although associations were generally positive and small to medium in magnitude, design and measurement issues greatly limit the conclusions we can draw. As Underwood ( 1975 ) noted, individual differences stand as, “…a critical test of theories as they are being born” (p. 130). We agree and believe that to better understand and ultimately improve multiple document comprehension among K-12 students, research is needed that (a) more systematically examines individual differences factors, (b) places a greater focus on early development, and (c) builds more formalized and testable theories.

A distinction is often made between formal theories and models (Jaccard & Jacoby, 2020 ; Smaldino, 2023 ). A theory is generally regarded as more comprehensive than any specific model (Goldman et al., 2007 ). A formal differs from an informal theory in that it is implemented using formalisms such as mathematical equations or computer programs (Reichle, 2021 ; Smaldino, 2023 ).

References 

Ackerman, J. M. (1991). Reading, writing, and knowing: The role of disciplinary knowledge in comprehension and composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 25 (2), 133–178.

Article   Google Scholar  

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print . The MIT Press.

Afflerbach, P. (Ed.). (2016). Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context . Routledge.

Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B.-Y. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 69–90). Routledge.

Google Scholar  

Afflerbach, P., Cho, B.-Y., & Kim, J.-Y. (2014). Inaccuracy and reading in multiple text and Internet/hypertext environments. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 403–424). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9737.003.0024

Alexander, P. A. (2005). The path to competence: A lifespan developmental perspective on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 37 (4), 413–436. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3704_1

Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90 (1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352

Alexander, P. A., Schallert, D. L., & Hare, V. C. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61 (3), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061003315

Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1994). The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and non-linear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64 (2), 201–252.

Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47 (4), 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722511

Alexander, P., & Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2020). Relational reasoning: The bedrock of integration within and across multiple representations, documents, and perspectives. In P. Van Meter, A. List, D. Lombardi, & P. Kendeou (Eds.), Handbook of learning from multiple representations and perspectives (pp. 401–424). Routledge.

Allen, G. (2022). Intertextuality (3rd ed.). Routledge.

Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a national of readers: The report of the commission on reading . The national Academy of Education, The National Institute of Education, The Center for the Study of Reading.

Andresen, A., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Bråten, I. (2019). Investigating multiple source use among students with and without dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 32 (5), 1149–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9904-z

Andresen, A., Anmarkrud, Ø., Salmerón, L., & Bråten, I. (2019). Processing and learning from multiple sources: A comparative case study of students with dyslexia working in a multiple source multimedia context. Frontline Learning Research, 7 (3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v7i3.451

Anglim, J., Dunlop, P. D., Wee, S., Horwood, S., Wood, J. K., & Marty, A. (2022). Personality and intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 148 (5–6), 301–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000373

Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., Florit, E., & Mason, L. (2022). The role of individual differences in sourcing: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (2), 749–792. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09640-7

Author. (2013). EngageNY: Common core curriculum . Expeditionary Learning.

Baron, N. S. (2021). How We Read Now . Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Barzilai, S., & Ka’adan, I. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12 (2), 193–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-016-9165-7

Barzilai, S., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). Individual differences in multiple document comprehension. In J. L. G. Braasch, I. Bråten, & M. T. McCrudden (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 99–116). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barzilai, S., Zohar, A. R., & Mor-Hagani, S. (2018). Promoting integration of multiple texts: A review of instructional approaches and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (3), 973–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9436-8

Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextualities: Volosinov, Bakhtin, literary theory, and literacy studies. In A. F. Ball & S. W. Freedman (Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 53–65). Cambridge University Press.

Beker, K., van den Broek, P., & Jolles, D. (2019). Children’s integration of information across texts: Reading processes and knowledge representations. Reading and Writing, 32 (3), 663–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9879-9

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structual equations with latent variables . John Wiley & Sons.

Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219

Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Incremental theories of intelligence predict multiple document comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 31 , 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.012

Braasch, J. L. G., Haverkamp, Y. E., Latini, N., Shaw, S., Arshad, M. S., & Bråten, I. (2022). Belief bias when adolescents read to comprehend multiple conflicting texts. Reading and Writing, 35 (8), 1759–1785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10262-w

Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., & McCrudden, M. T. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of multiple source use . Routledge.

Brand-Gruwel, S., Wopereis, I., & Walraven, A. (2009). A descriptive model of information problem solving while using internet. Computers & Education, 53 (4), 1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.004

Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46 (1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538647

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013a). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Reading and Writing, 26 (3), 321–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x

Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2013). Justification beliefs and multiple-documents comprehension. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28 (3), 879–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0145-2

Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30 , 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.11.002

Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Ferguson, L. E. (2016). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of single and multiple texts. In P. P. Afflerbach (Ed.), Handbook of individual differences in reading: Reader, text, and context (pp. 67–79). Routledge.

Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2018). What really matters: The role of behavioural engagement in multiple document literacy tasks. Journal of Research in Reading, 41 (4), 680–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12247

Bråten, I., Braasch, J. L. G., & Salmerón, L. (2020). Reading multiple and non-traditional texts: New opportunities and new challenges. In E. B. Moje, P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research 5: 79–98. Routledge.

Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence (pp. 209–234). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Britt, M. A., Rouet, J., & Durik, A. M. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading . Routledge.

van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2022). Reading comprehension I: Discourse. In The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 239–260). Wiley Blackwell.

Buehl, M. M. (2008). Assessing the multidimensionality of students’ epistemic beliefs across diverse cultures. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs (pp. 65–112). Springer.

Burger, J. M. (2015). Personality (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2018). The role of executive functions in reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (3), 801–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9422-6

Butterfuss, R., & Kendeou, P. (2021). KReC-MD: Knowledge revision with multiple documents. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (4), 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09603-y

Byrne, B. (1998). The foundation of literacy: The child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle . Psychology Press.

Cabell, S. Q., & Hwang, H. (2020). Building content knowledge to boost comprehension in the primary grades. Reading Research Quarterly , 55 (S1). https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.338

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19 (1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271

Cheong, C. M., Zhu, X., Li, G. Y., & Wen, H. (2019). Effects of intertextual processing on L2 integrated writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 44 , 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.004

Cho, B.-Y. (2013). Adolescents’ constructively responsive reading strategy use in a critical Internet reading task. Reading Research Quarterly, 48 (4), 329–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.49

Cho, B.-Y., Han, H., & Kucan, L. L. (2018). An exploratory study of middle-school learners’ historical reading in an internet environment. Reading and Writing, 31 (7), 1525–1549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9847-4

Cho, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2017). An evolving perspective of constructively responsive reading comprehension strategies in multilayered digital text environments. In S. E. Israel (Ed.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (2nd ed., pp. 109–134). The Guilford Press.

Clemens, N. H., & Fuchs, D. (2022). Commercially developed tests of reading comprehension: Gold standard or fool’s gold? Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (2), 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.415

Coiro, J. (2021). Toward a multifaceted heuristic of digital reading to inform assessment, research, practice, and policy. Reading Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.302

Cumming, M. M., Bettini, E., & Chow, J. C. (2023). High-quality systematic literature reviews in special education: Promoting coherence, contextualization, generativity, and transparency. Exceptional Children , 001440292211465. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221146576

Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10 (3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_5

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19 (4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6

Davis, D. S., Huang, B., & Yi, T. (2017). Making sense of science texts: A mixed-methods examination of predictors and processes of multiple-text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 52 (2), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.162

Drummey, A. B., & Newcombe, N. S. (2002). Developmental changes in source memory. Developmental Science, 5 (4), 502–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00243

Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356

Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3 (4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393

Florit, E., Cain, K., & Mason, L. (2020). Going beyond children’s single-text comprehension: The role of fundamental and higher-level skills in 4th graders’ multiple-document comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12288

Florit, E., De Carli, P., Giunti, G., & Mason, L. (2020). Advanced theory of mind uniquely contributes to children’s multiple-text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 189 , 104708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2019.104708

Follmer, D. J. (2018). Executive function and reading comprehension: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 53 (1), 42–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1309295

Follmer, D. J., & Tise, J. (2022). Effects of an executive function-based text support on strategy use and comprehension–integration of conflicting informational texts. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-022-10257-7

Forzani, E. (2016). Individual differences in evaluating the credibility of online information in science: Contributions of prior knowledge, gender, socioeconomic status, and offline reading ability . University of Connecticut.

Frankenhuis, W. E., Borsboom, D., Nettle, D., & Roisman, G. I. (2023). Formalizing theories of child development: Introduction to the special section. Child Development , cdev.14020. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14020

Frederiksen, C. H. (1975). Effects of context-induced processing operations on semantic information acquired from discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 7 (2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90007-9

Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension . Ablex Publishing Company.

Gee, J. P. (2007). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology and discourse . Routledge.

Gershman, S. J. (2019). How to never be wrong. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26 (1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1488-8

Gibson, E. J., & Levin, H. (1975). The psychology of reading . The MIT Press.

Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31 (2), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2013.773217

Goldman, S. R., Golden, R. M., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Why are computation models of text comprehension useful? In F. Schmalhofer & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Higher level language processes in the brain: Inference and comprehension processes (pp. 27–52). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47 (4), 356–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027

Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2013). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading-from words to multiple texts (pp. 180–199). Routledge.

Goldman, S. R., Britt, M. A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C. D., Shanahan, C., & Project READI. (2016). Disciplinary literacies and learning to read for understanding: A conceptual framework for disciplinary literacy. Educational Psychologist, 51 (2), 219–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741

Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Reading comprehension strategies: Theories, interventions, and technologies (pp. 3–26). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Greene, S. (1993). The role of task in the development of academic thinking through reading and writing in a college history course. Research in the Teaching of English, 27 (1), 46–75.

Greene, J. A. (2022). What can educational psychology learn from, and contribute to, theory development scholarship? Educational Psychology Review, 34 (4), 3011–3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09682-5

Griffin, T. D., Wiley, J., Britt, M. A., & Salas, C. R. (2012). The Role of CLEAR Thinking in Learning Science from Multiple-Document Inquiry Tasks., 1 , 16.

Hagtvet, B. E., Helland, T., & Lyster, S.-A. H. (2006). Literacy acquisition in Norwegian. In R. Malatesha Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 15–30). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106 (3), 491–528.

Harris, P. L., Koenig, M. A., Corriveau, K. H., & Jaswal, V. K. (2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 69 (1), 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011710

Hastings, P., Hughes, S., Magliano, J. P., Goldman, S. R., & Lawless, K. (2012). Assessing the use of multiple sources in student essays. Behavior Research Methods, 44 (3), 622–633. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0214-0

Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading . The MacMillan Company.

Hwang, H., Cabell, S. Q., & Joyner, R. E. (2022). Effects of integrated literacy and content-area instruction on vocabulary and comprehension in the elementary years: A meta-analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (3), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1954005

Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2020). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Job, R., Peressotti, F., & Mulatti, C. (2006). The acquisition of literacy in Italian. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 105–120). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kaufman, J., Davis, J., Wang, E., Thompson, L., Pane, J., Pfrommer, K., & Harris, M. (2017). Use of open educational resources in an era of common standards: A case study on the use of EngageNY. RAND Corporation . https://doi.org/10.7249/RR1773

Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess: Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12 (3), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132279

Kennedy, M. L. (1985). The composing process of college students writing from sources. Written Communication, 2 , 434–456.

Kim, J. S., Relyea, J. E., Burkhauser, M. A., Scherer, E., & Rich, P. (2021). Improving elementary grade students’ science and social studies vocabulary knowledge depth, reading comprehension, and argumentative writing: A conceptual replication. Educational Psychology Review, 33 (4), 1935–1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09609-6

Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95 (2), 163–182.

Koenig, M. A., & Harris, P. L. (2005). Preschoolers mistrust ignorant and inaccurate speakers. Child Development, 76 (6), 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00849.x

Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., Schmeck, R. R., & Avdic, A. (2011). The Big Five personality traits, learning styles, and academic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51 (4), 472–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.019

Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28 (2), 16–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177186

Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Magliano, J. P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26 (4–5), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710500285870

Lane, S., Raymond, M. R., & Haladyna, T. M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of test development . Routledge.

Language and Reading Research Consortium, Pratt, A., & Logan, J. (2014). Improving language-focused comprehension instruction in primary-grade classrooms: Impacts of the let’s know! Experimental Curriculum. Educational Psychology Review, 26 (3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9275-1

Lee, C. D., Goldman, S. R., Levine, S., & Magliano, J. P. (2016). Epistemic cognition in literary reasoning. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 165–183). Routledge.

Lee, C. D. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind . Teachers College Press.

Leinhardt, G., & Young, K. M. (1996). Two texts, three readers: Distance and expertise in reading history. Cognition and Instruction, 14 (4), 441–486. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1404_2

Lemke, J. L. (2004). Intertextuality and educational research. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 3–14). Information Age Publishing.

Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50 (1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.85

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2019). New literacies: A dual-level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed., pp. 319–346). Routledge.

Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., & Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in memory source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52 (3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(91)90065-Z

List, A. (2020). Six questions regarding strategy use when learning from multiple texts. In D. L. Dinsmore, L. K. Fryer, & M. M. Parkinson (Eds.), Handbook of strategies and strategic processing (pp. 119–140). Routledge.

List, A. (2023). Social justice reasoning when students learn about social issues using multiple texts. Discourse Processes, 60 (4–5), 244–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2023.2197692

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Analyzing and integrating models of multiple text comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1328309

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Cognitive affective engagement model of multiple source use. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329014

List, A., & Alexander, P. A. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54 (1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514

List, A., & Sun, Y. (2023). To clarity and beyond: Situating higher-order, critical, and critical-analytic thinking in the literature on learning from multiple texts. Educational Psychology Review, 35 (2), 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09756-y

List, A., Du, H., Wang, Y., & Lee, H. Y. (2019). Toward a typology of integration: Examining the documents model framework. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58 , 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.003

Mackey, M. (2020). Who reads what, in which formats, and why? In E. B. Moje, P. P. Afflerbach, P. Enciso, & N. K. Lesaux (Eds.), Handbook of reading research 5: 99–115. Routledge.

Magliano, J. P., McCrudden, M. T., Rouet, J.-F., & Sabatini, J. (2018). The modern reader: Should changes to how we read affect research and theory? In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp, & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse processes (pp. 343–361). Routledge.

Magliano, J. P., Talwar, A., Feller, D. P., Wang, Z., O’Reilly, T., & Sabatini, J. (2023). Exploring thresholds in the foundational skills for reading and comprehension outcomes in the context of postsecondary readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 56 (1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194221087387

Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading . Penguin Press.

Many, J. E. (1996). Patterns of selectivity in drawing on sources: Examining students’ use of intertextuality across literacy events. Reading Research and Instruction, 36 (1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388079609558227

Many, J. E., Fyfe, R., Lewis, G., & Mitchell, E. (1996). Traversing the topical landscape: Exploring students’ self-directed reading-writing-research processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 31 (1), 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.1.2

Mason, L. (2010). Beliefs about knowledge and revision of knowledge: On the importance of epistemic beliefs for intentional conceptual change in elementary and middle school students. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 258–291). Cambridge University Press.

Mason, L. (2018). Multiplicity in the digital era: Processing and learning from multiple sources and modalities of instructional presentations. Learning and Instruction, 57 , 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.03.004

Mason, L., Scrimin, S., Tornatora, M. C., & Zaccoletti, S. (2017). Emotional reactivity and comprehension of multiple online texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 58 , 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.002

Mason, L., Scrimin, S., Zaccoletti, S., Tornatora, M. C., & Goetz, T. (2018). Webpage reading: Psychophysiological correlates of emotional arousal and regulation predict multiple-text comprehension. Computers in Human Behavior, 87 , 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.020

Mason, L., Zaccoletti, S., Scrimin, S., Tornatora, M. C., Florit, E., & Goetz, T. (2020). Reading with the eyes and under the skin: Comprehending conflicting digital texts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36 (1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12399

McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). The multidimensional knowledge in text comprehension framework. Educational Psychologist, 56 (3), 196–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1872379

McGinley, W. (1992). The role of reading and writing while composing from sources. Reading Research Quarterly, 27 (3), 226. https://doi.org/10.2307/747793

McGrew, S., Breakstone, J., Ortega, T., Smith, M., & Wineburg, S. (2018). Can students evaluate online sources? Learning from assessments of civic online reasoning. Theory & Research in Social Education, 46 (2), 165–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2017.1416320

McNamara, D. S., Watanabe, M., Huynh, L., McCarthy, K. S., Allen, L. K., & Magliano, J. P. (2023). Summarizing versus rereading multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 102238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102238

McWeeny, S., Choe, J., & Norton, E. (2021). SnowGlobe: An interactive search tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. [Computer software]. 10.17605/OSF.IO/U25RN

Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46 (4), 806–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806

Mills, C. M. (2013). Knowing when to doubt: Developing a critical stance when learning from others. Developmental Psychology, 49 (3), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029500

Murphy, P. K., Firetto, C. M., & Li, M. (2018). Knowledge and the model of domain learning. In H. Fives & D. L. Dinsmore (Eds.), The model of domain learning: Understanding the development of expertise (pp. 19–36). Routledge.

Murphy, P. K., Alexander, P. A., & Muis, K. R. (2012). Knowledge and knowing: The journey from philosophy and psychology to human learning. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues. (pp. 189–226). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-008

National Assessment Governing Board. (2021). Reading framework for the 2026 National Assessment of Educational Progress . U.S. Department of Education.

National Council for the Social Studies. (2013). The college, career, and civic life (C3) framework for social studies state standards: Guidance for enhancing the rigor of K-12 civics, economics, geography, and history . National Council for the Social Studies.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing . American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education.

National Governors Association, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects .

National Research Council. (2012a). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012b). Improving adult literacy instruction: Options for practice and research . National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states . National Academies Press.

Nelson, N., & King, J. R. (2022). Discourse synthesis: Textual transformations in writing from sources. Reading and Writing . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10243-5

Neugebauer, S. R., & Gilmour, A. F. (2020). The ups and downs of reading across content areas: The association between instruction and fluctuations in reading motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (2), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000373

Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper . Cambridge University Press.

Peng, P., Barnes, M., Wang, C., Wang, W., Li, S., Swanson, H. L., Dardick, W., & Tao, S. (2018). A meta-analysis on the relation between reading and working memory. Psychological Bulletin, 144 (1), 48–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000124

Peng, P., Zhang, Z., Wang, W., Lee, K., Wang, T., Wang, C., Luo, J., & Lin, J. (2022). A meta-analytic review of cognition and reading difficulties: Individual differences, moderation, and language mediation mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 148 (3–4), 227–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000361

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability . Oxford University Press.

Perfetti, C. A., & Harris, L. (2017). Learning to read in English. In L. Verhoeven & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 347–370). Cambridge University Press.

Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perfetti, C., & Helder, A. (2022). Progress in reading science: Word identification, comprehension, and universal perspectives. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 5–35). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch1

Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning: Studies in history . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Polanin, J. R., Zhang, Q., Taylor, J. A., Williams, R. T., Joshi, M., & Burr, L. (2022). Evidence gap maps in education research. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2139312

Primor, L., & Katzir, T. (2018). Measuring multiple text integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2294. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02294

Raccanello, D., Florit, E., Brondino, M., Rodà, A., & Mason, L. (2022). Control and value appraisals and online multiple‐text comprehension in primary school: The mediating role of boredom and the moderating role of word‐reading fluency. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 92 (1). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12448

Raphael, T. E., & Boyd, F. B. (1991). Synthesizing information from multiple sources: A descriptive study of elementary students’ perceptions and performance of discourse synthesis (Elementary Subjects Center 45). Center for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects.

Reichle, E. D. (2021). Computational models of reading: A handbook . Oxford University Press.

Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968

Robinaugh, D. J., Haslbeck, J. M. B., Ryan, O., Fried, E. I., & Waldorp, L. J. (2021). Invisible hands and fine calipers: A call to use formal theory as a toolkit for theory construction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16 (4), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/174569162097469

Rott, S., & Gavin, B. (2015). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: A conceptual replication study of Goldman, Braasch, Wiley, Greasser and Brodowinska (2012). CALICO Journal, 32 (2), 323–354. https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v32i2.25139

Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. M. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52 (3), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1329015

Rouet, J., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52).

Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Gabrielsen, E., Kaakinen, J., Richter, T., & Lennon, M. (2021). PIAAC Cycle 2 assessment framework: Literacy. In The assessment frameworks for cycle 2 of the programme for the international assessment of adult competencies . Organisation for Economic Co-Operation. https://doi.org/10.1787/4bc2342d-en

Rouet, J.-F. (2005). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

de Ruyter, S. (2020). The effect of the cooperative jigsaw method on multiple document reading comprehension for prevocational education [Master’s Thesis]. University of Twente.

Salmerón, L., Strømsø, H. I., Kammerer, Y., Stadtler, M., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Comprehension processes in digital reading. In M. Barzillai, J. Thomson, S. Schroeder, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Studies in written language and literacy (Vol. 17, pp. 91–120). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/swll.17.04sal

Saux, G., Britt, M. A., Vibert, N., & Rouet, J. (2021). Building mental models from multiple texts: How readers construct coherence from inconsistent sources. Language and Linguistics Compass , 15 (3). https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12409

Scammacca, N. K., Roberts, G. J., Cho, E., Williams, K. J., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S. R., & Carroll, M. (2016). A century of progress: Reading interventions for students in grades 4–12, 1914–2014. Review of Educational Research, 86 (3), 756–800. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316652942

Segev-Miller, R. (2007). Cognitive processes in discourse synthesis: The case of intertextual processing strategies. In Torrance, L. Van Waes, & D. Galbraith (Eds.), Writing and cognition: Research and applications (Vol. 20, pp. 231–250).

Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (4), 584–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584

Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69 (1), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845

Simonsmeier, B. A., Flaig, M., Deiglmayr, A., Schalk, L., & Schneider, M. (2022). Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 57 (1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700

Smaldino, P. E. (2023). Modeling social behavior: Mathematical and agent-based models of social dynamics and cultural evolution . Princeton University Press.

Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension . Rand.

Sparks, J. R., & Deane, P. (2015). Cognitively based assessment of research and inquiry skills: Defining a key practice in the English language arts: Cognitively based assessment of research and inquiry skills. ETS Research Report Series, 2015 (2), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12082

Spivey, N. N. (1995). Written discourse: A constructivist perspective. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 313–329). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Multiple document comprehension: An approach to public understanding of science. Cognition and Instruction, 31 (2), 122–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.771106

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 379–402). MIT Press.

Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31 (4), 430–456. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.31.4.5

Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2017). Memory for textual conflicts predicts sourcing when adolescents read multiple expository texts. Reading Psychology, 38 (4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2016.1278417

Stang Lund, E., Bråten, I., Brandmo, C., Brante, E. W., & Strømsø, H. I. (2019). Direct and indirect effects of textual and individual factors on source-content integration when reading about a socio-scientific issue. Reading and Writing, 32 (2), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9868-z

Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple-text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29 (4), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903046864

Strømsø, H. I., & Kammerer, Y. (2016). Epistemic cognition and reading for understanding in the internet age. In J. A. Greene, W. A. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 230–246). Routledge.

Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20 (3), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.001

Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2016). Beliefs about justification for knowing when ethnic majority and ethnic minority students read multiple conflicting documents. Educational Psychology, 36 (4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.920080

Sun, R., Coward, L. A., & Zenzen, M. J. (2005). On levels of cognitive modeling. Philosophical Psychology, 18 (5), 613–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080500264248

Tarchi, C., Ruffini, C., & Pecini, C. (2021). The contribution of executive functions when reading multiple texts: A systematic literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 716463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716463

Toste, J. R., Didion, L., Peng, P., Filderman, M. J., & McClelland, A. M. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the relations between motivation and reading achievement for K–12 students. Review of Educational Research, 90 (3), 420–456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320919352

Underwood, B. J. (1975). Individual differences as a crucible in theory construction. American Psychologist, 30 (2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076759

Van Den Broek, P., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R., & Thurlow, R. (1996). A “landscape” view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and construction of a stable memory representation. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–188). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 2 (2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638537909544458

VanSledright, B. A. (2002). Fifth graders investigating history in the classroom: Results from a researcher-practitioner design experiment. The Elementary School Journal, 103 (2), 131–160. https://doi.org/10.1086/499720

vanSledright, B. A., & Kelly, C. (1998). Reading American history: The influence of multiple sources on six fifth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 98 (3), 239–265. https://doi.org/10.1086/461893

Vosniadou, S. (1992). Knowledge acquisition and conceptual change. Applied Psychology, 41 (4), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1992.tb00711.x

Wang, Z., Sabatini, J., O’Reilly, T., & Weeks, J. (2019). Decoding and reading comprehension: A test of the decoding threshold hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (3), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000302

Wang, Z., O’Reilly, T., Sabatini, J., McCarthy, K. S., & McNamara, D. S. (2021). A tale of two tests: The role of topic and general academic knowledge in traditional versus contemporary scenario-based reading. Learning and Instruction, 73 , 101462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101462

Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2 , 301–311.

Williams, J. P., Kao, J. C., Pao, L. S., Ordynans, J. G., Atkins, J. G., Cheng, R., & DeBonis, D. (2016). Close analysis of texts with structure (CATS): An intervention to teach reading comprehension to at-risk second graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (8), 1061–1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000117

Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73

Winne, P. H. (2018). Cognition and metacognition within self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 36–48). Routledge.

Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, come home: The reading brain in the digital world . Harper Collins Publishers.

Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23 (4), 467–502. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2304_2

Yang, S. C. (2002). Multidimensional taxonomy of learners cognitive processing in discourse synthesis with hypermedia. Computers in Human Behavior, 18 (1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00031-0

Download references

Daniel R. Espinas was supported in part by the Office of Special Education Programs (Grant H325D180086) in the US Department of Education to Vanderbilt University. Brennan W. Chandler was supported in part by the Office of Special Education Programs (Grant H325H190003) in the US Department of Education to The University of Texas at Austin.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA

Daniel R. Espinas

The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA

Daniel R. Espinas & Brennan W. Chandler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel R. Espinas .

Ethics declarations

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of Special Education Programs or the US Department of Education.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Espinas, D.R., Chandler, B.W. Correlates of K-12 Students’ Intertextual Integration. Educ Psychol Rev 36 , 48 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09889-8

Download citation

Accepted : 23 April 2024

Published : 07 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09889-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Multiple document comprehension
• Multiple source use
• Intertextual integration
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Welcome to the Purdue Online Writing Lab

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The Online Writing Lab at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue. Students, members of the community, and users worldwide will find information to assist with many writing projects. Teachers and trainers may use this material for in-class and out-of-class instruction.

The Purdue On-Campus Writing Lab and Purdue Online Writing Lab assist clients in their development as writers—no matter what their skill level—with on-campus consultations, online participation, and community engagement. The Purdue Writing Lab serves the Purdue, West Lafayette, campus and coordinates with local literacy initiatives. The Purdue OWL offers global support through online reference materials and services.

A Message From the Assistant Director of Content Development 

The Purdue OWL® is committed to supporting  students, instructors, and writers by offering a wide range of resources that are developed and revised with them in mind. To do this, the OWL team is always exploring possibilties for a better design, allowing accessibility and user experience to guide our process. As the OWL undergoes some changes, we welcome your feedback and suggestions by email at any time.

Please don't hesitate to contact us via our contact page  if you have any questions or comments.

All the best,

Social Media

Facebook twitter.

High school student helps transform 'crazy idea' into innovative research tool

Like many good ideas in science, it started with a walk in the woods.

During a stroll through the Berlin Botanic Garden in 2019, HHMI Janelia Research Campus Group Leader Jan Funke and some of his scientific colleagues started chatting about a familiar topic: how to get more information out of insect connectomes.

These wiring diagrams give researchers unprecedented information about brain cells and how they connect to each other, but they don't tell scientists how the signal from one neuron affects the other neurons in its network.

The group wondered if they might be able to use information from previous experiments identifying the neurotransmitters released from some neurons to predict the neurotransmitters released from others in the connectome. Neurons use neurotransmitters to communicate with each other, with different chemicals responsible for different signals.

The human eye can't tell the difference between the synapses on neurons where different neurotransmitters are released, but perhaps a computer model could. Funke and his colleagues were skeptical, but they thought it might be worth giving it a try.

"This is basically where we left it: we have the data, I guess we could try," Funke says. "We were not particularly optimistic."

Back at Janelia, Funke decided to give the project to Michelle Du, a high school student who was starting a summer internship in his lab. The project would allow Du to learn how to train a neural network to recognize images -- a useful skill for a budding computer scientist even if the project did not yield results.

A few days into her internship, Du showed up in Funke's office having trained the model on published data and evaluated its performance on test data. Though Funke had little hope it would work, the model was more than 90 percent accurate in predicting some neurotransmitters.

"I couldn't believe it," Funke says. "The numbers were way too good."

After checking the data and the model, Funke, Du, and their colleagues were convinced that the numbers weren't a mistake: The model could predict neurotransmitters. But the team was still cautious, and they didn't have a good grasp on how the network was making the predictions.

"I should have been very happy, but instead I was worried because we didn't understand what was going on," Funke says.

After ruling out possible confounders that could be skewing their results, the team developed a way to understand what the network was seeing that allowed it to make predictions.

First, they used their network to predict a neurotransmitter from a known image, which it did successfully. Then, they asked a separate network to take that known image and change it slightly to create an image corresponding to the release of a different neurotransmitter -- essentially identifying the minimum traits that need to be changed for the model to predict one neurotransmitter over 4another. Lastly, the team developed a separate method to identify these distinct traits.

From this information, the team understood the different features their original network used to make predictions. This gave them confidence to release their method to the wider neuroscience community in 2020.

"What most of the neuroscience community has seen from this work is the predictions," Funke says. "They were happy to use it, but for us it was very important to make sure it was actually working."

Five years later, Du is now an undergraduate at Duke University, and the method she helped develop has been used to predict neurotransmitters in connectomes of the fruit fly hemibrain, ventral nerve cord, and optic lobe created by Janelia researchers and collaborators, as well as the adult fly brain connectome created by FlyWire.

The information helps scientists understand how neurons in a circuit affect each other so they can then form hypotheses about the function of brain circuits that can be tested in the lab.

"It really all started with a bit of a crazy idea, something that no one was really too optimistic about. And what do you do with a crazy idea? You give it to a high school student as a learning experience," Funke says. "We were very fortunate that Michelle was extremely talented."

• Neuroscience
• Educational Psychology
• K-12 Education
• Behavioral Science
• Telecommunications
• Drosophila melanogaster
• Double blind
• Neurotransmitter
• Earth science
• Brachiosaurus
• Positron emission tomography

Story Source:

Materials provided by Howard Hughes Medical Institute . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Nils Eckstein, Alexander Shakeel Bates, Andrew Champion, Michelle Du, Yijie Yin, Philipp Schlegel, Alicia Kun-Yang Lu, Thomson Rymer, Samantha Finley-May, Tyler Paterson, Ruchi Parekh, Sven Dorkenwald, Arie Matsliah, Szi-Chieh Yu, Claire McKellar, Amy Sterling, Katharina Eichler, Marta Costa, Sebastian Seung, Mala Murthy, Volker Hartenstein, Gregory S.X.E. Jefferis, Jan Funke. Neurotransmitter classification from electron microscopy images at synaptic sites in Drosophila melanogaster . Cell , 2024; 187 (10): 2574 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.016

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Controlling Shape-Shifting Soft Robots
• Brain Flexibility for a Complex World
• ONe Nova to Rule Them All
• AI Systems Are Skilled at Manipulating Humans
• Planet Glows With Molten Lava
• A Fragment of Human Brain, Mapped
• Symbiosis Solves Long-Standing Marine Mystery
• Surprising Common Ideas in Environmental ...
• 2D All-Organic Perovskites: 2D Electronics
• Generative AI That Imitates Human Motion

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.