Self-concept in poor readers: a systematic review protocol
Author and article information
Abstract
Individuals with poor reading ability are at greater risk of educational and occupational difficulties. In addition to this, these individuals are also at greater risk of poor health outcomes, particularly mental health. At least some of this association may be underpinned by poor self-concept; however, the evidence for this relationship is mixed. In this systematic review protocol, we outline an approach to adjudicate between three reasons for these mixed results: (1) poor reading is more closely associated with some types of self-concept than others; (2) low self-concept is more closely associated with some types of poor reading than others; and (3) low self-concept is not associated with poor reading per se, but is associated with co-morbid problems with language or attention. The protocol proposes a review (based on PRSIMA-P guidelines) to use the existing literature to explore the evidence for these possibilities to better understand the association between poor reading and low self-concept.
Cite this as
2016. Self-concept in poor readers: a systematic review protocol. PeerJ Preprints 4:e2062v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2062v1Author comment
This is the first step in the development of a systematic review protocol to examine the existing literature on self-concept in poor readers. We consider this a working document, in that some of the details will be refined in order to adjust the protocol in relation to the available data as appropriate and as is common with systematic review protocol development.
Sections
Additional Information
Competing Interests
Genevieve McArthur, Mark Boyes and Nicholas Badcock are Academic Editors for PeerJ.
Author Contributions
Genevieve M McArthur conceived and designed the experiments, wrote the paper, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Deanna Francis conceived and designed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Nathan Caruana conceived and designed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Mark E Boyes conceived and designed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Nicholas A Badcock conceived and designed the experiments, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.
Data Deposition
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The research in this article is a systematic review protocol and therefore did not generate any raw data.
Funding
The authors received no funding for this work
