View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Predictors of Chinese Undergraduates' Reading Literacy: The Role of Individual, Family, and Institutional Factors

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Predictors of Chinese Undergraduates' Reading Literacy: The Role of Individual, Family, and Institutional Factors
Language: English
Authors: Renjie Li (ORCID 0000-0003-2211-4837), Yan Wang (ORCID 0009-0000-7640-8932), Jianpeng Guo (ORCID 0000-0002-2587-7760), Yang Hang (ORCID 0000-0001-8552-7925)
Source: Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. 2025 34(1):463-472.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Literacy, Undergraduate Students, Undergraduate Study, Influences, Gender Differences, Grade Level Differences, Majors (Students), Place of Residence, Cultural Background, Socioeconomic Background, Family Environment, Institutional Characteristics, Peer Relationship, Individual Differences
Geographic Terms: China
DOI: 10.1007/s40299-024-00869-8
ISSN: 0119-5646
2243-7908
Abstract: Reading literacy (RL) is the core type of literacy of university students. However, the factors that affect the RL of undergraduates have not been thoroughly investigated in previous studies. This study examined the relationships between individual, family, and institutional factors and RL in a sample of 66,312 Chinese undergraduate students. The findings revealed a complex predictive relationship between various factors and university students' RL. Specifically, individual factors, such as gender, grade, major, and place of residence, had a significant influence on RL. Family factors, including socioeconomic and cultural background, as well as the home literacy environment, also played a crucial role on RL. Furthermore, institutional factors, such as institutional type, reading atmosphere, teacher reading guidance, and peer reading interactions, impacted RL. However, the impact of reading resources, such as number of paper books, on RL was not significant. The Shapley value decomposition results provided additional insights, indicating that family factors were the most influential explanatory variables for RL, followed by institutional factors, with individual factors having the least impact on RL. This study suggests that current higher education in China may not completely bridge the reading gap resulting from differences in family factors.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1457808
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEGfEQer52La728mF2NW1JOAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGhNW1Hbe8VDoH5yIgIBEICBmqHGveTqbQKoj-gkFVU-dEQUVcu2cGn59nc7AlAtEg9P1yE0jhKcTQlsUI7S41v87Nl6VQNmKcQSaOGEsceZQyGSmzmkGlUxRlldUv0YVN3icgJdKulHUeBS04CmD0ooaVvtN6Zrf6Q3l-U7hvvw34nBSzfUo-QNd--MJAcn6lkqHZH2uCv22XYTQh8Uxc_y2GeXDbuc5ott-qA=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182324036;[gchw]01feb.25;2025Jan22.01:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182324036-1">Predictors of Chinese Undergraduates' Reading Literacy: The Role of Individual, Family, and Institutional Factors </title> <p>Reading literacy (RL) is the core type of literacy of university students. However, the factors that affect the RL of undergraduates have not been thoroughly investigated in previous studies. This study examined the relationships between individual, family, and institutional factors and RL in a sample of 66,312 Chinese undergraduate students. The findings revealed a complex predictive relationship between various factors and university students' RL. Specifically, individual factors, such as gender, grade, major, and place of residence, had a significant influence on RL. Family factors, including socioeconomic and cultural background, as well as the home literacy environment, also played a crucial role on RL. Furthermore, institutional factors, such as institutional type, reading atmosphere, teacher reading guidance, and peer reading interactions, impacted RL. However, the impact of reading resources, such as number of paper books, on RL was not significant. The Shapley value decomposition results provided additional insights, indicating that family factors were the most influential explanatory variables for RL, followed by institutional factors, with individual factors having the least impact on RL. This study suggests that current higher education in China may not completely bridge the reading gap resulting from differences in family factors.</p> <p>Keywords: Chinese undergraduate students; Individual factors; Family factors; Institutional factors; Reading literacy</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In today's knowledge-driven economy and rapidly evolving information technology landscape, the amount of societal knowledge is growing exponentially. Given the vast volume of available information, cultivating students' reading literacy (RL) is essential (Alexander, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>]; Artelt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]). RL is the ability to "understand, use, evaluate, reflect on, and engage with texts to achieve one's goals, develop one's knowledge and potential, and participate in society" (Mullis et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref3">30</reflink>]; OECD, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref4">31</reflink>]). It is multidimensional, encompassing reading motivation, engagement, and competencies (Schroeter & Bar-Kochva, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref5">35</reflink>]). Recently, there has been growing interest in RL research in international education, with large-scale educational assessment projects such as PIRLS, PISA, and NAEP all recognizing RL as a critical element.</p> <p>RL has been a key focus of the Chinese government in efforts to build a country with a strong socialist culture (Central People's Government, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]). Under the national Nationwide Reading framework, enhancing reading interest, fostering reading habits, and improving reading competencies are seen as critical components of cultivating RL (State Council, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref7">36</reflink>]). While Chinese education policy prioritizes RL for primary and secondary school students, higher education (HE) initiatives were not introduced until 2015, with a specific focus on creating reading-friendly campuses (Zha, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref8">47</reflink>]). Recently, the Ministry of Education (MOE [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref9">29</reflink>]) required universities nationwide to launch the "Cultivating Youthful Vigor through Reading" initiative, emphasizing "macro factors," such as facilities, the campus environment, and instructional management (MOE, 2023). However, there is less emphasis on "microfactors" related to students' reading learning and teachers' reading instruction (Guo & Ji, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref10">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research suggests that RL is crucial for university students because it is closely linked to their cognition (e.g., improving grades), emotions (e.g., shaping values), behavior (e.g., developing good habits), and even health (e.g., relieving anxiety) (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref11">24</reflink>]; Talwar et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref12">38</reflink>]; Zha, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref13">47</reflink>]). RL is the cornerstone for the comprehensive development and lifelong learning of university students, impacting their success in academic, professional, and social spheres (Gorzycki et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]). Despite the implementation of various approaches by the Chinese HE system to improve university students' RL, concerns have been raised by researchers. Chen ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref15">13</reflink>]) noted that the promotion of university students' RL is still neglected in the Chinese HE system, leading to a limitation in talent cultivation. Zha ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref16">47</reflink>]) found that compared to Western students, Chinese university students face challenges such as a preference for entertainment in reading, utilitarian reading motivations, and a significant lack of reading engagement.</p> <p>Therefore, it is necessary to improve Chinese university students' RL through the analysis of relevant factors. Previous studies have examined the impact of individual and environmental factors on students' RL in the context of Western culture (Artelt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]; Ho & Lau, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref18">20</reflink>]). However, few studies have integrated individual and environmental factors to create a comprehensive model of factors impacting university students' RL in the Chinese HE context. Additionally, existing studies have not clearly distinguished between the internal indicators and external facilitators of RL. Therefore, this study aimed to elucidate the indicators of university students' RL and investigate the factors influencing RL from a holistic perspective, including individual, family, and institution factors. The results of this study offers valuable insights for enhancing policies and teaching practices in HE.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182324036-4">The Internal Indicators of RL</hd> <p>The concept of RL was first introduced in 1991 and defined as "the ability to reflect and use reading as a tool for achieving personal and societal goals" (Mullis et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref19">30</reflink>]). Initially, RL was seen as a one-dimensional structure, with reading comprehension as its core (Alexander, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>]). Further research has highlighted that reading is not just a "cognitive" activity; motivations and emotions also play a significant role in why and how individuals read, as well as the outcomes of the reading process (Brown & Campione, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]; Wigfield & Guthrie, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref22">44</reflink>]). International surveys such as the PISA and PIRLS have gradually integrated reading motivation and engagement into the assessment of RL (Mullis et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref23">30</reflink>]; OECD, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref24">31</reflink>]). Schroeter and Bar-Kochva ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref25">35</reflink>]) proposed a precise conceptual framework, stating that RL is a multifaceted construct involving reading motivation, engagement and competencies. This framework aids in distinguishing between internal indicators and facilitators of RL. While various studies have explored the relationships between variables such as reading motivation, self-concept, self-efficacy, engagement, and RL (e.g., Becker et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>]; Kyröläinen & Kuperman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref27">23</reflink>]; Wigfield & Guthrie, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref28">44</reflink>]), these factors are considered internal indicators in the RL construct. The primary objective of our study was to examine the impact of external factors on the RL of university students.</p> <p>This study adopted the three-dimensional structure of RL due to its broad applicability across different populations, including K-12 and university students, ensuring consistency in the core elements of RL. This structure is also aligned with the Chinese government's initiatives to enhance reading interest, foster reading habits, and improve reading competencies (State Council, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]). Our study focused on native language (Chinese) RL. Specifically, reading motivation refers to the internal processes that initiate and sustain reading activity (De Naeghel et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref30">16</reflink>]); reading engagement pertains to the quality of cognitive and behavioral involvement in reading activities (Wigfield & Guthrie, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref31">44</reflink>]); and reading competencies are defined as an individual's ability to acquire knowledge and construct meaning from text (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref32">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-5">External Facilitators Influencing RL at the Individual, Family, and School Levels</hd> <p>Beyond just understanding the essence of RL, researchers have shown a keen interest in exploring the determinants that impact RL. Regarding individual factors, studies have shown that factors such as gender, grade, and place of residence have a notable impact on RL. For instance, Castro and Ferri ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]) discovered that female students tend to outperform male students in RL. Phillips et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref34">32</reflink>]) conducted a study involving 187 children and found that reading achievement typically improves as students progress through higher grades. Research on Chinese compulsory education indicates that urban students generally demonstrate better emergent RL than their rural counterparts (Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref35">48</reflink>]). Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref36">41</reflink>]) examined the influence of gender and grade on reading engagement among Chinese university students, aligning with the findings of the aforementioned two studies.</p> <p>In terms of family factors, previous studies have primarily examined the impact of family socioeconomic status (SES) on students' RL. In their study based on the family investment model (Conger & Donnellan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]), Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref38">40</reflink>]) found that parents with higher income and education levels, which are key components of SES, allocate more resources to their children's reading, leading to a positive effect on their children's reading development. Additionally, studies have investigated the impact of the home literacy environment (HLE) on RL. For instance, Tse et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref39">39</reflink>]) revealed that early family literacy activities, parents' attitudes toward reading, and the presence of books in the home are the three primary factors of the HLE that influence children's reading performance across most countries.</p> <p>Recent research primarily examined two key factors related to schools: the school environment and classroom teaching. Areepattamannil ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>]) discovered that positive perceptions of the school environment significantly impact students' RL. In the HE context, Zha ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref41">47</reflink>]) highlighted the positive effects of university investment in promoting RL through various means, such as organizing reading courses and campus activities, enhancing library resources, and encouraging reading interactions. At the classroom level, there is a strong consensus that students' motivation is greatly influenced by the instructional guidance they receive (Pintrich et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref42">33</reflink>]). Effective classroom teaching not only fosters students' intrinsic reading motivation but also promotes reading engagement through direct strategy instruction, enabling students to participate in independent and collaborative reading activities (Baker & Scher, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref43">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-6">The Present Study</hd> <p>Previous studies have mainly examined RL in primary and secondary schools within Western cultural contexts (Alexander, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>]; Ho & Lau, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref45">20</reflink>]; Kyröläinen & Kuperman, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref46">23</reflink>]), providing valuable insights. Notably, the HE setting differs significantly from primary and secondary education settings. Factors unique to HE, such as disciplinary culture, institutional diversity, and reading pedagogies, require further investigation. Moreover, family factors play a continuous and significant role in shaping university students' motivation, beliefs, habits, and skills (Bartoszuk et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref47">7</reflink>]). Despite this, the impact of family factors on university students' RL remains unexplored. As previous studies have shown that cultural differences between Western and Eastern countries may affect RL (Kambara, et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]; Wigfield et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref49">43</reflink>]), recent studies have shown that Chinese university students experience intense academic competition, causing students to prioritize reading materials relevant to their studies (Yin & Ke, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref50">46</reflink>]). This practical approach may lead to controlled motivation and a lack of engagement (Zha, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref51">47</reflink>]). Therefore, exploring factors related to RL among Chinese university students is imperative. By integrating the variables of greatest concern in the field of K-12 education, as well as variables unique to the HE context, this study developed a comprehensive model of factors impacting university students' RL, as shown in Fig. 1.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Model of factors influencing RL among Chinese university students</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182324036-8">Participants</hd> <p>This study involved a sample of 66,312 valid student participants from 99 full-time regular universities in mainland China. The selection of participating universities and individual respondents was carried out using convenience sampling and snowball methods. Participation was voluntary, and students were allowed to quit the study at any time. All the data were saved anonymously and kept confidential. For institutional type, 8.0% of the sample was from "double first-class" universities, which are recognized by Chinese MOE as key and research-oriented institutions, and 92.0% were from ordinary universities. In terms of gender, 46.8% of the students were male, and 53.2% were female. Regarding major backgrounds, 45.1% of the students were humanities and social science majors, and 54.9% were science and engineering majors. All investigators used Chinese as their first language.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-9">Measures</hd> <p>Drawing from the conceptual model of RL (Schroeter & Bar-Kochva, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref52">35</reflink>]), we devised three distinct Chinese subscales to assess RL among Chinese university students: reading motivation, engagement, and competencies. We adapted authoritative instruments and communicated with four experts in the fields of HE, educational psychology, and educational evaluation. Furthermore, feedback was collected from a sample of ten undergraduate students. This collaborative effort aimed to adapt the scales to better suit the characteristics of university students and the Chinese context.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-10">Dependent Variable</hd> <p> <emph>Reading motivation</emph> This scale was adapted from the SRQ-Reading Motivation Questionnaire (De Naeghel et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref53">16</reflink>]). It comprises seven items and can be categorized into two factors. Factor 1, autonomous reading motivation (ARM), comprises three items, including "I read because I thoroughly enjoy reading." Factor 2, controlled reading motivation (CRM), comprises four items, including "I read because the teacher expects or requires it." Items are rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).</p> <p> <emph>Reading engagement</emph> This scale was adapted from the Reading Engagement Questionnaire (Wigfield & Guthrie, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref54">44</reflink>]), comprises nine items and can be categorized into two factors. Factor 1, good reading habits (GHs), comprises four items, including "I proactively make time for reading." Factor 2, deep reading (DE), comprises three items, including "I often feel like I'm having a conversation with the author while reading." Items are rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Additionally, two questions were included to gather information about the average daily reading time (RT) and the average annual number of books read (RQ). Participants were asked to provide specific numerical values based on their actual reading habits.</p> <p> <emph>Reading competencies</emph> The reading competencies scale used in this study was developed based on the RL dimensions assessed in the PISA 2018 (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref55">31</reflink>]). This scale comprises seven items that measure reading ability. Factor 1, lower-order reading competence (LRC) and includes three items, such as the ability to read fluently and quickly. Factor 2, higher-order reading competence (HRC), includes four items that assess the ability to think independently about texts and offer insights. Items are rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-11">Independent Variables</hd> <p> <emph>Individual factors</emph> Individual factors included gender (male/female), grade (freshman to senior), major (humanities and social science/science and engineering), and place of residence (urban/rural). Students made selections based on their actual situation.</p> <p> <emph>Family factors</emph> Family factors were divided into two parts: SES and HLE. According to the family investment model (Conger & Donnellan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref56">15</reflink>]), variables related to family economic status and parental education level were surveyed. Family economic status was rated on a 3-point scale (1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good), and parental education level was rated on a 6-point scale (ranging from 1 = "elementary school or lower" to 6 = "doctoral degree"). According to the HLE theory, three items were designed to assess parental reading behaviors, parental reading support, and the number of books in the home. The first two items were rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (completely inconsistent) to 5 (completely consistent), and the last item was filled in by students with the actual number.</p> <p> <emph>Institutional factors</emph> Institutional factors were divided into objective and subjective reading environments. The objective reading environment (ORE) included institutional type (ordinary university/"double first-class" university) and reading resources. The reading resources included the library area, number of libraries, number of reading room seats, number of paper books, number of electronic books, number of electronic journals, and average number of paper books per student. These data were obtained from official school websites and matched to our survey data by school label. The subjective reading environment (SRE) encompassed the reading atmosphere, teacher reading guidance, and peer reading interactions. Items were rated on a scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (very often).</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-12">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The statistical analyses were performed using STATA 17.0, AMOS 25.0, and HLM 6.08. Initially, AMOS 25.0 was used to conduct confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the scales used in the study. Descriptive statistics and correlation analyses were then performed using STATA 17.0. A null model was constructed using HLM 6.08 to examine the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and assess the necessity of using HLM. Ultimately, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was chosen for the data analysis. Finally, the relative contributions of different factors to RL were determined using the Shapley value decomposition method.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-13">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182324036-14">Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and CFA</hd> <p>The results of the CFA showed a satisfactory fit for the model, as evidenced by the following fit indices: RMSEA = 0.078, NNFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91, and SRMR = 0.071. As displayed in Table 1, all item indicators had factor loadings greater than 0.52, with significant <emph>t</emph> values at the 0.001 level. The AVE values for all factors exceeded 0.50, and the square root of the AVE for each factor surpassed the interfactor correlations, demonstrating good discriminant validity. Additionally, Table 1 revealed that all factors exhibited Cronbach's <emph>α</emph> coefficients and composite reliability (CR) values higher than 0.76, indicating good reliability. Overall, every scale in this study had good reliability and validity.</p> <p>Table 1 Results of descriptive statistics, correlations, and CFA (<emph>N</emph> = 66,312)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Scale/factor</p></th><th align="left"><p>1</p></th><th align="left"><p>2</p></th><th align="left"><p>3</p></th><th align="left"><p>4</p></th><th align="left"><p>5</p></th><th align="left"><p>6</p></th><th align="left"><p>7</p></th><th align="left"><p>8</p></th><th align="left"><p>9</p></th><th align="left"><p>10</p></th><th align="left"><p>11</p></th><th align="left"><p>Cronbach's <italic>α</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>CR</p></th><th align="left"><p>AVE</p></th><th align="left"><p>CFA loading range (mean)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1. Reading motivation scale</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.76</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.58</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52–0.89(0.75)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2. ARM</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.79<sup>***</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.80</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.63</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.67–0.89(0.79)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3. CRM</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.81***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.28***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.72</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.77</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52–0.75(0.71)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4. Reading competencies scale</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.53***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.61***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.25***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.80</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.90</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.61</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74–0.85(0.79)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5. LRC</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.48***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.20***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.93***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.78</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.61</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74–0.85(0.78)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6. HRC</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.50***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.55***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.27***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.93***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.74***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.80</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.87</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.87</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.62</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76–0.81(0.79)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>7. Reading engagement scale</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.59***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.36***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.69***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.60***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.69***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.75</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.76</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.89</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.59</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.63–0.88(0.77)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>8. GHs</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.47***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.35***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.39***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.30***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.46***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.82***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.70</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.50</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.63–0.74(0.71)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>9. DE</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.48***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.62***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.71***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.68***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.65***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.79***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.29***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.84</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.86</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.67</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.68–0.88(0.82)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>10. RT</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.09***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.09***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.12***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.12***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.13***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.13***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.08***</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>11. RQ</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.27***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.24***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.25***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.19***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.19***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.07***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.24***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.07***</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mean</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.71</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.40</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.63</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.53</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.81</p></td><td align="left"><p>5.71</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.94</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.71</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.78</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.67</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.82</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.32</p></td><td align="left"><p>8.51</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td><td align="left"><p>–</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The mean of the scale is the total score divided by the number of items. The scale means can range between 1 and 5. The correlations between variables are presented in the triangular matrix, with the diagonal containing the square root of the extracted average variance (AVE) ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001 (2-tailed)</p> <p>Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics of the variables. Chinese university students demonstrated moderate performance across various RL factors, with average scores exceeding the theoretical mean of 3 except for CRT (<emph>M</emph> = 2.71, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.94) and GHs (<emph>M</emph> = 2.73, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.86). The highest score was observed for reading competencies (<emph>M</emph> = 3.32, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.71), followed by reading motivation (<emph>M</emph> = 3.11, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.73), while the lowest score was observed for reading engagement (<emph>M</emph> = 3.08, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.67).</p> <p>The correlation analysis in Table 1 shows significant associations among reading motivation, engagement, and competencies (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001), with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.17 to 0.81. Regarding reading engagement, Chinese university students reported RT of 1.81 h (<emph>M</emph> = 1.81, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.32) and RQ of 5.71 books (<emph>M</emph> = 5.71, <emph>SD</emph> = 8.51). These two items exhibited weak correlations with the scores on the various scale factors.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-15">OLS Analysis</hd> <p>Table 2 shows that RL was predicted by various individual factors, considering family and institutional factors. Gender positively predicted RL, with female students displaying lower reading motivation but greater engagement, especially regarding RQ, while males had greater reading competencies. School grade positively predicted RL, with students generally excelling in different aspects as they progressed through higher grades, except for DE and the RQ. Place of residence positively predicted reading engagement and reading competencies. Compared with rural students, urban students had worse reading habits and less RT but had better performance regarding DE, LRC, and HRC. College major positively predicted CRM, GHs, DE, RQ, and HRC. Students majoring in humanities and social sciences generally performed significantly better than those majoring in science and engineering.</p> <p>Table 2 Results of the OLS regression model (<emph>N</emph> = 66,312)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="3" /><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Reading motivation</p></th><th align="left" colspan="8"><p>Reading engagement</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Reading competencies</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>ARM</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>CRM</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>GHs</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>DE</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>RT</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>RQ</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>LRC</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>HRC</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>B</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="17"><p>Individual factors</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Female (male = 0)</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.038***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.111***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.007</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.069***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.011*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.097***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.010</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.529***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.064</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.070***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.098***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Grade</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.030***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.012***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.017***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.084***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.028***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.031***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.002</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Urban (rural = 0)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.084***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.008</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.044***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.007</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.041**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.014</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.084***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.007</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.078***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.007</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Humanities and social sciences (science and engineering = 0)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.033***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.007</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.068***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.012*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.262***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.066</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.013*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="17"><p>Family factors</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Parental education level</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.026***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.023***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.049***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.010**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.061*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.037</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.007*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Family economic status</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.021**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.007</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.036***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.007</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.056***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.007</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.014*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.070***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.011</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.430***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.069</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.019**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Parental reading behaviors</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.103***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.109***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.149***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.068***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.056***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.092***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.087***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Parental reading support</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.220***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.035***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.037***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.261***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.380***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.037</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.203***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.158***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Family book ownership</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.114***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.048***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.095***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.147***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.870***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.032</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.104***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.094***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="17"><p>Institutional factors</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Double first-class university (ordinary university = 0)</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.019***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.014</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Reading atmosphere</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.181***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.226***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.130*</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.051</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.171***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.122***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Teacher reading guidance</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.050***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.122***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.006</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.123***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.084***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.338***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.052</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.055***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Peer reading interactions</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.073***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.145***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.147***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.085***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.085***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.007</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.385***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.047</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.080***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.114***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Constant</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.431***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.028</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.964***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.031</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.621***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.027</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.236***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.024</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.041***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.046</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 0.421***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.289</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.320***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.024</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.371***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.023</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>R</italic>-squared</p></td><td char="." align="char" colspan="2"><p>0.203</p></td><td char="." align="char" colspan="2"><p>0.128</p></td><td char="." align="char" colspan="2"><p>0.191</p></td><td char="." align="char" colspan="2"><p>0.277</p></td><td char="." align="char" colspan="2"><p>0.035</p></td><td char="." align="char" colspan="2"><p>0.068</p></td><td char="." align="char" colspan="2"><p>0.259</p></td><td char="." align="char" colspan="2"><p>0.244</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>For the sake of simplicity, only significant effects are displayed in the table *<emph>p</emph> < 0.05, **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01, ***<emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>Family factors positively predicted RL, accounting for individual and institutional factors. Family economic status and parental education level positively predicted LRC but negatively predicted reading motivation and engagement. HLE had a significant impact on RL. Parental reading behavior positively predicted different factors of RL, except for RQ. Parental reading support positively predicted ARM and reading competencies but not GHs. Family book ownership had a positive impact on various aspects of RL, particularly RQ. Each additional book owned by the family led to an average increase of 1.87 books in the university students' RQ.</p> <p>Institutional factors positively predicted RL when individual and family factors were accounted for. Institutional type positively predicted GHs, with students from "Double First-Class" universities showing poorer reading habits than those from ordinary universities. Reading resources, such as the library area, number of libraries, and number of reading room seats, did not predict RL. Reading atmosphere was found to be a more influential factor, positively affecting ARM, DE, RQ, and reading competencies. Teacher reading guidance negatively predicted ARM, DE, and LRC. Peer reading interactions positively predicted RL.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-16">Shapley Value Decomposition</hd> <p>As shown in Table 3, the results of the Shapley value decomposition revealed that individual factors had a relatively minor influence on RL. Family factors played a larger role in ARM, DE, RT, RQ, and reading competencies. Institutional factors had a more significant influence on CRM, GHs and HRC. These factors accounted for 42.29% of the relative contribution rate in these areas. However, the contribution of institutional factors to other aspects of RL was considerably lower than that of family factors.</p> <p>Table 3 Results of Shapley value decomposition (<emph>N</emph> = 66,312)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="3" /><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Reading motivation</p></th><th align="left" colspan="8"><p>Reading engagement</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Reading competencies</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>ARM</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>CRM</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>GHs</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>DE</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>RT</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>RQ</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>LRC</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>HRC</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>SV</p></th><th align="left"><p>RC (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SV</p></th><th align="left"><p>RC (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SV</p></th><th align="left"><p>RC (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SV</p></th><th align="left"><p>RC (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SV</p></th><th align="left"><p>RC (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SV</p></th><th align="left"><p>RC (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SV</p></th><th align="left"><p>RC (%)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SV</p></th><th align="left"><p>RC (%)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Individual factors</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00097</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.48</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00432</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00531</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00289</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00573</p></td><td align="left"><p>16.43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00117</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.71</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00806</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.11</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.01092</p></td><td align="left"><p>4.47</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Family factors</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.12850</p></td><td align="left"><p>63.45</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0271</p></td><td align="left"><p>21.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.05859</p></td><td align="left"><p>30.61</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.16742</p></td><td align="left"><p>60.71</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02202</p></td><td align="left"><p>63.12</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.06448</p></td><td align="left"><p>94.46</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.16395</p></td><td align="left"><p>63.25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.13018</p></td><td align="left"><p>53.24</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Institutional factors</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.07304</p></td><td align="left"><p>36.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.09664</p></td><td align="left"><p>75.45</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.12754</p></td><td align="left"><p>66.62</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.1055</p></td><td align="left"><p>38.24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00714</p></td><td align="left"><p>20.45</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.00262</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.0872</p></td><td align="left"><p>33.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10341</p></td><td align="left"><p>42.29</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Total</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.203</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.128</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.191</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.277</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.035</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.068</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.259</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.244</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>SV</emph> Shapley value; <emph>RC</emph> relative contribution of each variable</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-17">Discussion</hd> <p>RL is a core type of literacy that university students must possess. This study examined the relationships between individual, family, and institutional factors and RL in a sample of 66,312 Chinese undergraduates. By integrating a set of individual and environmental factors into the reading model, the results of this study facilitate a shared understanding of how to enhance university students' RL.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-18">The Effect of Individual Factors on RL Among Chinese Undergraduates</hd> <p>Consistent with previous studies of primary and secondary school students (Phillips et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref57">32</reflink>]; Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref58">48</reflink>]), this research revealed that grade and place of residence positively influenced university students' RL. Factors such as cognitive maturity and education quality may explain these findings. Interestingly, gender differences in university students' RL differ from those observed in K-12 students (Logan & Medford, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>]; Marôco, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref60">27</reflink>]; Phillips et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref61">32</reflink>]), with Chinese male undergraduates outperforming females in all aspects of RL, except for reading engagement. Similarly, Kambara et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>]) discovered a reverse pattern in the gender differences in undergraduates' reading motivation. This may be attributed to variations in age and educational background. In HE settings, reading materials and themes may better suit males' interests (Asher & Markell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>]), and their strong desire for academic success could enhance their reading motivation (Logan & Johnston, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]). Despite having lower reading engagement, males exhibited stronger reading competencies, emphasizing the significance of reading motivation in predicting reading competencies (Asher & Markell, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>]). Furthermore, college major is a unique variable within the context of HE. This study revealed that college major has a significant impact on university students' RL, with students majoring in the humanities and social sciences generally possessing greater RL than those majoring in science and engineering majors. This disparity can be attributed to the extensive reading requirements of humanities and social sciences courses, which contribute to enhancing students' RL (Gorzycki et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref66">18</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref67">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-19">The Effect of Family Factors on RL Among Chinese Undergraduates</hd> <p>Previous research has emphasized the significant influence of SES on RL (Altun et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>]; Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref69">14</reflink>]). However, this study's findings indicated that, within the context of Chinese HE, family economic and cultural backgrounds had a positive impact on LRC but do not impact HRC. Surprisingly, these factors can even negatively affect reading motivation and engagement. This may be due to the widespread influence of Confucian tradition, with most Chinese parents expecting their children to succeed and bring honor to the family, having higher educational expectations for their children, and paying more attention to factors directly related to academic performance, requiring students to focus on the learning process, while reading is often neglected (Stevenson & Stigler, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref70">37</reflink>]; Yamamoto & Holloway, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref71">45</reflink>]). In addition, this study revealed the significant role of the HLE, consistent with the findings of Tse et al. ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref72">39</reflink>]), suggesting that parents' reading behaviors, parents' attitudes toward reading, and family book ownership remain the primary factors influencing RL, even in HE. Therefore, to enhance the RL of college students, special attention should be given to the construction of HLE.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-20">The Effect of Institutional Factors on RL Among Chinese Undergraduates</hd> <p>Regarding institutional factors, the study found that institutional type significantly influences the reading habits of university students. "Double First-Class" universities in China have top-tier resources, but students from these institutions may not have top-tier RL. This aligns with Chen's observation that universities of various types neglect to focus on college students' reading (Chen, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref73">13</reflink>]). Furthermore, the results shows that the ORE does not affect university students' RL, whereas SRE plays a significant role. Consistent with the findings of Marton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref74">28</reflink>]) and others (Guo & Ji, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref75">19</reflink>]; Ramsden, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref76">34</reflink>]), students' perceptions of their learning environment are more predictive of their learning outcomes than the environment itself. Therefore, ORE only impact university students' RL when they are transformed into SRE. Notably, due to the lack of emphasis on reading instruction in Chinese higher education policies, the study found that teacher guidance has a negative impact on RL, possibly due to the prevalent teacher-centered and authoritarian teaching styles in Chinese HE (Yin & Ke, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref77">46</reflink>]). Finally, studies have shown that peer reading interactions have a positive influence on the RL of university students, with Chinese culture emphasizing collectivism and interdependence (Hong, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref78">21</reflink>]; Wang & Jin, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref79">42</reflink>]). This also explains why China's reading-friendly campuses policy emphasizes peer reading.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-21">The Relative Contributions of Three Factors to the RL of Chinese Undergraduates</hd> <p>The study found that family factors are the most significant explanatory variables for Chinese university students' RL, followed by institutional factors, and individual factors are the least influential. This finding contradicts some previous research suggesting that individual factors are the most important variables affecting RL (Artelt et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref80">4</reflink>]; Ho & Lau, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref81">20</reflink>]). The difference of results can be attributed to the distinction between the internal indicators of RL and its influencing factors. Existing studies equate reading competencies with RL, treating reading motivation and engagement as external influencing factors. Furthermore, compared to primary and secondary school students, university students are more mature, and the impact of individual factors on their RL is limited (Chall, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref82">12</reflink>]). Simultaneously, the results are somewhat disheartening, as they suggest that Chinese HE has not effectively bridged the reading gap created by family background differences.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-22">Implications and Limitations</hd> <p>This study revealed a complex predictive relationship between various factors and the RL of Chinese university students. The findings have theoretical implications, expanding the literature on university students' RL in the context of Chinese HE. They also provide a basis for scholarly discussions on the factors influencing university students' RL. For practical contributions, this research can assist educational administrators and policymakers in understanding group differences in university students' RL, leading to the development of targeted policies and improvements in educational practices. This study highlights the importance of the family in creating a supportive HLE for nurturing university students' RL. In addition to investing in reading resources, the Chinese government and universities should enhance reading experiences, improve teacher-centered reading teaching approach, and promote peer reading interactions among university students.</p> <p>This study has several limitations. First, convenience and snowball sampling methods were utilized. While these methods resulted in a large sample size, there is potential for sample bias and a lack of representativeness. Future research should employ random sampling methods as much as possible to reduce sampling errors. Second, this study relied mainly on self-reported scales to measure RL, which may not fully reflect the actual reality. Future studies could enrich the data sources through diverse means such as assessments, observations, and interviews to enhance the validity of the research. Third, this study discusses the results in conjunction with existing research. In future, efforts could be made to collect more qualitative data for a deeper explanation. Last, this study was based on cross-sectional data, so it is not possible to definitively determine the causal relationships between variables. Future research should utilize longitudinal follow-up surveys or experimental research designs.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-23">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to express our gratitude to Prof. Zhentian Liu, A.P. Chenglong Xue, Dr. Yajuan Gan, and ten undergraduate students from Xiamen University for their contributions to the development of measuring scale. We also thank the participating undergraduates and universities for their contribution.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-24">Funding</hd> <p>The National Social Science Fund Project of China: Research on Innovative Teaching of Cultivating Socialist Core Values among College Students through Curriculum Ideological and Politicals (23VSZ132).</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-25">Data Availability</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0182324036-27">Competing Interests</hd> <p>There is no competing interesting that are directly or indirectly related to the work submitted for publication.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-28">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>This study was approved by the Institutional Research Board of Xiamen University.</p> <hd id="AN0182324036-29">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0182324036-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alexander PA. Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist. 2012; 47; 4: 259-280. 10.1080/00461520.2012.722511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref68" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Altun D, Tantekin Erden F, Snow CE. A multilevel analysis of home and classroom literacy environments in relation to preschoolers' early literacy development. Psychology in the Schools. 2018; 55; 9: 1098-1120. 10.1002/pits.22153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Areepattamannil S. International note: What factors are associated with reading, mathematics, and science literacy of Indian adolescents? A multilevel examination. Journal of Adolescence. 2014; 37; 4: 367-372. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.02.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Artelt C, Schiefele U, Schneider W. Predictors of reading literacy. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 2001; 16: 363-383. 10.1007/BF03173188</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref63" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Asher SR, Markell RA. Sex differences in comprehension of high-and low-interest reading material. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1974; 66; 5: 680-687. 10.1037/h0037483</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref43" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baker L, Scher D. Beginning reader's motivation in relation to parental beliefs and home reading experiences. Reading Psychology. 2002; 23; 4: 239-269. 10.1080/713775283</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref47" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bartoszuk K, Deal JE, Yerhot M. Parents' and college students' perceptions of support and family environment. Emerging Adulthood. 2021; 9; 1: 76-87. 10.1177/2167696818823947</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref26" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Becker M, McElvany N, Kortenbruck M. Intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102; 4: 773-785. 10.1037/a0020084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brown AL, Campione JS. Communities of learning and thinking, or a context by any other name. Contributions to Human Development. 1990; 21: 108-126. 10.1159/000418984</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castro GD, Ferri V. Why do boys perform worse than girls in reading literacy? Evidences from Pisa survey 2018. RIEDS - Rivista Italiana di Economia, Demografia e Statistica - the Italian Journal of Economic, Demographic and Statistical Studies. 2022; 76: 113-154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China (Central People's Government). (2017). Report on the work of the government. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.cn/premier/2017-03/16/content%5f5177940.htm">www.gov.cn/premier/2017-03/16/content%5f5177940.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall JS. Stages of reading development. 1983; McGraw-Hill</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen WY. Existing problems of talent cultivation in Chinese colleges and universities. Journal of Xiamen University (Arts & Social Sciences). 2021; 6: 72-80In Chinese</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho BY, Hwang H, Jang BG. Predicting fourth grade digital reading comprehension: A secondary data analysis of (e) PIRLS 2016. International Journal of Educational Research. 2021; 105; 8. 10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101696101696</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conger RD, Donnellan MB. An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58; 1: 175-199. 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Naeghel J, Van Keer H, Vansteenkiste M, Rosseel Y. The relation between elementary students' recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 104; 4: 1006-1021. 10.1037/a0027800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorzycki M, Desa G, Howard PJ, Allen DD. "Reading Is Important", but "I Don't Read": Undergraduates' experiences with academic reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 2020; 63; 5: 499-508. 10.1002/jaal.1020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorzycki M, Howard P, Allen D, Desa G, Rosegard E. An exploration of academic reading proficiency at the university level: A cross-sectional study of 848 undergraduates. Literacy Research and Instruction. 2016; 55; 2: 142-162. 10.1080/19388071.2015.1133738</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo JP, Ji GJ. The relationship between college students' perceptions of the learning environment and learning outcomes: The mediating role of student engagement. Journal of Psychological Science. 2019; 42: 868-875</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho ESC, Lau KL. Reading engagement and reading literacy performance: Effective policy and practices at home and in school. Journal of Research in Reading. 2018; 41; 4: 657-679. 10.1111/1467-9817.12246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hong YFarideh S, Chi C. Chinese students' and teachers' inferences of effort and ability. Student motivation: The culture and context of learning. 2001; Springer: 105-120. 10.1007/978-1-4615-1273-8_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kambara H, Lin YC, Wen H, Lin HC. Investigating American and Chinese college students' reading motivation: A cross-cultural study. Current Psychology. 2024. 10.1007/s12144-023-04707-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyröläinen AJ, Kuperman V. Predictors of literacy in adulthood: Evidence from 33 countries. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16; 3. 10.1371/journal.pone.0243763e0243763</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li RJ, Guo JP, Wang SC, Chen ZJ. Research on the influence mechanism of reading on undergraduate students' psychological anxiety: Based on the empirical survey of 348 undergraduate colleges and universities in China. Library and Information Service. 2023; 67; 18: 81-91In Chinese</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan S, Johnston R. Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading. 2009; 32; 2: 199-214. 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan S, Medford E. Gender differences in the strength of association between motivation, competency beliefs and reading skill. Educational Research. 2011; 53; 1: 85-94. 10.1080/00131881.2011.552242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marôco J. What makes a good reader? Worldwide insights from PIRLS 2016. Reading and Writing. 2021; 34; 1: 231-272. 10.1007/s11145-020-10068-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marton F, Watkins D, Tang C. Discontinuities and continuities in the experience of learning: An interview study of high-school students in Hong Kong. Learning and Instruction. 1997; 7; 1: 21-48. 10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00009-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (MOE). (2023). Implementation plan for the national youth student reading action. <ulink href="http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s7053/202303/t20230328%5f1053070.html">http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s7053/202303/t20230328%5f1053070.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mullis, I. V. S, Martin, M. O, & Sainsbury, M. (2015). PIRLS 2016 reading framework. In I. V. S. Mullis, & M. O. Martin (Eds.), PIRLS 2016 assessment framework (2nd ed, pp. 11–29). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College. <ulink href="http://timssandpirls.bc.edu">http://timssandpirls.bc.edu</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. 2019; OECD Publishing. 10.1787/b25efab8-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips LM, Norris SP, Osmond WC, Maynard AM. Relative reading achievement: A longitudinal study of 187 children from first through sixth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2002; 94; 1: 3-13. 10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pintrich PR, Conley AM, Kempler TM. Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research. 2003; 39; 4–5: 319-337. 10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramsden P. A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The Course Experience Questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education. 1991. 10.1080/03075079112331382944</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schroeter H, Bar-Kochva I. Keyword: Reading literacy. Reading competencies in Germany and underlying cognitive skills. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft: ZfE. 2019; 22; 1: 17-50. 10.1007/s11618-018-00864-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> State Council. (2017). Notice on issuing the "Thirteenth Five-Year Plan for the Development of National Education". Retrieved May 8, 2023, from <ulink href="http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-01/19/content%5f5161341.htm">http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2017-01/19/content%5f5161341.htm</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stevenson H, Stigler JW. Learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. 1994; Simon and Schuster</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Talwar A, Magliano JP, Higgs K, Santuzzi A, Tonks S, O'Reilly T, Sabatini J. Early academic success in college: Examining the contributions of reading literacy skills, metacognitive reading strategies, and reading motivation. Journal of College Reading and Learning. 2023; 53; 1: 58-87. 10.1080/10790195.2022.2137069</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tse SK, Xiao XY, Ko HW, Lam WY, Hui SY, Ng HW. Do reading practices make a difference? Evidence from PIRLS data for Hong Kong and Taiwan primary school Grade 4 students. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2016; 46; 3: 369-393. 10.1080/03057925.2014.927732</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang Q, Ma M, Huang Y, Wang X, Wang T. Influence of parents' education and home literacy environment on reading interest of deaf children. Journal of Research in Reading. 2023; 46; 3: 209-224. 10.1111/1467-9817.12421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang XW, Zhu YJ, Zhang YC. An empirical study of college students' reading engagement on academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 13: 1025754. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1025754</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang X, Jin J. A validation of the chinese motivation for reading questionnaire. Journal of Literacy Research. 2021; 53; 3: 336-360. 10.1177/1086296X211030474</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield, A, Eccles, J.S, & Pintrich, P.R. (1996). Development between the ages of 11 and 25. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology, (pp. 148–185). New York: Macmillan Pub.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wigfield A, Guthrie JT. Engagement and motivation in reading. Handbook of Reading Research. 2000; 3: 406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamamoto Y, Holloway SD. Parental expectations and children's academic performance in sociocultural context. Educational Psychology Review. 2010; 22: 189-214. 10.1007/s10648-010-9121-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin H, Ke Z. Students' course experience and engagement: An attempt to bridge two lines of research on the quality of undergraduate education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2017; 42; 7: 1145-1158. 10.1080/02602938.2016.1235679</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zha Y. A survey of reading among college students of liberal arts: A survey of 1004 college students in Zhejiang province. China Higher Education Research. 2016; 11: 65-69In Chinese</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang SZ, Inoue T, Cao G, Li L, Georgiou GK. Unpacking the effects of parents on their children's emergent literacy skills and word reading: Evidence from urban and rural settings in China. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2023; 27; 4: 355-374. 10.1080/10888438.2023.2169147</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Renjie Li; Yan Wang; Jianpeng Guo and Yang Hang</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref82"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1457808
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Predictors of Chinese Undergraduates' Reading Literacy: The Role of Individual, Family, and Institutional Factors
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Renjie+Li%22">Renjie Li</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2211-4837">0000-0003-2211-4837</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yan+Wang%22">Yan Wang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0009-0000-7640-8932">0009-0000-7640-8932</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jianpeng+Guo%22">Jianpeng Guo</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2587-7760">0000-0002-2587-7760</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yang+Hang%22">Yang Hang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8552-7925">0000-0001-8552-7925</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Asia-Pacific+Education+Researcher%22"><i>Asia-Pacific Education Researcher</i></searchLink>. 2025 34(1):463-472.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Study%22">Undergraduate Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Influences%22">Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+Level+Differences%22">Grade Level Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Place+of+Residence%22">Place of Residence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Background%22">Cultural Background</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Background%22">Socioeconomic Background</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Family+Environment%22">Family Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Differences%22">Individual Differences</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22China%22">China</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s40299-024-00869-8
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0119-5646<br />2243-7908
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Reading literacy (RL) is the core type of literacy of university students. However, the factors that affect the RL of undergraduates have not been thoroughly investigated in previous studies. This study examined the relationships between individual, family, and institutional factors and RL in a sample of 66,312 Chinese undergraduate students. The findings revealed a complex predictive relationship between various factors and university students' RL. Specifically, individual factors, such as gender, grade, major, and place of residence, had a significant influence on RL. Family factors, including socioeconomic and cultural background, as well as the home literacy environment, also played a crucial role on RL. Furthermore, institutional factors, such as institutional type, reading atmosphere, teacher reading guidance, and peer reading interactions, impacted RL. However, the impact of reading resources, such as number of paper books, on RL was not significant. The Shapley value decomposition results provided additional insights, indicating that family factors were the most influential explanatory variables for RL, followed by institutional factors, with individual factors having the least impact on RL. This study suggests that current higher education in China may not completely bridge the reading gap resulting from differences in family factors.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1457808
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1457808
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s40299-024-00869-8
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 463
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade Level Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Place of Residence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Background
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Background
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Family Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: China
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Predictors of Chinese Undergraduates' Reading Literacy: The Role of Individual, Family, and Institutional Factors
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Renjie Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yan Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jianpeng Guo
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yang Hang
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0119-5646
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2243-7908
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Asia-Pacific Education Researcher
              Type: main
ResultId 1