This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the impact of motivational reading interventions on the reading achievement and reading motivation of school-age students. Results of preliminary searches for—and inspection of—the existing meta-analytic literature suggest that while there exist published meta-analyses on motivational reading interventions, these would benefit from inclusion of more recent research and narrower selection criteria (e.g., inclusion of a non-motivational control group, school-based). A systematic search of previous meta-analyses of motivational reading interventions identified 28 articles meeting inclusion criteria, while a systematic search of individual motivational reading intervention studies (2007–2020) identified a further 21 articles. A meta-analysis of the resulting 49 studies corrected by Hedge’s g showed that motivational reading interventions were associated with an effect size of g = 0.20, p < .001 on reading achievement outcomes and an effect size of g = 0.30, p < .001 on reading motivation outcomes. However, analysis of funnel plots strongly suggested that publication bias was present in reporting of reading achievement outcomes. Analysis of moderators indicated that effect sizes varied significantly depending on content approaches to intervention, intensity of training given to intervention providers, study quality, and type of measures used. However, effect sizes did not vary significantly depending on group size or student population (e.g., age, at-risk status). Implications for research and practice are discussed.

这项系统的综述和荟萃分析探讨了动机阅读干预措施对学龄学生阅读成绩和阅读动机的影响。对现有的荟萃分析文献进行初步搜索和检查的结果表明，尽管存在有关动机阅读干预措施的已发表荟萃分析，但这些研究将受益于纳入更多的最新研究和较窄的选择标准（例如，纳入非研究性干预措施）。 -动力控制小组，校本）。系统地搜索以前的动机阅读干预的荟萃分析，确定了28篇符合纳入标准的文章，而系统地搜索了个人动机阅读干预研究（2007-2020年），又发现了21篇文章。对由Hedge校正的49项研究的荟萃分析g显示动机阅读干预与 阅读成就的影响大小为g  = 0.20，p <.001和影响大小为g  = 0.30，p相关 <.001阅读动机结果。但是，对漏斗图的分析强烈表明，在阅读成绩报告中存在出版偏见。主持人的分析表明，效果的大小会因干预的内容方法，对干预提供者的培训强度，研究质量和所用措施的类型而异。但是，效果的大小并没有根据组的大小或学生人数（例如，年龄，处于危险状态）而有显着差异。讨论了对研究和实践的意义。