Diese Aussage scheint mir sehr pauschal. Man muss genauer hinschauen, wer wann was mit welcher Absicht auf welchem Medium liest.

Vor dem Bildschirm überschätzten wir gerne unsere Verständnisfähigkeiten, sagen die Psychologen. Wir verarbeiten das dort Gesehene und Gelesene fragmentarischer. Wir überfliegen eher. Das aber macht uns nicht unbedingt zu bildungsmässigen Überfliegern.

Gemäss COST E-READ Stavanger Declaration wurde dieser Zusammenhang bei Sachtexten, insbesondere unter Zeitdruck gefunden, nicht aber bei Belletristik-Texten.

A meta-study of 54 studies with more than 170.000 participants demonstrates that comprehension of long-form informational text is stronger when reading on paper than on screens, particularly when the reader is under time pressure. No differences were observed on narrative texts;

Another example of this complexity was found when examining beginning readers between the ages of 5 and 6. These data revealed that when children of this age read simple texts, medium appears to have little influence on comprehension outcomes (e.g., De Jong & Bus, 2004; Dundar & Akcayir, 2012). However, for readers of other ages, such as high school students, engaged in the processing of more complex texts, the findings suggest that medium type matters in comprehension (e.g., Eshet-Alkalai & Geri, 2009; Lenhard et al., 2017). For example, Lenhard et al. (2017) concluded that although participants read more quickly in digital medium, it led to a shallower processing of the text. In effect, under these circumstances, medium type plays a more significant role in comprehension outcomes.