Out with the old, in with the new: Assessing change in screen time when measurement changes over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined if screen time can be assessed over time when the measurement protocol has changed to reflect advances in technology. Beginning in 2011, 929 youth (9-12 years at time one) living in in New Brunswick (Canada) self-reported the amount of time spent watching television (cycles 1-13), using computers (cycles 1-13), and playing video games (cycles 3-13). Using longitudinal invariance to test a shifting indicators model of screen time, we found that the relationships between the latent variable reflecting overall screen time and the indicators used to assess screen time were invariant across cycles (weak invariance). We also found that 31 out of 37 indicator intercepts were invariant, meaning that most indicators were answered similarly (i.e., on the same metric) across cycles (partial strong invariance), and that 28 out of 37 indicator residuals were invariant indicating that similar sources of error were present over time (partial strict invariance). Overall, across all survey cycles, 76% of indicators were fully invariant. Whereas issues were noted when new examples of screen-based technology (e.g., iPads) were added, having established partial invariance, we suggest it is still possible to assess change in screen time despite having changing indicators over time. Although it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions concerning other self-report measures of screen time, our findings may assist other researchers considering modifying self-report measures in longitudinal studies to reflect technological advancements and increase the precision of their results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".