An Examination of the Impacts of Screen Time on Early Childhood Developmental Outcomes and the Role of Parental Engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the television entered our homes in the late 1950’s, scientists have wondered about the impact of television on our development. In addition to watching television, children now have access to and interact with video games, computers, mobile devices, and DVDs that simply did not exist before (common sense media, 2013). Prescriptive research is limited, but current recommendations suggest that children aged three to five should view no more than one hour of screen time per day, and children six to 12 years of age should be limited to two hours of screen time per day (Canadian Paediatric Society, 2017). Although screen time is a pervasive part of a child’s life, reliable estimates on the use of technology, and its impact on various areas of child development are of critical importance. This lends to the research questions of what are the estimated effects of preschool-age screen time on behavioural outcomes and what role do parents play in moderating those effects? The present study examined how screen time is associated with behavioural outcomes in three-year-old children using data from a pregnancy cohort in Calgary, Alberta. The results indicate that 85.3% of the children in this study were exceeding the screen time recommendation of 1 hour per day. Screen time predicted hyperactivity/inattention and separation anxiety, but parental engagement did not moderate those relationships. This research informs on the role of a number of factors that can explain the association between screen time and poor behaviour outcomes. Findings from this study benefit educators and parents by affirming their role as important monitors and limiters of screen time while encouraging other enriching activities for child development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".