The Relation Between Television Viewing Time and Reading Achievement in Elementary School Children: A Test of Substitution and Inhibition Hypotheses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has focused on the relations between television (TV) viewing time and children’s reading achievement. Two hypotheses have been proposed to explain this relation. The substitution hypothesis proposes that TV viewing distracts students from activities that are important for their learning. The inhibition hypothesis proposes that watching television inhibits important affective/cognitive skills. In this study, we test both hypotheses by estimating the relation between TV viewing time and reading achievement. We use the frequency of students’ leisure reading and the frequency of interactions between students and their parents as potential mediators to test the substitution hypothesis, whereas for the inhibition one, we use students’ intrinsic motivation to read and their level of inattention. Data come from the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development (QLSCD). Designed by the Institut de la statistique du Québec , QLSCD covers a wide range of themes. The QLSCD is representative of children in Québec and contains 2223 participants who were followed from 0 to 21 years old. The four structural models tested are built as follows: the TV viewing time at 6 years old predicts the four mediating variables at 8 years old, which in turn predicts reading achievement at 10 years old. In addition, we have tested models’ gender invariance. Results indicate that TV viewing time is not directly or indirectly associated with reading achievement. Specifically, it is not associated with the mediating variables of child-parent interactions, intrinsic motivation, and inattention. However, the frequency of leisure reading is negatively associated with the time spent watching TV. This association is very small (−0.07) and has no indirect effect on reading achievement. Finally, results do not vary according to the gender of the participants. Our results are in line with those of previous studies in the field and cast some doubts on the potential negative effects of TV viewing time on reading achievement.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".