Patterns of preschool children’s screen time, parent–child interactions, and cognitive development in early childhood: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to explore the feasibility of a virtual study protocol for a future longitudinal study, including recruitment, study measures, and procedures. The secondary objective was to examine preliminary hypotheses of associations, including 1) the correlations between total duration and patterns of screen time and cognitive development, and 2) the differences in quality of parent-child interactions for two screen-based tasks and a storybook reading task. METHODS: Participants included 44 children aged 3 years and their parents from Edmonton, Alberta and surrounding areas. Children's screen time patterns (i.e., type, device, content, context) were parental-reported using a 2-week online daily diary design. Children's cognitive development (i.e., working memory, inhibitory control, self-control, and language) was measured virtually through a recorded Zoom session. Parent-child interactions during three separate tasks (i.e., video, electronic game, and storybook reading) were also measured virtually through a separate recorded Zoom session (n = 42). The quality of the interactions was determined by the Parent-Child Interaction System (PARCHISY). Descriptive statistics, Intra-class correlations (ICC), Spearman's Rho correlations, and a one-way repeated measures ANOVA with a post-hoc Bonferroni test were conducted. RESULTS: All virtual protocol procedures ran smoothly. Most (70%) participants were recruited from four 1-week directly targeted Facebook ads. High completion rates and high inter-rater reliability in a random sample (Diary: 95% for 13/14 days; Cognitive development: 98% 3/4 tests, ICC > 0.93; Parent-child interactions: 100% for 3 tasks, Weighted Kappa ≥ 0.84) were observed for measures. Across cognitive development outcomes, medium effect sizes were observed for five correlations, with positive correlations observed with certain content (i.e., educational screen time) and negative associations observed for total screen time and certain types (show/movie/video viewing) and contexts (i.e., co-use). Medium and large effect sizes were observed for the differences in parent-child interaction quality between the three tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The virtual study protocol appeared feasible. Preliminary findings suggest it may be important to go beyond total duration and consider type, content, and context when examining the association between screen time and cognitive development. A future longitudinal study using this virtual protocol will be conducted with a larger and more generalizable sample.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".