Children’s screen use and school readiness at 4-6 years: prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p><strong>Background</strong></p> <p>The primary aim of this study was to determine if screen use in early childhood is associated with overall vulnerability in school readiness at ages 4 to 6 years, as measured by the Early Development Instrument (EDI). Secondary aims were to: (1) determine if screen use was associated with individual EDI domains scores, and (2) examine the association between screen use and EDI domains scores among a subgroup of high screen users.</p> <p><strong>Methods</strong></p> <p>This prospective cohort study was carried out using data from young children participating in a large primary care practice-based research network in Canada. Logistic regression analyses were run to investigate the association between screen use and overall vulnerability in school readiness. Separate linear regression models examined the relationships between children’s daily screen use and each separate continuous EDI domain.</p> <p><strong>Results</strong></p> <p>A total of 876 Canadian participants participated in this study. Adjusted logistic regression revealed an association between increased screen use and increased vulnerability in school readiness (<em>p</em> = 0.05). Results from adjusted linear regression demonstrated an association between higher screen use and reduced language and cognitive development domain scores (<em>p</em> = 0.004). Among high screen users, adjusted linear regression models revealed associations between increased screen use and reduced language and cognitive development (<em>p</em> = 0.004) and communication skills and general knowledge domain scores (<em>p</em> = 0.042).</p> <p><strong>Conclusions</strong></p> <p>Screen use in early childhood is associated with increased vulnerability in developmental readiness for school, with increased risk for poorer language and cognitive development in kindergarten, especially among high users.</p>
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".