The Interplay Between Screen Time and Outdoor Play on Preschool Children's Cognitive and Social-emotional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To (1) identify distinct profiles (i.e., subgroups) of screen time (ST) and outdoor play (OP) in a sample of preschool children, and (2) examine the mean differences in specific domains of cognitive and social-emotional development between these profiles. METHOD: Baseline data from the Technology and Development in Early Childhood study were used. Participants were 352 preschool children (3-4 years) and their parents living in Western Canada. ST (television [TV]/video viewing and video/computer games) and OP for both weekdays and weekend days were parent-reported. Social-emotional development outcomes (emotional, cognitive, and behavioral self-regulation) and demographic covariates were assessed by questionnaire. Cognitive development outcomes (language, response inhibition, working memory, and self-control) was assessed by 4 short games played during a recorded virtual meeting. Latent profile analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Four profiles were identified: (1) low ST/medium-high OP, (2) high TV/high OP, (3) medium ST/low OP, and (4) high ST/medium-high OP. Profile 1 was selected as the reference group. For response inhibition, the medium ST/low OP ( M = 10.3, SE = 2.0; p = 0.03) and high ST/medium-high OP ( M = 2.8, SE = 3.7; p < 0.01) profiles scored significantly lower than the reference group ( M = 15.3, SE = 1.0). For self-control, the high TV/high OP ( M = 65.5, SE = 3.2; p = 0.03) and medium ST/low OP ( M = 63.8, SE = 4.8; p < 0.05) profiles scored significantly lower than the reference group ( M = 74.2, SE = 2.1). For behavioral self-regulation, the high TV/high OP ( M = 3.6, SE = 0.1; p < 0.01) profile scored significantly lower than the reference group ( M = 3.9, SE = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Children with the combination of lower ST and higher OP had more advanced cognitive and social-emotional development for some outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".