Association Between Screen Time and Children’s Performance on a Developmental Screening Test | Child Development | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.204.227.34. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Janus  M, Offord  DR.  Development and psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument (EDI): a measure of children’s school readiness.  Can J Behav Sci. 2007;39(1):1-22. doi:10.1037/cjbs2007001Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Browne  DT, Wade  M, Prime  H, Jenkins  JM.  School readiness amongst urban Canadian families: risk profiles and family mediation.  J Educ Psychol. 2018;110(1):133-146. doi:10.1037/edu0000202Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Stanovich  KE.  Matthew effects in reading—some consequences of individual-differences in the acquisition of literacy.  Read Res Q. 1986;21(4):360-407. doi:10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1Google ScholarCrossref
4.
Browne  DT, Rokeach  A, Wiener  J, Hoch  JS, Meunier  JC, Thurston  S.  Examining the family-level and economic impact of complex child disabilities as a function of child hyperactivity and service integration.  J Dev Phys Disabil. 2013;25(2):181-201. doi:10.1007/s10882-012-9295-zGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Heckman  JJ.  Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children.  Science. 2006;312(5782):1900-1902. doi:10.1126/science.1128898PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Radesky  JS, Christakis  DA.  Increased screen time: implications for early childhood development and behavior.  Pediatr Clin North Am. 2016;63(5):827-839. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2016.06.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Common Sense Media. The Common Sense census: media use by kids age zero to eight 2017. Common Sense Media website. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-kids-age-zero-to-eight-2017. Accessed August 30, 2018.
8.
American Academy of Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics announces new recommendations for children’s media use. http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-Announces-New-Recommendations-for-Childrens-Media-Use.aspx. Published October 21, 2016. Accessed August 30, 2018.
9.
Radesky  J, Christakis  D, Hill  D,  et al; Council on Communications and Media.  Media and young minds.  Pediatrics. 2016;138(5):e20162591. doi:10.1542/peds.2016-2591PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Kirkorian  HL, Choi  K, Pempek  TA.  Toddlers’ word learning from contingent and noncontingent video on touch screens.  Child Dev. 2016;87(2):405-413. doi:10.1111/cdev.12508PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Staiano  AE, Calvert  SL.  Exergames for physical education courses: physical, social, and cognitive benefits.  Child Dev Perspect. 2011;5(2):93-98. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00162.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Sweetser  P, Johnson  DM, Ozdowska  A, Wyeth  P.  Active versus passive screen time for young children.  Aust J Early Child. 2012;37(4):94-98.Google Scholar
13.
Radesky  JS, Schumacher  J, Zuckerman  B.  Mobile and interactive media use by young children: the good, the bad, and the unknown.  Pediatrics. 2015;135(1):1-3. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-2251PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Hancox  RJ, Milne  BJ, Poulton  R.  Association between child and adolescent television viewing and adult health: a longitudinal birth cohort study.  Lancet. 2004;364(9430):257-262. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16675-0PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Przybylski  AK, Weinstein  N.  Digital screen time limits and young children’s psychological well-being: evidence from a population-based study  [published online December 13, 2017].  Child Dev. doi:10.1111/cdev.13007PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Zimmerman  FJ, Christakis  DA.  Children’s television viewing and cognitive outcomes: a longitudinal analysis of national data.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(7):619-625. doi:10.1001/archpedi.159.7.619PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Christakis  DA, Ramirez  JSB, Ferguson  SM, Ravinder  S, Ramirez  J-M.  How early media exposure may affect cognitive function: a review of results from observations in humans and experiments in mice.  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(40):9851-9858. doi:10.1073/pnas.1711548115PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Paavonen  EJ, Pennonen  M, Roine  M, Valkonen  S, Lahikainen  AR.  TV exposure associated with sleep disturbances in 5- to 6-year-old children.  J Sleep Res. 2006;15(2):154-161. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2869.2006.00525.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Zimmerman  FJ, Christakis  DA, Meltzoff  AN.  Associations between media viewing and language development in children under age 2 years.  J Pediatr. 2007;151(4):364-368. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.04.071PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Chonchaiya  W, Pruksananonda  C.  Television viewing associates with delayed language development.  Acta Paediatr. 2008;97(7):977-982. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.00831.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Duch  H, Fisher  EM, Ensari  I,  et al.  Association of screen time use and language development in Hispanic toddlers: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study.  Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2013;52(9):857-865. doi:10.1177/0009922813492881PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Radesky  JS, Silverstein  M, Zuckerman  B, Christakis  DA.  Infant self-regulation and early childhood media exposure.  Pediatrics. 2014;133(5):e1172-e1178. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2367PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Tough  SC, McDonald  SW, Collisson  BA,  et al.  Cohort profile: the All Our Babies pregnancy cohort (AOB).  Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(5):1389-1390. doi:10.1093/ije/dyw363PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
McDonald  SW, Lyon  AW, Benzies  KM,  et al.  The All Our Babies pregnancy cohort: design, methods, and participant characteristics.  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13(suppl 1):S2. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-13-S1-S2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Squires  J, Twombly  E, Bricker  D, Potter  L.  ASQ-3 Users’ Guide. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 2003.
26.
Richter  J, Janson  H.  A validation study of the Norwegian version of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires.  Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(5):748-752. doi:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2007.00246.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Heo  KH, Squires  J, Yovanoff  P.  Cross-cultural adaptation of a pre-school screening instrument: comparison of Korean and US populations.  J Intellect Disabil Res. 2008;52(pt 3):195-206. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2007.01000.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Alvik  A, Grøholt  B.  Examination of the cut-off scores determined by the Ages and Stages Questionnaire in a population-based sample of 6 month-old Norwegian infants.  BMC Pediatr. 2011;11(1):117. doi:10.1186/1471-2431-11-117PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Bayley  N.  Manual for the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp; 1969.
30.
Thorndike  RL, Hagen  EP, Sattler  JM.  Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. 4th ed. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Co; 1986.
31.
Squires  J, Bricker  D, Potter  L.  Revision of a parent-completed development screening tool: Ages and Stages Questionnaires.  J Pediatr Psychol. 1997;22(3):313-328. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/22.3.313PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Schonhaut  L, Armijo  I, Schönstedt  M, Alvarez  J, Cordero  M.  Validity of the Ages and Stages Questionnaires in term and preterm infants.  Pediatrics. 2013;131(5):e1468-e1474. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3313PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Gollenberg  AL, Lynch  CD, Jackson  LW, McGuinness  BM, Msall  ME.  Concurrent validity of the parent-completed Ages and Stages Questionnaires, 2nd ed, with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II in a low-risk sample.  Child Care Health Dev. 2010;36(4):485-490. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.01041.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Limbos  MM, Joyce  DP.  Comparison of the ASQ and PEDS in screening for developmental delay in children presenting for primary care.  J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011;32(7):499-511. doi:10.1097/DBP.0b013e31822552e9PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Radloff  LST.  The CES-D scale: the self report depression scale for research in the general population.  Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1:385-401. doi:10.1177/014662167700100306Google ScholarCrossref
36.
NLSCY.  Overview of Survey Instruments for 1994-1995. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada & Human Resources Canada; 1995.
37.
Hamaker  EL, Kuiper  RM, Grasman  RPPP.  A critique of the cross-lagged panel model.  Psychol Methods. 2015;20(1):102-116. doi:10.1037/a0038889PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Berry  D, Willoughby  MT.  On the practical interpretability of cross-lagged panel models: rethinking a developmental workhorse.  Child Dev. 2017;88(4):1186-1206. doi:10.1111/cdev.12660PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Graham  JW.  Missing data analysis: making it work in the real world.  Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:549-576. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Muthén  L, Muthén  B.  Mplus Statistical Modeling Software: Release 7.0. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2012.
41.
American College of Pediatricians. The impact of media use and screen time on children, adolescents, and families. http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/the-impact-of-media-use-and-screen-time-on-children-adolescents-and-families. Published November 2016. Accessed September 4, 2018.
42.
Bolhuis  K, Verhoeff  ME, Hillegers  M, Tiemeier  H.  Psychotic-like symptoms in preadolescence: what precedes the precursory symptoms of severe mental illness?  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017;56(10):S243. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2017.09.258Google ScholarCrossref
43.
Radesky  J, Miller  AL, Rosenblum  KL, Appugliese  D, Kaciroti  N, Lumeng  JC.  Maternal mobile device use during a structured parent-child interaction task.  Acad Pediatr. 2015;15(2):238-244. doi:10.1016/j.acap.2014.10.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Kirkorian  HL, Pempek  TA, Murphy  LA, Schmidt  ME, Anderson  DR.  The impact of background television on parent-child interaction.  Child Dev. 2009;80(5):1350-1359. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01337.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Pempek  TA, Kirkorian  HL, Anderson  DR.  The effects of background television on the quantity and quality of child-directed speech by parents.  J Child Media. 2014;8(3):211-222. doi:10.1080/17482798.2014.920715Google ScholarCrossref
46.
Hoff  E.  The specificity of environmental influence: socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech.  Child Dev. 2003;74(5):1368-1378. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00612PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Bronfenbrenner  U.  The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1979.
48.
Belsky  J, Bakermans-Kranenburg  MJ, van Ijzendoorn  MH.  For better and for worse: differential susceptibility to environmental influences.  Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2007;16(6):300-304. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.xGoogle ScholarCrossref
49.
Masten  AS, Garmezy  N.  Risk, Vulnerability, and Protective Factors in Developmental Psychopathology: Advances in Clinical Child Psychology. New York: Springer; 1985:1-52.
51.
Radesky  JS, Eisenberg  S, Kistin  CJ,  et al.  Overstimulated consumers or next-generation learners? parent tensions about child mobile technology use.  Ann Fam Med. 2016;14(6):503-508. doi:10.1370/afm.1976PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Chu  M-W. Why Canada fails to be an education superpower. https://theconversation.com/why-canada-fails-to-be-an-education-superpower-82558. Accessed August 30, 2018.
53.
Lenhart  A.  Teens and Mobile Phones Over the Past Five Years: Pew Internet Looks Back. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2009.
54.
Anderson  M, Jiang  J. Teens, social media & technology. http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2018/05/31102617/PI_2018.05.31_TeensTech_FINAL.pdf. Published May 31, 2018. Accessed August 30, 2018.
55.
Hancox  RJ, Milne  BJ, Poulton  R.  Association of television viewing during childhood with poor educational achievement.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(7):614-618. doi:10.1001/archpedi.159.7.614PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Zimmerman  FJ, Christakis  DA.  Associations between content types of early media exposure and subsequent attentional problems.  Pediatrics. 2007;120(5):986-992. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-3322PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
January 28, 2019

Association Between Screen Time and Children’s Performance on a Developmental Screening Test

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • 2Department of Paediatrics, Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  • 3Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(3):244-250. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5056
Key Points

Question  Is increased screen time associated with poor performance on children’s developmental screening tests?

Findings  In this cohort study of early childhood development in 2441 mothers and children, higher levels of screen time in children aged 24 and 36 months were associated with poor performance on a screening measure assessing children’s achievement of development milestones at 36 and 60 months, respectively. The obverse association (ie, poor developmental performance to increased screen time) was not observed.

Meaning  Excessive screen time can impinge on children’s ability to develop optimally; it is recommended that pediatricians and health care practitioners guide parents on appropriate amounts of screen exposure and discuss potential consequences of excessive screen use.

Abstract

Importance  Excessive screen time is associated with delays in development; however, it is unclear if greater screen time predicts lower performance scores on developmental screening tests or if children with poor developmental performance receive added screen time as a way to modulate challenging behavior.

Objective  To assess the directional association between screen time and child development in a population of mothers and children.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This longitudinal cohort study used a 3-wave, cross-lagged panel model in 2441 mothers and children in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, drawn from the All Our Families study. Data were available when children were aged 24, 36, and 60 months. Data were collected between October 20, 2011, and October 6, 2016. Statistical analyses were conducted from July 31 to November 15, 2018.

Exposures  Media.

Main Outcomes and Measures  At age 24, 36, and 60 months, children’s screen-time behavior (total hours per week) and developmental outcomes (Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition) were assessed via maternal report.

Results  Of the 2441 children included in the analysis, 1227 (50.2%) were boys. A random-intercepts, cross-lagged panel model revealed that higher levels of screen time at 24 and 36 months were significantly associated with poorer performance on developmental screening tests at 36 months (β, −0.06; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.01) and 60 months (β, −0.08; 95% CI, −0.13 to −0.02), respectively. These within-person (time-varying) associations statistically controlled for between-person (stable) differences.

Conclusions and Relevance  The results of this study support the directional association between screen time and child development. Recommendations include encouraging family media plans, as well as managing screen time, to offset the potential consequences of excess use.

×