Key PointsQuestion
Is there an association between screen time and children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in the extant screen time literature?
Findings
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 87 studies (98 independent samples) including 159 425 children 12 years or younger, greater duration of screen time was weakly but significantly correlated with externalizing (eg, aggression, inattention) and internalizing (eg, anxiety, depression) behavior problems. Results varied as a function of demographic (eg, sex) and methodological factors (eg, informant and measurement method).
Meaning
The findings showed weak but significant correlations between screen time and children’s behavior problems and suggest that methodological variability may have contributed to mixed findings in the literature.
Importance
Currently, there is a lack of consensus in the literature on the association between screen time (eg, television, video games) and children’s behavior problems.
Objective
To assess the association between the duration of screen time and externalizing and internalizing behavior problems among children 12 years or younger.
Data Sources
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles published from January 1960 to May 2021. Reference lists were manually searched for additional studies.
Study Selection
Included studies measured screen time (ie, duration) and externalizing or internalizing behavior problems in children 12 years or younger, were observational or experimental (with baseline data), were available in English, and had data that could be transformed into an effect size. Studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded. Of 25 196 nonduplicate articles identified and screened for inclusion, 595 met the selection criteria.
Data Extraction and Synthesis
The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Extracted variables were child age, sex, and socioeconomic status; informants and measurement type for screen time and behavior problems; study publication year; and study design and quality. Data were extracted by 2 independent coders and were pooled using a random-effects model.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary outcome was the association of screen time duration with externalizing (eg, aggression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms) and internalizing (eg, depression, anxiety) behaviors or diagnoses.
Results
Of the 595 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 87 studies met all inclusion criteria, comprising 98 independent samples and 159 425 participants (mean [SD] age, 6.07 [2.89] years; 83 246 [51.30%] male). Increased duration of screen time had a small but significant correlation with more externalizing problems (90 samples; r, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.10-0.12) and internalizing problems (43 samples; r, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.05-0.08) in children. Several methodological moderators explained between-study heterogeneity. There was evidence of significant between study heterogeneity (I2 = 87.80).
Conclusions and Relevance
This systematic review and meta-analysis found small but significant correlations between screen time and children’s behavior problems. Methodological differences across studies likely contributed to the mixed findings in the literature.
The effects of screen time on children’s mental health has been rigorously debated.1,2 Some literature suggests that screen time may be associated with risk of poor mental health outcomes by displacing sleep and physical activities as well as social exchanges and learning opportunities known to foster well-being.3,4 Screen media may also impede self-regulation strategies and increase arousal levels owing to fast-paced and intense audiovisual effects, which may be associated with inattention and aggressive behavior.5,6 However, it has been argued that concern with regard to screen time and its effect on child mental health is not empirically justified owing to conflicting research results and methodological shortcomings.7-10
Meta-analyses can address discrepancies in the literature by providing greater statistical precision through pooled results from multiple individual studies11 and can detect whether variations in study findings are explained by moderators. In the screen time literature, methodological differences have likely contributed to the conflicting findings: effect sizes may differ based on the statistical analyses conducted,12 how variables are measured,13 and whether data are cross-sectional or longtudinal.7 Effect sizes may also vary as a function of child sex (eg, sex differences in the associations of screen time14,15 with behavior problems),16-18 child age (eg, association of increased screen use with increasing age among children),15,19 and socioeconomic risk (eg, association of increased screen use with behavior problems in the context of low socioeconomic status).20,21 Identifying when and for whom correlations are stronger or weaker may inform the ongoing screen time debate and help develop targeted interventions for children most at risk for potential behavior problems associated with screen time.
Owing to substantial research to date on duration of screen time and behavior problems, it appeared timely to meta-analytically summarize this body of research. Given that the context and nature of screen use changes from childhood to adolescence from mostly parent-mediated and television-centric to less parent-mediated and weighted toward social media,19,22,23 this systematic review and meta-analysis focused on children 12 years or younger. Because of their different mechanisms,24,25 we conducted 2 separate meta-analyses for externalizing (eg, aggression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms) and internalizing (eg, anxiety, depression) behavior problems.25 In addition, we sought to identify sources of between-study heterogeneity.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, searches were conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases by a science librarian for articles published from January 1960 to May 2021. The concepts of screen time, internalizing and externalizing behavior, and children were captured by searching database-specific subject headings and text word fields (eTable 1 in the Supplement). Synonymous terms were combined with the Boolean “OR” and then combined with the Boolean “AND.” The concept of children (12 years or younger) was searched using the “age limits” database functions and via text word search. In all databases, truncation symbols were used in text word searches to capture variations in phrasing and spelling. No language limits were applied. Reference lists in included studies and review articles were manually searched for additional studies. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Studies were included if (1) the age range of included children was 12 years or less, (2) screen time duration was measured (hours and/or minutes), (3) behavior problems (ie, internalizing, externalizing) were measured, (4) the studies were observational or experimental (with baseline data), (5) statistical data were available, and (6) the article was available in English. Because child screen time and mental distress have increased during the COVID-19 pandemic,26,27 we excluded studies conducted during the pandemic. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are detailed in eTable 2 in the Supplement. Studies were assessed for inclusion by 2 coders (R.E. and C.A.). Any study deemed to meet inclusion criteria by either coder was considered for full-text review.
Each study was evaluated by 2 independent coders (C.A. and C.M.) for quality based on an adapted 16-item quality assessment tool28 (eTable 3 in the Supplement), with each item coded as 0 (no) or 1 (yes) (eTable 4 in the Supplement). Intercoder agreement for the overall quality score was good (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.75). Discrepancies were resolved via consensus.
Moderators extracted were (1) child sex (percentage of males in the study); (2) child age at outcome measurement (in months); (3) screen time informant (child or parent); (4) screen time measurement method (ie, activity log, questionnaire, or interview); (5) type of internalizing (anxiety, depression, or somatization) or externalizing (aggression or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms) behavior problems; (6) informant (child, parent, clinician or coder, peers, teacher, or combination); (7) measurement method (diagnostic and structural interview, observer report, or questionnaire); (8) whether informants differed for screen time and behavior problems; (9) clinical sample (diagnosis of a preexisting behavior problem [yes or no]); (10) publication year; (11) study design (cross-sectional, longitudinal with baseline outcome adjustment, or longitudinal with no baseline adjustment); (12) sociodemographic risk (less than 80% vs 80% or more of the sample had at least 1 of the following: low income, low caregiver educational level, or an adolescent parent); and (13) geographic location. eTable 5 in the Supplement shows the data extraction document used. All included studies were independently coded by 2 trained coders (C.A. and C.M.), with excellent reliability29 for continuous moderators (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.80-1.00). The mean percentage of agreement for categorical moderators was 92.5% (range, 85%-100%). Discrepancies were resolved via consensus.
When multiple studies conducted analyses on the same sample, the study with the largest sample size and most comprehensive information was selected. Adjusted statistics were selected over unadjusted statistics whenever available. Global measures of internalizing or externalizing symptoms and of screen time were selected over discrete symptoms (eg, depression, anxiety) or screen types (eg, tablet, video games). Similar to the methods of other meta-analyses,30-32 when a single study measured screen time and/or behavior problems at multiple time points, effect sizes with the largest temporal distance between measures were selected. When studies reported nonsignificant findings without any corresponding statistic or P value, a P value of .50 was entered.33 Studies reporting β coefficients between –0.50 and 0.50 were imputed to correlations (r).34 Effect sizes were pooled when a single effect size among many in a study could not be selected based on the aforementioned criteria. In addition, if a study provided effect sizes from multiple discrete samples with different population parameters (eg, different cohorts), these samples were entered into the meta-analysis separately.
Pooled effect size estimates and moderator analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 3.0 (Biostat).35 Effect sizes were transformed into correlations (r) with 95% CIs using random-effects modeling.36 Correlations were interpreted as small (0.1), moderate (0.2), or large (0.3) based on conventional standards.37
Q and I2 statistics were used to assess between-study heterogeneity. Random-effect meta-regressions and subgroup comparisons were conducted to assess continuous and categorical moderators, respectively. Subgroup comparisons were only conducted when there were at least 3 samples (ie, ≥3 cells) available for each categorical comparison.35 Inspection of funnel plots and the Egger test were used to estimate publication bias.38 A 2-tailed P value of .05 was used for the primary analyses, and owing to the number of moderator analyses conducted, a conservative 2-sided α value of .01 was used to assess the significance of moderators.39
The search strategy revealed 25 196 nonduplicate abstracts to be reviewed for determination of meeting inclusion criteria. A total of 595 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 87 studies (with 98 unique samples) were included in the meta-analysis (Figure 1).
The 98 samples consisted of 159 425 participants. Sample sizes in the included studies ranged from 15 to 15 291 participants (median, 532.5 participants). The mean (SD) age of participants when screen time was assessed was 6.07 (2.89) years (range, 0.5-11.0 years), and the mean (SD) age when behavior problems were assessed was 7.16 (2.70) years (range, 1.3-12.0 years). A total of 83 246 participants (51.25%) were male (median percentage of males per study, 51.31% [range, 36.60% to 78.70%]). Of the 98 total samples, 44 (44.9%) were in North America, 24 (24.5%) in Europe, 1 (1.0%) in Africa, 14 (14.3%) in Asia, 7 (7.1%) in Australia or New Zealand, 5 (5.1%) in the Middle East, and 2 (2.0%) in South America; 1 sample (1.0%) was multisite (detailed study characteristics are shown in eTable 6 in the Supplement).
Screen Time and Externalizing Behavior Problems
In the 90 samples from 80 studies (124 027 children), the correlation was small but significant (r, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.10-0.12) (Figure 2).16,40-118 The Egger test result provided evidence that studies with smaller sample sizes had more extreme effect sizes, and the funnel plot showed asymmetry (eFigure 1 in the Supplement), indicating possible publication bias and/or small-study effects. There was evidence of significant between-study heterogeneity (Q, 729.78; P < .001; I2 = 87.80); therefore, moderators were explored (Table 1).
Meta-regression analyses of the 90 samples showed that the effect size for the association between screen time and externalizing problems increased as the percentage of males in studies increased (b, 0.007 [SE, 0.002]; z, 3.23; P = .001). Effect sizes also decreased as the study publication year increased (b, −0.003 [SE, 0.001]; z, –3.98; P < .001). The effect size for the association between screen time and externalizing problems decreased as study quality increased (b, −0.017 [SE, 0.004]; z, –4.30; P < .001) (Table 2).
Correlations between screen time and externalizing problems were stronger in studies examining aggression (21 samples; r, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.13-0.20) compared with those examining attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms (25 samples; r, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.11). Correlations were weaker in longitudinal studies that controlled for baseline externalizing problems (19 samples; r, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.04-0.08) compared with cross-sectional studies (50 samples; r, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.11-0.15) and longitudinal studies without baseline control (21 samples; r, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.08-0.14). Studies conducted in the Middle East had stronger associations between screen time and externalizing problems (5 samples; r, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29) compared with those conducted in all other geographic locations. Stronger correlations were also found in studies using observer reports (8 samples; r, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.14-0.26) compared with those using questionnaires (74 samples; r, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.08-0.12). In addition, studies using peers to assess externalizing problems had stronger correlations (8 samples; r, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.15-0.26) compared with those that used child report (4 samples; r, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.15), parent report (57 samples; r, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.08-0.12), teacher report (7 samples; r, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.13), and a combination of informants (8 samples; r, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.04-0.14).
Screen Time and Internalizing Behavior Problems
In 43 samples from 40 studies (99 603 children), the effect size between child screen time and internalizing problems was weak but significant (r, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.05-0.08) (Figure 3).16,42,43,45,50-52,56,60,66,69,73,74,76,78,81,83,84,87,88,92,94,95,98,101,105-107,110,113-116,119-125 The funnel plot showed some asymmetry (eFigure 2 in the Supplement), indicating possible publication bias; however, the Egger test result did not suggest that smaller sample sizes had more extreme effect sizes. The Q statistic was significant (Q, 285.10; P < .001; I2, 85.27), and moderator analyses were conducted to explain between-study heterogeneity (Table 1). Only 1 moderator analysis had significant results: studies that used different informants to measure internalizing problems and screen time had a stronger correlation (9 samples; r, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.05-0.10) compared with those with the same informant across measures (34 samples; r, 0.01; 95% CI, –0.02 to 0.03).
The increasing rate of screen time in early childhood has engendered concern among clinicians, policy makers, and parents regarding its possible effects on children’s mental health. This study found small but significant correlations between screen time and children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. The magnitude of these correlations is comparable with that found in other meta-analyses on the association between screen time and child language skills126 and academic performance.127 Moreover, effect sizes derived in this study are similar to those in other meta-analyses examining associations between various family and child factors (eg, language skills128 and socioeconomic status129) and internalizing and externalizing problems. Although the effect sizes found in this study were small, the consequences of screen time at a population level are likely meaningful,37,130 particularly because a recent meta-analysis131 suggested that 75% of children younger than 2 years and 64% of children aged 2 to 5 years exceed screen time guidelines.
Effect sizes were larger for the association between screen time and externalizing problems compared with internalizing problems given nonoverlapping 95% CIs. Future studies testing which discrete mechanisms underlie the association between screen time and externalizing vs internalizing problems are warranted. For example, it is possible that the content viewed (eg, inappropriate or violent) underlies the association between screen time and externalizing problems, whereas indirect effects such as social withdrawal or sleep disruption may underlie the association between screen time and internalizing problems. From a methodological perspective, externalizing problems may be easier for reporters to observe than internalizing problems owing to their outward display, leading to poorer sensitivity for identifying internalizing problems.132
We found stronger correlations between screen time and externalizing problems in boys compared with girls. This finding is consistent with that of previous research in which boys had higher screen use14,133 and more externalizing problems17 than did girls. Externalizing behaviors, such as aggression, may be more readily modeled by boys through sex-stereotypic socialization.134 In addition, we found that studies measuring aggression had larger effect sizes than those measuring attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms. While viewing screen media, children may be exposed to inappropriate content, aggression, and violence.40,135,136 Consistent with social learning theory,137 children may become desensitized after repeated exposures and model aggressive or violent content toward others.6,40,136 Moreover, as screen time becomes more normalized, it is possible that aggressive behavior within some screen programming does as well. Screen use guidelines138 suggest that parents should monitor screen time, ensure the content their children are viewing is age-appropriate, limit exposure to violent content, communicate with their children about inappropriate on-screen content, and model healthy device habits.139
Correlations of screen time with externalizing behavior problems were stronger in the Middle East compared with any other geographic location; however, sample sizes in studies from the Middle East were small, and 95% CIs were wide, limiting the conclusions that can be made. A dose-response relationship between screen time and externalizing problems41,42,140 may explain the stronger correlations found in countries in the Middle East because early-onset screen use has been increasing at a faster rate in these countries compared with other countries.141,142 More research is needed to understand how cultural differences (eg, different guidelines and beliefs about screen time)143 contribute to associations between screen time and behavior problems.
The mixed findings in the literature on screen time and behavior problems may largely be the result of methodological variability.7 Studies that used more objective methods (eg, observer report) and reporters (eg, peers) of children’s externalizing problems had stronger correlations than those using child, parent, or teacher reports. In addition, studies that used different informants for screen time and internalizing problems had stronger correlations than those using the same informant across measures. Inconsistency between informants for children’s behavior problems is common,144 but informant discrepancies may indicate the contexts and ways in which behavior problems are perceived by the child and others.145 For example, aggression may be noticed more readily by peers owing to children having more opportunities to engage with peers aggressively (eg, bullying).
Variability exists both across (ie, aggression, oppositional behavior, and hyperactivity) and within (eg, demanding, hits others) the broad construct of externalizing behavior problems. However, historically, externalizing problems have been examined as a composite.25,146 This study’s finding that screen time was more strongly correlated with aggression suggests that the use of an externalizing composite may not capture inherent nuances in the association between screen time and behavior problems. Furthermore, as children move into adolescence, attention problems and aggression are often measured as separate constructs.147 Future research should consider disaggregating externalizing behaviors, presenting associations in their subcomponents (eg, aggression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms), and examining which items within the subcomponents are correlated most strongly with screen time.
Given that methodological variability is critical for understanding patterns of associations in this body of research, several methodological implications are suggested for future research. To the extent possible, future research should use multi-informant (eg, peers, child), multimethod (eg, passive sensing apps and questionnaires), and longitudinal approaches to measure the association of screen time with child outcomes. Of importance, self-report screen time measurement may be biased.148 None of the studies identified in our meta-analysis used objective measures (eg, sensing apps) to evaluate screen time, presenting an opportunity for future research to use novel screen-time measurement methods.
Two characteristics of publications were identified as significant moderators of associations between screen time and externalizing problems: study quality and publication year. Associations found between screen time and externalizing problems decreased as study quality increased. Poorer quality studies often have more random error and inflated effects owing to less methodological rigor (eg, a single informant, lack of statistical controls). Study quality is also closely connected to study year, with larger effect sizes found in older, discovery studies typically owing to more reliance on significance testing (P value thresholds), inadequate power, and measurement error.149 Thus, effect sizes also decreased in newer studies, which is consistent with the notion of a decline effect (ie, diminishing effect sizes over time).150,151 The accessibility and use of screens have increased over time.152 As screens become normalized in childhood and contemporary culture, the risks associated with their use may become less consequential for children’s behavior problems. Furthermore, parents today may be more informed and better at monitoring screen time and content owing to awareness of screen time guidelines.131
This study has several limitations. First and of most importance, effect sizes are correlational, not causal. Causal reductionism should be avoided because behavior problems are associated with a complex combination of genetic and environmental factors. Additional research that addresses this complexity is needed (eg, genetically informative designs).153-155 Directionality cannot be inferred; screens may be used as a tool to placate or negotiate with children.156,157 Second, although there was significant heterogeneity for internalizing problems, only 1 of the moderator analyses had significant results. Other important but unexamined moderators, such as genetic susceptibility,155 sleep,43 or language development,126 may have a significant role in associations. Third, with rapid shifts in technology, generational cohorts may not use devices comparably.7 Mobile phones were originally used almost exclusively for calling, and few children had their own; now, smartphones are used to access web pages, play games, stream videos, and socialize, and 69% of US children have their own smartphone by 12 years of age.22 Although we excluded studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, a cohort of children are growing up during the pandemic. Screen time has increased significantly during the pandemic, and this increase may affect child development.26,158,159 In addition, not all screen time is equal in terms of content, subject, and formal features; some screen time may be more consequential than other screen time. Our findings only apply to screen time broadly in terms of duration or quantity of use. More nuanced aspects of screen time, such as screen content (eg, social media, violent video games), context (eg, coviewing vs passive viewing), and quality (eg, educational vs entertainment), should be examined. Future studies should also ensure that screen time is not measured as a single construct across multiple devices and should instead focus on the function of screen use (eg, entertainment, socializing, or education) to examine the way screens are being used without being device-specific.
The association between screen time and children’s mental health has garnered marked attention from academic, health, and public sectors. This systematic review and meta-analysis found that screen time was weakly but significantly correlated with children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Our study identified several important methodological moderators of the association between screen time and behavior problems, such as the type of informants and the measures of screen time used, that highlight the lack of harmony in the screen time literature. It is essential for researchers to use more rigorous methods and approaches to analyzing screen time data16,160 and to further explore the various facets of screen use (ie, content and context) associated with children’s mental health in a rapidly evolving digital world.
Accepted for Publication: January 17, 2022.
Published Online: March 16, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0155
Corresponding Author: Sheri Madigan, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada (sheri.madigan@ucalgary.ca).
Author Contributions: Ms Eirich and Dr Madigan had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Eirich, Christakis, Madigan.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Eirich, McArthur, McGuinness, Madigan.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Eirich, Anhorn, McGuinness, Christakis, Madigan.
Statistical analysis: Eirich, McGuinness, Madigan.
Obtained funding: Madigan.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Eirich, Anhorn, McGuinness, Christakis, Madigan.
Supervision: Eirich, Christakis, Madigan.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Funding/Support: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canada Research Chairs program.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Additional Contributions: Cheri Nickel, MLIS, University of Calgary, conducted the literature search for this project and received compensation.
8.Blum-Ross
A, Livingstone
S. The trouble with “screen time” rules. In:
Mascheroni G,
Jorge A, Ponte C (Eds.).
Digital Parenting: The Challenges for Families in the Digital Age. International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth, and the Media; 2018:179-187.
14.de Jong
E, Visscher
TLS, HiraSing
RA, Heymans
MW, Seidell
JC, Renders
CM. Association between TV viewing, computer use and overweight, determinants and competing activities of screen time in 4- to 13-year-old children.
Int J Obes (Lond). 2013;37(1):47-53. doi:
10.1038/ijo.2011.244
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 15.Rideout
V, Hamel
E. The Media Family: Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers and Their Parents. Kaiser Family Foundation;2006.
16.Neville
RD, McArthur
BA, Eirich
R, Lakes
KD, Madigan
S. Bidirectional associations between screen time and children's externalizing and internalizing behaviors.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2021;62(12):1475-1484. doi:
10.1111/jcpp.13425 21.Tandon
PS, Zhou
C, Sallis
JF, Cain
KL, Frank
LD, Saelens
BE. Home environment relationships with children’s physical activity, sedentary time, and screen time by socioeconomic status.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:88. doi:
10.1186/1479-5868-9-88
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 24.Marceau
K, Laurent
HK, Neiderhiser
JM,
et al. Combined influences of genes, prenatal environment, cortisol, and parenting on the development of children’s internalizing versus externalizing problems.
Behav Genet. 2015;45(3):268-282. doi:
10.1007/s10519-014-9689-z
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 26.McArthur
BA, Racine
N, Browne
D, McDonald
S, Tough
S, Madigan
S. Recreational screen time before and during COVID-19 in school-aged children.
Acta Paediatr. Published online June 15, 2021. doi:
10.1111/apa.15966 29.Cicchetti
DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–290.
35.Borenstein
M, Hedges
L, Higgins
JPT, Rothstein
HR. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3.0. Biostat; 2013.
46.Amawi
SO, Subki
AH, Khatib
HA,
et al. Use of electronic entertainment and communication devices among a Saudi pediatric population: cross-sectional study.
Interact J Med Res. 2018;7(2):e13. doi:
10.2196/ijmr.9103
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 49.Cao
H, Yan
S, Gu
C,
et al. Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms and their associations with sleep schedules and sleep-related problems among preschoolers in mainland China.
BMC Pediatr. 2018;18(1):70. doi:
10.1186/s12887-018-1022-1
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 50.Chonchaiya
W, Sirachairat
C, Vijakkhana
N, Wilaisakditipakorn
T, Pruksananonda
C. Elevated background TV exposure over time increases behavioural scores of 18-month-old toddlers.
Acta Paediatr. 2015;104(10):1039-1046. doi:
10.1111/apa.13067
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 53.Corkin
MT, Peterson
ER, Henderson
AME, Waldie
KE, Reese
E, Morton
SMB. Preschool screen media exposure, executive functions and symptoms of inattention/hyperactivity.
J Appl Dev Psychol. 2021;73:101237. doi:
10.1016/j.appdev.2020.101237
Google ScholarCrossref 54.Davison
LL. Media Viewing and the Neurological Development of ADHD: Voluntary and Involuntary Processing. Dissertation. Claremont Graduate University; 2004.
56.Erdogan
A, Kiran
S, Aydogan
G,
et al Behavioral correlates of television viewing time in a Turkish sample of preschool children.
Neurol Psychiatr Brain Res. 2006;13(4):225-230.
Google Scholar 59.Gialamas
A, Haag
DG, Mittinty
MN, Lynch
J. Which time investments in the first 5 years of life matter most for children’s language and behavioural outcomes at school entry?
Int J Epidemiol. 2020;49(2):548-558. doi:
10.1093/ije/dyz192
PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref 62.Hefner
HL. Risks of Television Viewing Among Children With and Without the ADHD Diagnosis. Dissertation. Walden University; 2013.
63.Hill
MM, Gangi
D, Miller
M, Rafi
SM, Ozonoff
S. Screen time in 36-month-olds at increased likelihood for ASD and ADHD. Infant Behav Dev. 2020;61:101484.
65.Hong
GCC, Conduit
R, Wong
J, Di Benedetto
M, Lee
E. Diet, physical activity, and screen time to sleep better: multiple mediation analysis of lifestyle factors in school-aged children with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
J Atten Disord. Published July 14, 2020.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 69.Kahn
M, Schnabel
O, Gradisar
M,
et al. Sleep, screen time and behaviour problems in preschool children: an actigraphy study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. Published online October 1, 2020.
70.Kuhhirt
M, Klein
M. Parental education, television exposure, and children's early cognitive, language and behavioral development. Soc Sci Res. 2020;86:102391.
71.Linebarger
DL. Contextualizing video game play: the moderating effects of cumulative risk and parenting styles on the relations among video game exposure and problem behaviors.
Psychol Pop Media Cult. 2015;4(4):375-396. doi:
10.1037/ppm0000069
Google Scholar 72.Levelink
B, van der Vlegel
M, Mommers
M,
et al. The longitudinal relationship between screen time, sleep and a diagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in childhood.
J Atten Disord. 2020.
PubMedGoogle Scholar 73.Lin
H-P, Chen
K-L, Chou
W,
et al. Prolonged touch screen device usage is associated with emotional and behavioral problems, but not language delay, in toddlers. Infant Behav Dev. 2020;58:101424.
78.McNeill
J, Howard
SJ, Vella
SA, Cliff
DP. Longitudinal associations of electronic application use and media program viewing with cognitive and psychosocial development in preschoolers.
Acad Pediatr. 2019;19(5):520-528. doi:
10.1016/j.acap.2019.02.010
PubMedGoogle Scholar 79.Miller
CJ, Marks
DJ, Miller
SR,
et al. Brief report: television viewing and risk for attention problems in preschool children.
J Pediatr Psychol. 2007;32(4):448-452. doi:
10.1093/jpepsy/jsl035
PubMedGoogle Scholar 80.Miller
LE, Grabell
A, Thomas
A, Bermann
E, Graham-Bermann
SA. The associations between community violence, television violence, intimate partner violence, parent–child aggression, and aggression in sibling relationships of a sample of preschoolers.
Psychol Violence. 2012;2(2):165-178. doi:
10.1037/a0027254
Google Scholar 81.Mistry
KB, Minkovitz
CS, Strobino
DM, Borzekowski
DLG. Children’s television exposure and behavioral and social outcomes at 5.5 years: does timing of exposure matter?
Pediatrics. 2007;120(4):762-769. doi:
10.1542/peds.2006-3573
PubMedGoogle Scholar 82.Moyer
VS. The Role of User Motivations in Moderating the Relation Between Video Game Playing and Children's Adjustment. Dissertation. Bowling Green State University; 2008.
83.Mundy
LK, Canterford
L, Olds
T, Allen
NB, Patton
GC. The association between electronic media and emotional and behavioral problems in late childhood.
Acad Pediatr. 2017;17(6):620-624. doi:
10.1016/j.acap.2016.12.014
PubMedGoogle Scholar 84.Niiranen
J, Kiviruusu
O, Vornanen
R, Saarenpää-Heikkilä
O, Paavonen
EJ. High-dose electronic media use in five-year-olds and its association with their psychosocial symptoms: a cohort study.
BMJ Open. 2021;11(3):e040848. doi:
10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040848
PubMedGoogle Scholar 86.Obel
C, Henriksen
TB, Dalsgaard
S,
et al. Does children’s watching of television cause attention problems? retesting the hypothesis in a Danish cohort.
Pediatrics. 2004;114(5):1372-1373. doi:
10.1542/peds.2004-0954
PubMedGoogle Scholar 87.Özmert
E, Toyran
M, Yurdakök
K. Behavioral correlates of television viewing in primary school children evaluated by the child behavior checklist.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(9):910-914. doi:
10.1001/archpedi.156.9.910
PubMedGoogle Scholar 88.Parkes
A, Sweeting
H, Wight
D, Henderson
M. Do television and electronic games predict children’s psychosocial adjustment? Longitudinal research using the UK Millennium Cohort Study.
Arch Dis Child. 2013;98(5):341-348. doi:
10.1136/archdischild-2011-301508
PubMedGoogle Scholar 89.Patel
C. Co-occurrence and Non-overlap Among Behavioral and Health-Related Problems in Preschool Children. Dissertation. University of South Carolina; 2019.
90.Paulus
FW, Sinzig
J, Mayer
H, Weber
M, von Gontard
A. Computer gaming disorder and ADHD in young children—a population-based study.
Int J Ment Health Addict. 2018;16(5):1193-1207. doi:
10.1007/s11469-017-9841-0
Google Scholar 91.Peralta
GP, Forns
J, García de la Hera
M,
et al. Sleeping, TV, cognitively stimulating activities, physical activity, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptom incidence in children: a prospective study.
J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2018;39(3):192-199. doi:
10.1097/DBP.0000000000000539
PubMedGoogle Scholar 92.Poulain
T, Vogel
M, Neef
M,
et al. Reciprocal associations between electronic media use and behavioral difficulties in preschoolers.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(4):814. doi:
10.3390/ijerph15040814
PubMedGoogle Scholar 93.Reynolds
JE. An Assessment of Variables Associated With Television Viewing and Their Influence on Aggressive Behavior of Third Grade Children. Dissertation. Southern Illinois University. ProQuest Dissertations; 1978.
94.Rosen
LD, Lim
AF, Felt
J,
et al. Media and technology use predicts ill-being among children, preteens and teenagers independent of the negative health impacts of exercise and eating habits.
Comput Human Behav. 2014;35:364-375. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.036
PubMedGoogle Scholar 95.Sanders
W, Parent
J, Forehand
R, Sullivan
ADW, Jones
DJ. Parental perceptions of technology and technology-focused parenting: associations with youth screen time.
J Appl Dev Psychol. 2016;44:28-38. doi:
10.1016/j.appdev.2016.02.005
PubMedGoogle Scholar 96.Schaefer
WG. The Effects of Television Viewing on the Academic Performance of Elementary School Children With Attention Deficit Disorder. Dissertation. Western Michigan University; 1991.
97.Schmiedeler
S, Niklas
F, Schneider
W. Symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and home learning environment (HLE): findings from a longitudinal study.
Eur J Psychol Educ. 2014;29(3):467-482. doi:
10.1007/s10212-013-0208-z
Google Scholar 100.Shmukler
D. A descriptive analysis of television viewing in South African Preschoolers and its relationship to their spontaneous play.
S Afr J Psychol. 1981;11(3):106-110. doi:
10.1177/008124638101100303
Google Scholar 101.Stenseng
F, Hygen
BW, Wichstrøm
L. Time spent gaming and psychiatric symptoms in childhood: cross-sectional associations and longitudinal effects.
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;29(6):839-847. doi:
10.1007/s00787-019-01398-2
PubMedGoogle Scholar 102.Stevens
T, Mulsow
M. There is no meaningful relationship between television exposure and symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Pediatrics. 2006;117(3):665-672. doi:
10.1542/peds.2005-0863
PubMedGoogle Scholar 103.Sugawara
M, Matsumoto
S, Murohashi
H, Sakai
A, Isshiki
N. Trajectories of early television contact in Japan: relationship with preschoolers’ externalizing problems.
J Child Media. 2015;9(4):453-471. doi:
10.1080/17482798.2015.1089298
Google Scholar 105.Tamana
SK, Ezeugwu
V, Chikuma
J,
et al; CHILD study Investigators. Screen-time is associated with inattention problems in preschoolers: results from the CHILD birth cohort study.
PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0213995. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0213995
PubMedGoogle Scholar 106.Tansriratanawong
S, Louthrenoo
O, Chonchaiya
W, Charnsil
C. Screen viewing time and externalising problems in pre-school children in Northern Thailand.
J Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2017;29(3):245-252. doi:
10.2989/17280583.2017.1409226
PubMedGoogle Scholar 110.Wan
MW, Fitch-Bunce
C, Heron
K, Lester
E. Infant screen media usage and social-emotional functioning.
Infant Behav Dev. 2021;62:101509. doi:
10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101509 111.Wimbarti
S. Children’s Aggression in Indonesia: The Effects of Culture, Familial Factors, Peers, TV Violence Viewing, and Temperament. Dissertation. University of Southern California; 2002.
112.Woodfield
DL. Mass Media Viewing Habits and Toleration of Real-life Aggression. Dissertation. In: ProQuest Dissertations; 1987.
114.Wu
X, Tao
S, Rutayisire
E, Chen
Y, Huang
K, Tao
F. The relationship between screen time, nighttime sleep duration, and behavioural problems in preschool children in China.
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017;26(5):541-548. doi:
10.1007/s00787-016-0912-8
PubMedGoogle Scholar 116.Yousef
S, Eapen
V, Zoubeidi
T, Mabrouk
A. Behavioral correlation with television watching and videogame playing among children in the United Arab Emirates.
Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2014;18(3):203-207. doi:
10.3109/13651501.2013.874442
PubMedGoogle Scholar 118.Zimmerman
FJ, Glew
GM, Christakis
DA, Katon
W. Early cognitive stimulation, emotional support, and television watching as predictors of subsequent bullying among grade-school children.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(4):384-388. doi:
10.1001/archpedi.159.4.384
PubMedGoogle Scholar 119.Brubaker
MM. Exploring the Relationship Between Social Support and Social Behavior: Moderating Effects of Video Game Use. Dissertation. Fielding Graduate University. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 2020.
120.Cooper
NS. The Identification of Psychological and Social Correlates of internet Use in Children and Teenagers. Dissertation. Alliant International University; 2004.
121.Dunkeld
C, Wright
ML, Banerjee
RA, Easterbrook
MJ, Slade
L. Television exposure, consumer culture values, and lower well-being among preadolescent children: the mediating role of consumer-focused coping strategies.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2020;59(1):26-48. doi:
10.1111/bjso.12325
PubMedGoogle Scholar 122.Lam
MW, Burgoon
E, Jin
C. 5.37 Associations of screen time and depression in children in a US nationally representative sample.
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019;58 (10)(suppl):S257. doi:
10.1016/j.jaac.2019.08.351
Google Scholar 124.Zhang
J, Liu
M-W, Yu
H-J,
et al. Associations of health-risk behaviors with mental health among Chinese children. Psychol Health Med. Published December 9, 2020.
125.Zhu
X, Haegele
JA, Healy
S. Movement and mental health: behavioral correlates of anxiety and depression among children of 6-17 years old in the US.
Ment Health Phys Act. 2019;16:60-65. doi:
10.1016/j.mhpa.2019.04.002
Google Scholar 127.Adelantado-Renau
M, Moliner-Urdiales
D, Cavero-Redondo
I, Beltran-Valls
MR, Martínez-Vizcaíno
V, Álvarez-Bueno
C. Association between screen media use and academic performance among children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(11):1058-1067. doi:
10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3176
PubMedGoogle Scholar 128.Hentges
RF, Devereux
C, Graham
SA, Madigan
S. Child language difficulties and internalizing and externalizing symptoms: a meta-analysis.
Child Dev. 2021;92(4):e691-e715. doi:
10.1111/cdev.13540
PubMedGoogle Scholar 129.Peverill
M, Dirks
MA, Narvaja
T, Herts
KL, Comer
JS, McLaughlin
KA. Socioeconomic status and child psychopathology in the United States: a meta-analysis of population-based studies.
Clin Psychol Rev. 2021;83:101933. doi:
10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101933
PubMedGoogle Scholar 131.McArthur
BA, Volkova
V, Tomopoulos
S, Madigan
S. Global prevalence of meeting screen time guidelines among children 5 years and younger: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
JAMA Pediatr. Published online February 14, 2022. doi:
10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.6386 132.Groh
AM, Roisman
GI, van Ijzendoorn
MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg
MJ, Fearon
RP. The significance of insecure and disorganized attachment for children’s internalizing symptoms: a meta-analytic study.
Child Dev. 2012;83(2):591-610. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01711.x
PubMedGoogle Scholar 137.Bandura
A. Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall; 1977.
142.Paulo
MS, Nauman
J, Abdulle
A,
et al. Results from the United Arab Emirates’ 2018 report card on physical activity for children and youth.
J Phys Act Health. 2018;15(S2):S419-S421. doi:
10.1123/jpah.2018-0543
PubMedGoogle Scholar 143.Ernest
JM, Causey
C, Newton
AB, Sharkins
K, Summerlin
J, Albaiz
N. Extending the global dialogue about media, technology, screen time, and young children.
Childhood Education. 2014;90(3):182-191. doi:
10.1080/00094056.2014.910046
Google Scholar 144.De Los Reyes
A, Kazdin
AE. Informant discrepancies in the assessment of childhood psychopathology: a critical review, theoretical framework, and recommendations for further study.
Psychol Bull. 2005;131(4):483-509. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.483
PubMedGoogle Scholar 145.De Los Reyes
A. Introduction to the special section: more than measurement error: discovering meaning behind informant discrepancies in clinical assessments of children and adolescents.
J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2011;40(1):1-9. doi:
10.1080/15374416.2011.533405
PubMedGoogle Scholar 150.Schooler
J. Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature. 2011;470(7335):437.
153.van IJzendoorn
MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg
MJ. Differential susceptibility experiments: going beyond correlational evidence: comment on beyond mental health, differential susceptibility articles.
Dev Psychol. 2012;48(3):769-774. doi:
10.1037/a0027536
PubMedGoogle Scholar 154.Sudan
M, Olsen
J, Arah
OA, Obel
C, Kheifets
L. Prospective cohort analysis of cellphone use and emotional and behavioural difficulties in children.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(12):1207-1213. doi:
10.1136/jech-2016-207419
PubMedGoogle Scholar 156.Shah
RR, Fahey
NM, Soni
AV, Phatak
AG, Nimbalkar
SM. Screen time usage among preschoolers aged 2-6 in rural Western India: a cross-sectional study.
J Family Med Prim Care. 2019;8(6):1999-2002. doi:
10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_206_19
PubMedGoogle Scholar 157.Tang
L, Darlington
G, Ma
DWL, Haines
J; Guelph Family Health Study. Mothers’ and fathers’ media parenting practices associated with young children’s screen-time: a cross-sectional study.
BMC Obes. 2018;5(1):37. doi:
10.1186/s40608-018-0214-4
PubMedGoogle Scholar