The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 20 of the 63 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Importance The health consequences of excessive screen media use in children and adolescents are increasingly being recognized; however, the association between screen media use and academic performance remains to be elucidated. Objectives To estimate the association of time spent on screen-based activities with specific academic performance areas in children and adolescents and to examine this association separately in these populations. Data Sources MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ERIC were searched from database inception through September 2018. Study Selection Cross-sectional studies of the association between time or frequency of screen media use and academic performance in children and adolescents were independently screened by 2 researchers. A total of 5599 studies, published between 1958 and 2018 from 23 countries, were identified. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were processed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled effect size (ES). Main Outcomes and Measures Academic performance areas included composite scores, language, and mathematics. Screen media measurements included time or frequency of computer, internet, mobile phone, television, video game, and overall screen media use. Results In total, 58 cross-sectional studies (1.0%) of 5599 articles were included in the systematic review, of which 30 (52%) were i…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
32 Own result · 12 Own method · 9 No full text of the sources · 8 Partly supported · 5 Own interpretation · 4 Supported so far · 3 Supported · 2 Sources not found · 2 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Not supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“Jar uratanasirikul et al 4 1 and Muñoz-Miralles et al 53 reported an inverse association, whereas Kovess-Masfety et al 47 found that high use was associated with 1.88 times the odds of high overall school competence.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [41] 41. Jaruratanasirikul S, Wongwaitaweewong K, Sangsupawanich P. Electronic game play and school performance of adolescents in southern Thailand. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009;12(5):509-512. doi:10. 1089/cpb.2009.0035 source
- Disputedcites [53] 53. Muñoz-Miralles R, Ortega-González R, Batalla-Martínez C, López-Morón MR, Manresa JM, Torán-Monserrat P. Access and use of new information and telecommunication technologies among teenagers at high school, health implications. JOITIC Study [in Spanish]. Aten Primaria. 2014;46(2):77-88. doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2013.06.001 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results state that neither video-game use nor hours played were associated with poor school performance. The Discussion reiterates that time spent on video games was not related to academic performance; the association it reports concerns computer use instead. The supplied passages do not give page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“More than 2 hours per day of television viewing has been associated with lower academic performance in children and adolescents.14”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [14] 14. Tremblay MS, LeBlanc AG, Kho ME, et al. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8(98):98. doi:10. 1186/1479-5868-8-98 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In Results > Data Synthesis, Table 8 associates more than two hours per day of screen time with lower academic achievement. The Academic achievement subsection also reports an association between higher TV viewing and poorer academic outcomes, but does not establish the specific two-hour threshold for TV viewing alone. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Sensitivity analyses suggested that the pooled effect size estimation for the association between television viewing and language was slightly modified when data from several studies were removed, with effect size ranging from -0.21 to -0.13.25,34,55,57,59,60,67”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [25] 25. Adelantado-Renau M, Diez-Fernandez A, Beltran-Valls MR, Soriano-Maldonado A, Moliner-Urdiales D. The effect of sleep quality on academic performance is mediated by internet use time: DADOS study. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2019;95(4): 410-418. doi:10.1016/j.jped.2018.03.006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Table 2 report correlations between television time and academic or cognitive performance in this study, not a pooled association with language. Searches for sensitivity analyses, study removal, and the effect-size range −0.21 to −0.13 found no matching passage in our copy. Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.77)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [34] 34. Fetler M. Television viewing and school achievement. J Commun. 1984;34(2):104-118. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1984.tb02163.x
- Not matchedcites [55] 55. Peirce BK. Relation between time spent viewing television and children's writing skills. Journal Q. 1983;(September):445-448. doi:10.1177/ 107769908306
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [57] 57. Potter WJ. Does television viewing hinder academic achievement among adolescents? Hum Commun Res. 1987;14(1):27-46. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 2958.1987.tb00120.x source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [59] 59. Ribner A, Fitzpatrick C, Blair C. Family socioeconomic status moderates associations between television viewing and school readiness skills. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2017;38(3):233-239. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000425 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] 60. Ridley-Johnson R, Cooper H, Chance J. The relation of children's television viewing to school achievement and I.Q. J Educ Res. 1983;76(5):294-297. doi:10.1080/00220671.1983.10885469 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [67] 67. Shin N. Exploring pathways from television viewing to academic achievement in school age children. J Genet Psychol. 2004;165(4):367-381. doi:10.3200/GNTP.165.4.367-382 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Regarding the association between the duration of individual screen-based activities and academic performance, our results concur with previous research showing an inverse association of television viewing with composite scores, 29,64,66,71 language, 59,67 and mathematics.59,77”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] 29. Cooper H, Valentine JC, Nye B, Lindsay JJ. Relationships between five after-school activities and academic achievement. J Educ Psychol. 1999;91 (2):369-378. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.369 source
- Partly supportedcites [64] 64. Sharma B, Cosme Chavez R, Jeong AS, Nam EW. Television viewing and its association with sedentary behaviors, self-rated health and academic performance among secondary school students in Peru. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(4):E383. doi:10.3390/ijerph14040383 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (section 3.1; page unavailable) report a negative correlation between television viewing and self-reported academic performance among secondary school students in Peru. But the Methods (section 2.2.2; page unavailable) show that performance was measured with a single self-rating question, not a composite score. The language and mathematics findings have separate citations in the citing sentence and are not attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [66] 66. Shejwal BR, Purayidathil J. Television viewing of higher secondary students: does it affect their academic achievement and mathematical reasoning? Psychol Dev Soc J. 2006;18(2):201-213. doi:10.1177/097133360601800203 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [71] 71. Vassiloudis I, Yiannakouris N, Panagiotakos DB, Apostolopoulos K, Costarelli V. Academic performance in relation to adherence to the Mediterranean diet and energy balance behaviors in Greek primary schoolchildren. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014;46(3):164-170. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2013.11.001 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [59] 59. Ribner A, Fitzpatrick C, Blair C. Family socioeconomic status moderates associations between television viewing and school readiness skills. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2017;38(3):233-239. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000425 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [67] 67. Shin N. Exploring pathways from television viewing to academic achievement in school age children. J Genet Psychol. 2004;165(4):367-381. doi:10.3200/GNTP.165.4.367-382 source
- Could not verifycites [77] 77. Yang S-J, Stewart R, Lee J-Y, et al. Prevalence and correlates of problematic internet experiences and computer-using time: a two-year longitudinal study in Korean school children. Psychiatry Investig. 2014;11(1):24-31. doi:10.4306/pi.2014.11.1.24 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on computer use reports an association between game-related computer-using time and lower academic achievement. The Discussion likewise addresses computer overuse, not television viewing; the passages found do not assess television viewing against composite, language, or mathematics scores (pages unavailable in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.76)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Overall, mobile phone use was not associated with academic performance indicators.40,44”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] 40. Jackson LA, Von Eye A, Fitzgerald HE, Witt EA, Zhao Y. Internet use, videogame playing and cell phone use as predictors of children's body mass index (BMI), body weight, academic performance, and social and overall self-esteem. Comput Human Behav. 2011;27(1):599-604. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010. 10.019 source
- Supportedcites [44] 44. Kiatrungrit K, Hongsanguansri S. Cross-sectional study of use of electronic media by secondary school students in Bangkok, Thailand. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2014;26(4): 216-226. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2014.04.005 source
The Main findings section says that, apart from a weak correlation between computer gaming and lower GPA, no other type of media use was related to academic performance. The Statistical analyses section identifies prior-year GPA as the academic-performance measure, supporting the claim about mobile phone use in this study. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Four studies investigating whether time or frequency of television viewing was associated with academic performance showed divergent results: a lack of association 52,65 or a negative association. 69,76”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [52] 52. Martínez-Gómez D, Veiga OL, Gómez-Martínez S, et al; AFINOS Study Group. Gender-specific influence of health behaviors on academic performance in Spanish adolescents: the AFINOS study. Nutr Hosp. 2012;27(3):724-730. doi:10.3305/ nh.2012.27.3.5633 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods (p. 725) show that the AFINOS study measured television-viewing time and academic performance. The retrieved passages do not include the results needed to determine whether it found the negative association attributed to this source; searches for television-viewing associations and the results table did not resolve that point. (LLM, conf=0.68)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [65] 65. Shashi Kumar R, Das RC, Prabhu HRA, et al. Interaction of media, sexual activity and academic achievement in adolescents. Med J Armed Forces India. 2013;69(2):138-143. doi:10.1016/j.mjafi.2012. 08.031
- Not matchedcites [69] 69. Trinh L, Wong B, Faulkner GE. The independent and interactive associations of screen time and physical activity on mental health, school connectedness and academic achievement among a population-based sample of youth. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2015;24(1):17-24.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [76] 76. Yan H, Zhang R, Oniffrey TM, et al. Associations among screen time and unhealthy behaviors, academic performance, and well-being in Chinese adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14 (6):1-15. doi:10.3390/ijerph14060596 source
The citation to this paper is attached to the negative-association finding, not the lack-of-association finding. Results §3.1.1 reports that watching television for two to four hours was negatively associated with academic performance among the Chinese adolescents studied. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Jar uratanasirikul et al 4 1 and Muñoz-Miralles et al 53 reported an inverse association, whereas Kovess-Masfety et al 47 found that high use was associated with 1.88 times the odds of high overall school competence.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [47] 47. Kovess-Masfety V, Keyes K, Hamilton A, et al. Is time spent playing video games associated with mental health, cognitive and social skills in young children? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2016; 51(3):349-357. doi:10.1007/s00127-016-1179-6 source
The Abstract’s Results section explicitly reports that high video game usage was associated with 1.88 times the odds of high overall school competence (95% CI 1.44–2.47). The main Results section reports a different adjusted estimate, 1.67, for high overall competence; the cited figure nonetheless appears exactly in the paper’s abstract. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The lack of association between the overall time spent on screen-based activities and academic performance does not concur with previous research reporting a negative association between overall screen media time and academic performance.[7][8][9]30,56”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [7][8][9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [30] 30. Dumuid D, Olds T, Martín-Fernández J-A, Lewis LK, Cassidy L, Maher C. Academic performance and lifestyle behaviors in Australian school children: a cluster analysis. Health Educ Behav. 2017;44(6): 918-927. doi:10.1177/1090198117699508 source
- Supportedcites [56] 56. Peiró-Velert C, Valencia-Peris A, González LM, García-Massó X, Serra-Añó P, Devís-Devís J. Screen media usage, sleep time and academic performance in adolescents: clustering a self-organizing maps analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99478. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0099478 source
The Results report a negative correlation between academic performance and overall sedentary screen-media use (r = −0.55). The source therefore supports the cited point about previous research finding a negative association; the citing paper’s own lack of association is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“With regard to the device used, the association between time of computer use and academic performance in children and adolescents remains equivocal, with both negative 53 and positive 39 associations found”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [53] 53. Muñoz-Miralles R, Ortega-González R, Batalla-Martínez C, López-Morón MR, Manresa JM, Torán-Monserrat P. Access and use of new information and telecommunication technologies among teenagers at high school, health implications. JOITIC Study [in Spanish]. Aten Primaria. 2014;46(2):77-88. doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2013.06.001 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that, among students who used a computer, poor academic performance increased as daily hours of use rose. They also report poorer performance among nonusers than among moderate users. The paper therefore supports an association that varies by level of use, but does not establish a positive association between increasing computer-use time and academic performance or characterize the broader evidence as equivocal. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] 39. Jackson LA, Zhao Y, Kolenic A III, Fitzgerald HE, Harold R, Von Eye A. Race, gender, and information technology use: the new digital divide. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008;11(4):437-442. doi:10. 1089/cpb.2007.0157 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Given that previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that the effectiveness of interventions to reduce screen time is higher when including health promotion curricula or counseling, 84”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [84] 84. Wu L, Sun S, He Y, Jiang B. The effect of interventions targeting screen time reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(27):e4029. doi:10.1097/MD. 0000000000004029 source
The Results (Subgroup analysis; page not available) report a significant difference by intervention type. Studies using health promotion curricula or counseling showed a significant reduction in screen time, whereas studies using automated monitoring did not. (LLM, conf=0.92)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The random-effects meta-regression model showed that the associations of overall screen media (β, -0.0005; 95% CI, -0.131 to 0.130; P > .99),television viewing (β, -0.056; 95% CI, -0.117 to 0.006; P = .07),and video game playing (β, -0.009; 95% CI, -0.121 to 0.104; P = .82)with composite scores were not associated with the age of children and adolescents (as a continuous variable)”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A large heterogeneity was found among studies (I 2 = 63.0%;P = .004)(Figure 4).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, 23 studies (40%) did not include objectively measured outcomes, and 23 (39%) did not use key potential confounders in the analyses.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the pooled effect sizes were -0.19 (95% CI, -0.29 to -0.09) for composite scores, -0.18 (95% CI, -0.36 to -0.01) for language, and -0.25 (95% CI, -0.33 to -0.16) for mathematics”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pooled effect sizes for the remaining associations were not modified by the one-by-one removal of the included cohorts (eTable 5 in the Supplement).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, 23 studies (40%) did not include objectively measured outcomes, and 23 (39%) did not use key potential confounders in the analyses.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Considerable heterogeneity was found among the included studies for the association of duration of television viewing with composite scores (I 2 = 97.5%;P < .001)and language (I 2 = 95.5%;P < .001),whereas substantial heterogeneity was observed for mathematics (I 2 = 70.7%;P = .002).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the pooled effect sizes were -0.19 (95% CI, -0.29 to -0.09) for composite scores, -0.18 (95% CI, -0.36 to -0.01) for language, and -0.25 (95% CI, -0.33 to -0.16) for mathematics”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lack of association also predominated in those studies analyzing the association of video game playing with language and mathematics.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the 58 included studies, 47 (81%) examined the linear associations or mean differences between time spent on screenbased activities and academic performance in children and adolescents”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The random-effects meta-regression model showed that the associations of overall screen media (β, -0.0005; 95% CI, -0.131 to 0.130; P > .99),television viewing (β, -0.056; 95% CI, -0.117 to 0.006; P = .07),and video game playing (β, -0.009; 95% CI, -0.121 to 0.104; P = .82)with composite scores were not associated with the age of children and adolescents (as a continuous variable)”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ing was inversely associated with the composite scores of adolescents (effect size = -0.16;95% CI, -0.24 to -0.09).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The random-effects meta-regression model showed that the associations of overall screen media (β, -0.0005; 95% CI, -0.131 to 0.130; P > .99),television viewing (β, -0.056; 95% CI, -0.117 to 0.006; P = .07),and video game playing (β, -0.009; 95% CI, -0.121 to 0.104; P = .82)with composite scores were not associated with the age of children and adolescents (as a continuous variable)”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“was -0.29 (95% CI, -0.65 to 0.08).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the pooled effect sizes were -0.19 (95% CI, -0.29 to -0.09) for composite scores, -0.18 (95% CI, -0.36 to -0.01) for language, and -0.25 (95% CI, -0.33 to -0.16) for mathematics”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, 30 (52%) of the 58 included studies did not consider potential confounders associated with home environment and parental characteristics.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in adolescents, the duration of television viewing was inversely associated with composite scores (effect size = -0.19;95% CI, -0.30 to -0.07) and mathematics (effect size = -0.21;95% CI, -0.26 to -0.15).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The meta-analysis indicates a lack of association between the amount of time spent on overall screen media use and the academic performance of children and adolescents.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Considerable heterogeneity was found among the included studies for the association of duration of television viewing with composite scores (I 2 = 97.5%;P < .001)and language (I 2 = 95.5%;P < .001),whereas substantial heterogeneity was observed for mathematics (I 2 = 70.7%;P = .002).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cross-sectional data from these studies showed that time spent on overall screen media, specifically television viewing, was inversely associated with academic performance in most unadjusted and adjusted analyses.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Funnel plots and the Egger asymmetry test indicated statistically significant publication bias only for the pooled subgroup analyses of the association between overall screen media and composite scores (effect size = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.16-1.43;P = .02;eFigure in the Supplement).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding video game playing, results were controversial because studies mainly reported an inverse association or a lack of association with composite scores.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in children, the duration of television viewing was inversely associated with language (effect size = -0.20;95% CI, -0.26 to -0.15) and mathematics (effect size = -0.36;95% CI, -0.66 to -0.07).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Considerable heterogeneity was found among the included studies for the association of duration of television viewing with composite scores (I 2 = 97.5%;P < .001)and language (I 2 = 95.5%;P < .001),whereas substantial heterogeneity was observed for mathematics (I 2 = 70.7%;P = .002).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in adolescents, the duration of television viewing was inversely associated with composite scores (effect size = -0.19;95% CI, -0.30 to -0.07) and mathematics (effect size = -0.21;95% CI, -0.26 to -0.15).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in children, the duration of television viewing was inversely associated with language (effect size = -0.20;95% CI, -0.26 to -0.15) and mathematics (effect size = -0.36;95% CI, -0.66 to -0.07).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data for the association between duration of video game playing and composite scores showed a pooled effect size of -0.15 (95% CI, -0.22 to -0.08).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This estimate showed a considerable heterogeneity among studies (I 2 = 96.4%;P < .001)(Figure 2).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Meta-analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Television viewing and video game playing seem to be the activities most negatively associated with academic performance, particularly among adolescents.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Conclusions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these factors were considered in only 48% of in-cluded studies in the present systematic review.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“showing that time spent on screen-based activities was mostly associated with negative implications for academic performance in adolescents.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, subgroup analyses conducted separately in children and adolescents showed that the duration of these screen-based activities may have a greater association with the academic performance of adolescents than children.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“when high exposure to television viewing has been shown to increase the risk of language-derived problems.81”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [81] 81. Rosenqvist J, Lahti-Nuuttila P, Holdnack J, Kemp SL, Laasonen M. Relationship of tv watching, computer use, and reading to children's neurocognitive functions. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2016; 46:11-21. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2016.04.006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the cross-sectional design of the included studies prevents causal inferences.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Limitations and Strengths
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, this method is not efficient for developing more complex academic abilities during late childhood”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [81] 81. Rosenqvist J, Lahti-Nuuttila P, Holdnack J, Kemp SL, Laasonen M. Relationship of tv watching, computer use, and reading to children's neurocognitive functions. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2016; 46:11-21. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2016.04.006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“suggesting that only young children (aged 2-3 years) may gain an advantage from watching educational programs because they learn from repetitions.6”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] 6. Kostyrka-Allchorne K, Cooper NR, Simpson A. The relationship between television exposure and children's cognition and behaviour: a systematic review. Dev Rev. 2017;44:19-58. doi:10.1016/j.dr. 2016.12.002 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“only 22 studies met less than 50% of quality criteria”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Limitations and Strengths
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 21
- Probably not a substantial claim. 18
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Previous systematic reviews in children and adolescents have focused on the association of television viewing and video game playing with academic performance, showing a negative association. 14,15”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [14] 14. Tremblay MS, LeBlanc AG, Kho ME, et al. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8(98):98. doi:10. 1186/1479-5868-8-98 source
The Results (Data Synthesis, Table 8) summarize a negative association between screen time and academic achievement, including a dose-response relationship for television viewing and video game playing. The Academic achievement subsection reports that 35 studies assessed sedentary behaviour and academic outcomes in children and youth. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] 15. Ferguson CJ. Do angry birds make for angry children? a meta-analysis of video game influences on children's and adolescents' aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and academic performance. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10(5):646- 666. doi:10.1177/1745691615592234 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Regarding computer use, only 2 studies analyzed this screen-based activity and showed divergent results: no association 44 and positive association.56”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [44] 44. Kiatrungrit K, Hongsanguansri S. Cross-sectional study of use of electronic media by secondary school students in Bangkok, Thailand. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2014;26(4): 216-226. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2014.04.005 source
- Partly supportedcites [56] 56. Peiró-Velert C, Valencia-Peris A, González LM, García-Massó X, Serra-Añó P, Devís-Devís J. Screen media usage, sleep time and academic performance in adolescents: clustering a self-organizing maps analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99478. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0099478 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports a positive association between computer use and academic performance in other studies, but the Results report an inverse association between computer use and academic performance in this paper’s adolescents. The cited paper therefore discusses a positive association, but does not establish it as its own finding; the citing sentence also leaves the outcome of the association unspecified. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Wang et al 74 showed an inverse association, whereas Faught et al 32 reported a positive association of screen media with academic performance when adolescents spent from 2 to 4 hours on screen-based activities, but a negative association was found when they spent 7 or more hours per day.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [74] 74. Wang H, Zhong J, Hu R, Fiona B, Yu M, Du H. Prevalence of high screen time and associated factors among students: a cross-sectional study in Zhejiang, China. BMJ Open. 2018;8(6):e021493. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021493 source
The Discussion (‘Relationship of high ST with its correlates’; page not supplied) explicitly states that academic performance was inversely associated with high screen time. The Results (‘Logistic regression analysis’; page not supplied) likewise show higher odds of high screen time among students reporting middle or poor performance than among those reporting excellent performance. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Sánchez-Martínez and Otero Puime 61 showed that high internet surfing frequency and no internet use were both associated with academic failure.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [61] 61. Sánchez-Martínez M, Otero Puime A. Internet and associated factors in adolescents in the Community of Madrid [in Spanish]. Aten Primaria. 2010;42(2):79-85. doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2009.05.004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 'Variables asociadas' section reports an association between academic failure and very high internet use in the bivariate analysis, and between academic failure and no internet use in the adjusted analysis. The discussion explicitly says this study found no association between academic failure and the high-use group, so the claim conflates high with very high use and omits the difference between analyses. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Wang et al 74 showed an inverse association, whereas Faught et al 32 reported a positive association of screen media with academic performance when adolescents spent from 2 to 4 hours on screen-based activities, but a negative association was found when they spent 7 or more hours per day.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [32] 32. Faught EL, Gleddie D, Storey KE, Davison CM, Veugelers PJ. Healthy lifestyle behaviours are positively and independently associated with academic achievement: an analysis of self-reported data from a nationally representative sample of Canadian early adolescents. PLoS One. 2017;12(7): e0181938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181938 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report higher odds of Excellent grades for adolescents with 2–4 hours of daily screen time, and lower odds for those with 7 or more hours, each compared with under 2 hours. But the negative association at 7 or more hours was unadjusted; the Results say it disappeared after adjustment for other health behaviours and confounders. The claim omits that distinction. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“One study found that adolescents who spent more than 7 hours per day on overall screen media were 40% less likely to achieve high academic performance, whereas those who spent 2 to 4 hours per day had 1.23 times the odds of achieving excellent grades compared with those who spent fewer than 2 hours per day.32”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [32] 32. Faught EL, Gleddie D, Storey KE, Davison CM, Veugelers PJ. Healthy lifestyle behaviours are positively and independently associated with academic achievement: an analysis of self-reported data from a nationally representative sample of Canadian early adolescents. PLoS One. 2017;12(7): e0181938. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181938 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report both figures: 7+ hours of daily screen time was associated with 40% lower odds of Excellent grades in the unadjusted model, while 2–4 hours was associated with 1.23 times the odds in the adjusted model, each compared with under 2 hours. The claim omits this distinction; the Results also say the negative association for high screen time disappeared after adjustment. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Most studies showed an inverse association between internet overuse and academic performance, although they did not consider the device used (ie, computer, smartphone, or tablet) or the purpose of internet use.25,26,31,61”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] 25. Adelantado-Renau M, Diez-Fernandez A, Beltran-Valls MR, Soriano-Maldonado A, Moliner-Urdiales D. The effect of sleep quality on academic performance is mediated by internet use time: DADOS study. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2019;95(4): 410-418. doi:10.1016/j.jped.2018.03.006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) says many studies found an inverse association between Internet use time and academic performance, and the Results report the same association in this study. The source does not establish that those studies failed to consider device or purpose; its Introduction (page not provided) specifically describes a study that distinguished Internet use for study from other purposes. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] 26. Busch V, Laninga-Wijnen L, Schrijvers AJP, De Leeuw JRJ. Associations of health behaviors, school performance and psychosocial problems in adolescents in The Netherlands. Health Promot Int. 2017;32(2):280-291. doi:10.1093/heapro/dav058 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] 31. Esteban-Cornejo I, Martinez-Gomez D, Sallis JF, et al; UP & DOWN Study Group. Objectively measured and self-reported leisure-time sedentary behavior and academic performance in youth: the UP&DOWN Study. Prev Med. 2015;77:106-111. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.05.013 source
- Partly supportedcites [61] 61. Sánchez-Martínez M, Otero Puime A. Internet and associated factors in adolescents in the Community of Madrid [in Spanish]. Aten Primaria. 2010;42(2):79-85. doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2009.05.004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section reports an association between very high internet use and school failure in the bivariate analysis. But the paper’s discussion says that high use was not associated with school failure after adjustment; instead, non-use was associated with school failure. Table 2 also records purposes of internet use, though the reported school-failure analysis does not distinguish use by purpose or device. This single study cannot establish what most studies found. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“Studies met from 27.3% to 81.8% of the quality criteria, with 36 studies (62%) meeting more than 50% of the quality criteria as assessed by the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies 20”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Study Quality
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20] 20. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies. https://www.nhlbi.nih. gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools. Accessed May 10, 2018.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Kim et al 45 found a negative association between internet surfing for entertainment purposes and academic performance, but a positive association was found when the internet was used for educational activities.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [45] 45. Kim SY, Kim MS, Park B, Kim JH, Choi HG. The associations between internet use time and school performance among Korean adolescents differ according to the purpose of internet use. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0174878. doi:10.1371/journal.pone. 0174878 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies of the association between internet surfing and academic performance reported an inverse association with composite scores and mathematics and divergent results regarding language.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Systematic Review
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analyses conducted separately in children and adolescents indicated an inverse association between the duration of television viewing and language only in children”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“whereas the duration of mobile phone use has been poorly investigated, suggesting a lack of association with academic performance.39,40,44”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [39] 39. Jackson LA, Zhao Y, Kolenic A III, Fitzgerald HE, Harold R, Von Eye A. Race, gender, and information technology use: the new digital divide. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008;11(4):437-442. doi:10. 1089/cpb.2007.0157 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [40] 40. Jackson LA, Von Eye A, Fitzgerald HE, Witt EA, Zhao Y. Internet use, videogame playing and cell phone use as predictors of children's body mass index (BMI), body weight, academic performance, and social and overall self-esteem. Comput Human Behav. 2011;27(1):599-604. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010. 10.019 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [44] 44. Kiatrungrit K, Hongsanguansri S. Cross-sectional study of use of electronic media by secondary school students in Bangkok, Thailand. Shanghai Arch Psychiatry. 2014;26(4): 216-226. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2014.04.005 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the data show that the association between screen media use and academic performance seems to depend on the age of children and adolescents and the type of device they used”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Discrepancies were settled by consensus.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After concealing information about authors, affiliations, date, and source of each article included in the review, 2 of us (M.A-R., C.A-B.) independently evaluated their methodological quality.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, studies into the association between screen media use and academic performance have shown controversial results, reporting not only negative [6][7][8][9] but also positive 10,11 and null associations.12,13”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [6][7][8][9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] 10. 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 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] 11. Skoric MM, Teo LLC, Neo RL. Children and video games: addiction, engagement, and scholastic achievement. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009;12(5):567- 572. doi:10.1089/cpb.2009.0079 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] 12. Drummond A, Sauer JD. Video-games do not negatively impact adolescent academic performance in science, mathematics or reading. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e87943. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0087943 source
- Not matchedcites [13] 13. Regondola EN, Barbado LN. Media habits and academic performance of elementary pupils of the Camarines Norte State College Laboratory School. IJIR. 2017;3(11):216-224. http://www.imperialjournals. com/index.php/IJIR/article/view/5906.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO reference number CRD42018090388).”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 18 and the Cochrane handbook.19”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] 18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336-341. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 source
- Not matchedcites [19] 19. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008. doi:10.1002/ 9780470712184
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the selected studies, and another (C.A-B.)checked the data for accuracy.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The Egger regression asymmetry test was conducted to assess publication bias, considering P < .10 to be statistically significant.24”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Statistical Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] 24. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2001;323(7304):101-105. doi:10.1136/bmj.323. 7304.101 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate the association of each study with the pooled effect size.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Statistical Analysis
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies was used to evaluate the risk of bias.20”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20] 20. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies. https://www.nhlbi.nih. gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools. Accessed May 10, 2018.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“previous studies have suggested that the home environment and parental characteristics (eg, socioeconomic status and parental support) may be stronger factors in academic performance compared with the amount of screen media use per se.28”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [28] 28. Clarke AT, Kurtz-Costes B. Television viewing, educational quality of the home environment, and school readiness. J Educ Res. 1997;90(5):279-285. doi:10.1080/00220671.1997.10544584 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“including the inclusion of a wide range of screen-based activities and different academic performance areas.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Limitations and Strengths
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourth, the purpose, content, and context of screen media use; socioeconomic status; and/or parental support were not taken into account in the analyses.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Limitations and Strengths
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the implication of age for the studied associations.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Limitations and Strengths
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, subgroup analyses could not be conducted for some of the screen-based activities and/or academic performance areas.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Limitations and Strengths
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings have public health implications for the prevention of academic failure in children and adolescents”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among adolescents, the facilitated and simultaneous access to different screen-based activities for different purposes (eg, social communication, online networking, and playing games), which is a signature of contemporary society, could explain the greater negative association of these activities with academic performance.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Facilitated and simultaneous access to different screen-based activities for different purposes is a signature of contemporary society.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that each screen-based activity should be analyzed individually because of its specific association with academic performance.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Conclusions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These associations seem to be complex and may be moderated and/or mediated by potential factors, such as purpose, content, and context of screen media use.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Conclusions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“parents with high educational level and knowledge of pediatric media guidelines as well as parents who support and have high expectations for their children's future might discourage activities with low educational value, 6 such as television viewing or video game playing.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [6] 6. Kostyrka-Allchorne K, Cooper NR, Simpson A. The relationship between television exposure and children's cognition and behaviour: a systematic review. Dev Rev. 2017;44:19-58. doi:10.1016/j.dr. 2016.12.002 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the questionnaires to assess screen media use and the variety of tools to measure academic performance, as well as the inclusion of articles published only in English or Spanish, could have altered the results.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Limitations and Strengths
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“each sedentary screen-based activity (eg, talking to someone, looking at magazines, or playing) might have a different implication for academic performance.82,83”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [82] 82. Jackson LA, Samona R, Moomaw J, et al. What children do on the internet: domains visited and their relationship to socio-demographic characteristics and academic performance. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2007;10(2):182-190. doi:10. 1089/cpb.2006.9970 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [83] 83. Wright JC, Huston AC, Murphy KC, et al. The relations of early television viewing to school readiness and vocabulary of children from low-income families: the early window project. Child Dev. 2001;72(5):1347-1366. doi:10.1111/1467- 8624.t01-1-00352 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
No previous systematic review and meta-analysis has examined the association of several screen-based activities with different academic performance areas in children and adolescents.
“However, to our knowledge, no previous systematic review and meta-analysis has examined the association of several screen-based activities with different academic performance areas in these age populations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
A restricted budget likely does not allow children and adolescents to buy books or to participate in out-of-school educational activities.
“A restricted budget likely does not allow children and adolescents to buy books or to participate in out-of-school educational activities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Facilitated and simultaneous access to different screen-based activities for different purposes is a signature of contemporary society.
“the facilitated and simultaneous access to different screen-based activities for different purposes (eg, social communication, online networking, and playing games), which is a signature of contemporary society”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For example, one meta-analysis found that the quantity of digital media use (television and gaming) in children ages 4 to 18 years is associated with poorer academic performance scores, language, and mathematics.88”
From Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents: Technical Report (2026) · cites this paper as [88]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“which is again consistent with previous findings that there was a negative association between social media use and academic performance [24,84].”
From Personal Profiles, Family Environment, Patterns of Smartphone Use, Nomophobia, and Smartphone Addiction across Low, Average, and High Perceived Academic Performance Levels among High School Students in the Philippines (2021) · cites this paper as [84]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“As for adolescents and children, a study of screen-based activities (i.e., social media use) also found it to be negatively associated with academic performance [84].”
From Personal Profiles, Family Environment, Patterns of Smartphone Use, Nomophobia, and Smartphone Addiction across Low, Average, and High Perceived Academic Performance Levels among High School Students in the Philippines (2021) · cites this paper as [84]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Prolonged TV viewing,88 video game playing,88 and mobile device use140 are associated with lower academic scores.”
From Digital Ecosystems, Children, and Adolescents: Technical Report (2026) · cites this paper as [88]
In the citing paper
“as well as low academic achievement [6]”
From Using Wearable Cameras to Categorize the Type and Context of Screen-Based Behaviors Among Adolescents: Observational Study (2022) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“This picture is further complicated because different types of screen activities might have distinct effects on intelligence3,13.”
From The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence while controlling for genetic differences in cognition and socioeconomic background (2022) · cites this paper as [3]
In the citing paper
“According to previous findings and reviews3,80, contrasting the effects of screen time types, we analyzed major screen-based activities separately.”
From The impact of digital media on children’s intelligence while controlling for genetic differences in cognition and socioeconomic background (2022) · cites this paper as [3]
In the citing paper
“Finally, very few longitudinal studies have examined the relationship between electronic media use and academic performance and furthermore, most studies have failed to control for prior academic performance [1].”
From Electronic media use and academic performance in late childhood: A longitudinal study (2020) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“Finally, very few longitudinal studies have examined the relationship between electronic media use and academic performance and furthermore, most studies have failed to control for prior academic performance [1].”
From Electronic media use and academic performance in late childhood: A longitudinal study (2020) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“Although there have been some suggestions that media use may affect learning, the relationship with academic performance is not clear [1, 2].”
From Electronic media use and academic performance in late childhood: A longitudinal study (2020) · cites this paper as [1]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“0.06 (-1.07 to 0.95)”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Conclusions
Reported 0.06 · recomputed -0.06
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“23 (39%) did not use key potential confounders in the analyses.”
§ Association Between Screen Media Use and Academic Performance Among Children and Adolescents A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis > Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a Trinity College Dublin User on 09/23/2019
Reported 39 · recomputed 39.655172
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 · Cited by 12,156
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
(1977) · doi:10.1016/c2013-0-10517-x · Cited by 2,457
Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101 · Cited by 2,225
Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth.
Tremblay, M. S., LeBlanc, A. G., Kho, M. E., Saunders, T. J., Larouche, R., Colley, R. C., Goldfield, G., & Gorber, S. (2011) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/1479-5868-8-98 · Cited by 2,085
Welch (1986) · doi:10.1002/(issn)1098-2736 · Cited by 1,666
The evolving definition of “sedentary.”
Pate, R. R., O'Neill, J. R., & Lobelo, F. (2008) · Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews · doi:10.1097/jes.0b013e3181877d1a · Cited by 1,280
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Regondola, 2017, Media habits and academic performance of elementary pupils of the Camarines Norte State College Laboratory School., IJIR, 3, 216
- 2010, Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Eirich, R., McArthur, B. A., Anhorn, C., McGuinness, C., Christakis, D. A., & Madigan, S. (2022) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2022.0155 · Cited by 293
Shanmugasundaram, M., & Tamilarasu, A. (2023) · Frontiers in Cognition · doi:10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077 · Cited by 291
Madigan, S., Eirich, R., Pador, P., McArthur, B. A., & Neville, R. D. (2022) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4116 · Cited by 272
Internet Addiction Increases in the General Population During COVID‐19: Evidence From China
Li, Y., Sun, Y., Meng, S., Bao, Y., Cheng, J., Chang, X., Ran, M., Sun, Y., Kosten, T. R., Strang, J., et al. (2021) · American Journal on Addictions · doi:10.1111/ajad.13156 · Cited by 217
“However, excessive or unlimited use can lead to Internet addiction, also termed “problematic Internet use” or “pathological Internet use,” which can result in marked distress and functional impairments in daily life, and have comorbid psychiatric disorders, including substance abuse, attention deficit and hyperactivit…”
BackgroundSanders, T., Noetel, M., Parker, P., Del Pozo Cruz, B., Biddle, S., Ronto, R., Hulteen, R., Parker, R., Thomas, G., De Cocker, K., et al. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01712-8 · Cited by 148
“The credible evidence we identified showed that video game playing was associated with poor body composition and learning 29,173 .”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Adelantado-Renau, M., Moliner-Urdiales, D., Cavero-Redondo, I., Beltran-Valls, M. R., Martínez-Vizcaíno, V., & Álvarez-Bueno, C.
- Affiliations
- LIFE Research Group, University Jaume I, Castellon, Spain
- Universidad Politécnica y Artística del Paraguay, Asunción, Paraguay
- Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Health and Social Research Center, Cuenca, Spain
- Venue
- JAMA Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-11-01
- Volume
- 173
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1058
- ISSN
- 1072-4710 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-6203
- PMC
- PMC6764013
- OpenAlex
- W2974811886
- Cited by
- 313
- References
- 95
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 68.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repositori UJI (Universitat Jaume I) (publishedVersion)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
- Keywords
- screen media use, academic performance, children, adolescents, television viewing, video gaming, mobile phone use, internet use, computer use, language skills, mathematics achievement, screen time, educational technology, screen time guidelines, parental supervision
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
