Cited by 7Child Development and Digital TechnologyImpact of Technology on AdolescentsPhysical Activity and Health

Development of a protocol for objectively measuring digital device use in youth.

Brosnan, Bradley J., Wickham, Shay-Ruby, Meredith-Jones, Kim A., Galland, Barbara C., Haszard, Jillian J., Taylor, Rachael W.·2023·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Introduction Screen time is predominantly measured using questionnaires assessing a limited range of activities. This project aimed to develop a coding protocol that reliably identified screen time, including device type and specific screen behaviors, from video-camera footage.Methods Screen use was captured from wearable and stationary PatrolEyes video cameras in 43 participants (aged 10-14 years) within the home environment (May-December 2021, coding in 2022, statistical analysis in 2023). After extensive piloting, the inter-rater reliability of the final protocol was determined in 4 coders using 600 minutes of footage from 18 participants who spent unstructured time on digital devices. Coders independently annotated all footage to determine 8 device types (e.g., phone, TV) and 9 screen activities (e.g., social media, video gaming) using Observer XT (behavioral coding software). Reliability was calculated using weighted Cohen's κ for duration per sequence (meets criteria for total time in each category) and frequency per sequence (meets criteria for total time in each category and order of use) for every coder pair on a per-participant and footage type basis.Results Overall reliability of the full protocol was excellent (≥0.8) for both duration per sequence (κ=0.89-0.93) and the more conservative frequency per sequence (κ=0.83-0.86) analyses. This protocol reliably differentiates between different device types (κ=0.92-0.94) and screen behaviors (κ=0.81-0.87). Coder agreement ranged from 91.7% to 98.8% across 28.6-107.3 different instances of screen use.Conclusions This protocol reliably codes screen activities in adolescents, offering promise for improving the understanding of the impact of different screen activities on health.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2023.05.004

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brosnan, B. J., Wickham, S.-R., Meredith-Jones, K. A., Galland, B. C., Haszard, J. J., & Taylor, R. W.
Affiliations
University of Otago (NZ)
Corresponding author
Taylor, Rachael W.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-11
Volume
65
Issue
5
Pages
923-931
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4372342559
Cited by
7
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
FWCI
5.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
screen time, digital device use, adolescents, coding protocol, inter-rater reliability, device type, family environment
MeSH terms
Wearable Electronic Devices, Screen Time, Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Television, Video Recording, Reproducibility of Results, Video Games, Social Media

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.

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