Cited by 39Child Development and Digital TechnologyImpact of Technology on AdolescentsPhysical Activity and Health

Screen-based behaviors in Australian adolescents: Longitudinal trends from a 4-year follow-up study

Thomas, George, Bennie, Jason A., De Cocker, Katrien, Ireland, Michael J., Biddle, Stuart J.H.·2020·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

The longitudinal trends of screen time, a highly prevalent behavior in adolescents, are relatively unknown. This study examined longitudinal trends in screen time among a large sample of Australian primary school-aged children transitioning into secondary school-aged adolescence. Data were derived from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). In 2010, 2179 children (49.7% boys; 10.3 ± 1.1 years) completed a time-use diary, recording their main activities during waking hours. This was repeated with the same sample in 2012 (12.4 ± 0.5 years) and 2014 (14.4 ± 0.5 years). Data were analyzed for time spent in TV viewing, computer use, electronic gaming, and social networking and online communication. Repeated-measures MANCOVA tests were performed to analyze trends in screen time. Trends were also analyzed by sex. Total screen time significantly increased (+85.9 min/day) over four years (η p2 = 0.010, P < .001), but differed by sex, with a larger increase in boys (boys: +41.6, girls: +22.7 min/day). Electronic gaming increased in boys (+43.2 min/day) and decreased in girls (-16.8 min/day). In contrast, girls reported larger increases in TV viewing (boys: +0.4, girls: +29.1 min/day), computer use (boys: +24.8, girls: +34.3 min/day) and time communicating online and social networking (boys: +4.3, girls: +15.2 min/day). To conclude, screen time among adolescents increases between the ages of 10 and 14 years, but differs by sex and screen time domain. Future screen time reduction interventions may choose to focus on recreational computer use and electronic gaming in boys and TV viewing and time spent communicating online and social networking for girls.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106258

Cites

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.

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 39

Authors
Thomas, G., Bennie, J. A., De Cocker, K., Ireland, M. J., & Biddle, S. J. H.
Affiliations
University of Southern Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Thomas, George
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
141
Pages
106258
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3090434028
Cited by
39
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
6.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Queensland ePrints (University of Southern Queensland) (acceptedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Catholic University
  • University of Southern Queensland
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, adolescents, longitudinal trends, television viewing, computer use, video gaming, social networking, online communication, sex differences, elementary school students, time diaries, Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
MeSH terms
Screen Time, Adolescent, Australia, Child, Computers, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Television

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