Cited by 45Child Development and Digital TechnologyPhysical Activity and HealthImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Validated assessment tools for screen media use: a systematic review.

Open access
Perez, Oriana, Garza, Tatyana, Hindera, Olivia, Beltran, Alicia, Musaad, Salma M., Dibbs, Tracey, Singh, Anu, Chug, Shria +4 more·2023·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Accurate measurement of adult and child screen media use are needed to robustly assess its impact on health outcomes. Our objective was to systematically review screen media use measurement tools that have been validated against an objective "gold standard" tool. METHODS: The search strategy was initially conducted in Medline Ovid and translated to Embase, Web of Science, PsychInfo and Cochrane. A modified natural language search was conducted in Google Scholar and IEEE. The initial search was conducted in March 2021, and an updated search was conducted in June 2022. Additional studies were included from the references. Studies had to describe the validation of a tool to measure screen media use on participants of any age against a 'gold standard' or comparable objective measure. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) was used to assess the criterion validity. Four authors reviewed the titles in two rounds and extracted data. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were included in the review. Studies measured TV, computer, mobile device and social media site screen media use through: self or parent report, direct or video observation, computer and mobile device use tracking programs, and through other novel devices such as wearable devices and cameras. Correlations of self or parent report of screen media with the gold standard were lower than correlations of technology-based measures, and video observation with the gold standard. The COSMIN criterion validity ratings ranged from poor to excellent; most of the studies received a global score of fair or poor. CONCLUSIONS: Technology based validated tools that more directly measure screen use are emerging that have been validated against a gold standard for measuring screen use. However, practical, objective measures of diverse types of screen media use that have been tested on diverse populations are needed to better understand the impact of screen media use on the development and physical and mental health of children and adults.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0283714

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Many studies compared average screen time with average sleep and thus could not determine whether variation in screen time was associated with subsequent sleep that night.

    “Many studies compared average screen time with average sleep and thus could not determine whether variation in screen time was associated with subsequent sleep that night.17,18”

    From Screen Use at Bedtime and Sleep Duration and Quality Among Youths (2024) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Introduction says screen media use has been associated with shorter sleep duration, but it does not describe how those studies compared screen time and sleep. The Results examine screen-use measurement tools, not whether studies used averages or could assess the effect of day-to-day variation on sleep that night (searched for nightly sleep, average sleep, and within-person variation). (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perez, O., Garza, T., Hindera, O., Beltran, A., Musaad, S. M., Dibbs, T., Singh, A., Chug, S., Sisson, A., Kumar Vadathya, A., Baranowski, T., & O’Connor, T. M.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Rice University (US)
  • Texas Medical Center Library (US)
Corresponding author
O’Connor, Teresia M.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2023-04-13
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
e0283714
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4365443979
Cited by
44
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14
FWCI
2.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons-TMC (Texas Medical Center) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK113269)
  • United States Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service (58-3092-0-001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
screen media use, measurement validity, criterion validity, gold standard, self-report, parent report, video observation, wearable devices, television viewing, social media use, children, adults, COSMIN
MeSH terms
Child, Humans, Reference Standards, Computers, Handheld

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