CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 304Child Development and Digital TechnologyImpact of Technology on AdolescentsPhysical Activity and Health

The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time”

Open access
K. Kaye, Linda, Orben, Amy, A. Ellis, David, C. Hunter, Simon, Houghton, Stephen·2020·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
DOI 10.3390/ijerph17103661PMC PMC7277381

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Debates concerning the impacts of screen time are widespread. Existing research presents mixed findings, and lacks longitudinal evidence for any causal or long-term effects. We present a critical account of the current shortcomings of the screen time literature. These include poor conceptualisation, the use of non-standardised measures that are predominantly self-report, and issues with measuring screen time over time and context. Based on these issues, we make a series of recommendations as a basis for furthering academic and public debate. These include drawing on a user-focused approach in order to seek the various affordances gained from “screen use”. Within this, we can better understand the way in which these vary across time and context, and make distinction between objective measures of “screen time” compared to those more subjective experiences of uses or affordances, and the differential impacts these may bring.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This critical review argues that “screen time” research suffers from poor conceptualization, non-standardized self-report measures, and context/time measurement problems, producing mixed and weak evidence. It recommends retiring “screen time” and adopting user-focused, affordance-based “screen use” measures, including objective data and control groups where feasible.

Key findings

  • Definitions of screen time vary widely; the WHO definition focuses on sedentary screen time and excludes active screen-based games such as exergaming, while the field often treats screen time as a unidimensional construct.
  • Self-report estimates are inaccurate: Ernala et al. found participants were most accurate—only 34%—when reporting number of Facebook visits per day, but very inaccurate for “time,” “minutes,” or “hours” spent on Facebook; smartphone users tend to underestimate use, and Facebook users overreport time but underreport visits.
  • Evidence for causal or long-term effects is weak: reviews and meta-analyses report mixed findings, and longitudinal studies observe either no or very small effects of screen time on depressive symptoms, video games, social media, and passive screen use.
  • The authors recommend retiring the term “screen time,” differentiating numerical screen time from goal-directed “screen use,” and using user-focused, affordance-based measures, objective data, taxonomies, and control groups.

Methods

  • Design: conceptual/critical review and commentary; no primary data, sample, or empirical study are reported.
  • Evidence base: cites existing reviews, meta-analyses, longitudinal studies, and measurement studies; no systematic search strategy or inclusion criteria are described.
  • Main analysis: narrative critique organized around four issues—conceptual chaos, poor estimates, variation across contexts, and change over time—followed by recommendations.

Limitations

  • The paper does not state formal limitations of its own approach.
  • Evident from the text: it is a critical/conceptual account rather than a systematic review, with no reported systematic search, data extraction, or quality appraisal.
  • Evident from the text: the recommendations—such as retiring “screen time,” adopting affordance-based measures, and using control groups—are proposals not empirically tested in this paper.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ijerph17103661

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 44 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    Other factors explain far more variability in psychosocial well-being than screen time when theoretically-aligned approaches are used.

    “other factors tend to explain far more variability when researchers adopt more theoretically-aligned approaches that explain the link between screen time and psychosocial well-being [3,7]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [3] Odgers, 2020, Annual Research Review: Adolescent Mental Health in the Digital Age: Facts, Fears, and Future Directions, J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] Orben, 2019, The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use, Nat. Hum. Behav. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    The screen time literature lacks clear longitudinal evidence that observed associations represent a pure causal effect driven by screen media.

    “there lacks clear longitudinal evidence that they represent a pure causal effect driven by screen media [5,6,7]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [5] Jensen, 2019, Young adolescents’ digital technology use and mental health symptoms: Little evidence of longitudinal or daily linkages, Clin. Psychol. Sci. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] Orben, 2019, Social Media’s Enduring Effect on Adolescent Life Satisfaction, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] Orben, 2019, The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use, Nat. Hum. Behav. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    Associations between screen time and psychological or health outcomes are very small in size.

    “a growing consensus has emerged suggesting that the associations observed between screen time and psychological or health outcomes are very small in size”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [5] Jensen, 2019, Young adolescents’ digital technology use and mental health symptoms: Little evidence of longitudinal or daily linkages, Clin. Psychol. Sci. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [6] Orben, 2019, Social Media’s Enduring Effect on Adolescent Life Satisfaction, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] Orben, 2019, The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use, Nat. Hum. Behav. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisereasoning

    There is wide variation in the self-report measures used to capture screen time.

    “there is wide variation in the self-report measures used to capture screen time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Premisecitation

    Accumulating evidence indicates that timing functions are impaired in ADHD, dyslexia, and autism.

    “accumulating evidence indicates that timing functions are impaired in a variety of developmental disorders including ADHD [32,33], dyslexia [34], and autism [35,36].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [32] Marx, 2017, Living in the fast lane: Evidence for a global perceptual timing deficit in childhood ADHD caused by distinct but partially overlapping task-dependent cognitive mechanisms, Front. Hum. Neurosci. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [33] Noreika, 2013, Timing deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Evidence from neurocognitive and neuroimaging studies, Neuropsychologia source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [34] Gooch, 2011, Time perception, phonological skills and executive function in children with dyslexia and/or ADHD symptoms, J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [35] Isaksson, 2018, Is there a generalized timing impairment in autism spectrum disorders across time scales and paradigms?, J. Psychiatr. Res. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [36] Karaminis, 2016, Central tendency effects in time interval reproduction in autism, Sci. Rep. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 10
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For Facebook, compared to log data, people tend to overreport time spent but underreport number of visits per day.

    “for social networking sites such as Facebook, compared to actual use garnered from log data, people tend to overreport how much time they spend on Facebook but underreport how many times they visit per day [27]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] Ernala, S.K., Burke, M., Leavitt, A., and Ellison, N.B. (2020, January 25–30). How well do people report time spent on Facebook? An evaluation of established survey questions with recommendations. Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adversity in childhood consistently predicts poor psychosocial functioning and long-term health outcomes.

    “adversity in childhood consistently predicts poor psychosocial functioning and long-term health outcomes [12]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Bellis, 2014, Adverse childhood experiences: Retrospective study to determine their impact on adult health behaviours and health outcomes in a UK population, J. Public Health source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is far from clear whether participants can accurately estimate their screen time or whether estimates are systematically biased by screen use itself.

    “it is far from clear whether participants can accurately estimate the amount of screen time they engage in or whether this estimate is systematically biased by screen use itself.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Social support through screen-based activities, types of social interactions, pre-existing social anxiety, and fear of missing out might be more influential in predicting well-being outcomes than screen time directly.

    “social support garnered through screen-based activities [8], types of social interactions [9], pre-existing levels of social anxiety [10], and fear of missing out [11] might be more influential in predicting well-being outcomes than screen time directly.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [8] Wang, 2018, The exacerbating role of perceived social support and the "buffering" role of depression in the relation between sensation seeking and adolescent smartphone addiction, Pers. Individ. Dif. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] Twenge, 2019, Less in-person social interaction with peers among US adolescents in the 21st century and links to loneliness, J. Soc. Pers. Relat. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] Hong, 2019, The mediating and moderating roles of social anxiety and relatedness need satisfaction on the relationship between shyness and problematic mobile phone use among adolescents, Comput. Hum. Behav. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Even simple screen time measures can be expected to include a high degree of measurement error, likely contributing to contradictory and inconsistent empirical results.

    “even simple screen time measures can be expected to include a high degree of measurement error, which is likely to contribute toward contradictory and inconsistent empirical results.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The WHO definition of sedentary screen time does not include active screen-based games like exergaming.

    “The WHO, therefore, does not include screen activities like exergaming”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] World Health Organization (2020, April 17). Guidelines on Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour and Sleep for Children under 5 Years of Age. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/311664. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders have higher rates of social media use and may use screens to support social and communication skills.

    “adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders have higher rates of social media use [28] and may use screens to support social and communication skills [29]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [28] Nereim, 2019, A primary care pediatrician’s guide to assessing problematic interactive media use, Curr. Opin. Pediatr. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [29] Petrou, 2016, A trial of an iPad™ intervention targeting social communication skills in children with autism, Autism source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    There is a tendency in the literature to assume screen time is a largely unidimensional or homogeneous construct, with little work to unify definitions.

    “there is a tendency to assume that screen time is a largely unidimensional or homogeneous construct, with little work to unify definitions or ensure that conceptualisations are agreed upon.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Ernala et al.'s study, participants were most accurate (34%) when reporting number of times per day they visited Facebook, but very inaccurate when estimating time spent per day on Facebook.

    “participants were most accurate (albeit only at a rate of 34%) when reporting on number of times per day they visited Facebook, but very inaccurate when gauging how many “time”, “minutes” or “hours” they had spent on average per day on Facebook”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] Ernala, S.K., Burke, M., Leavitt, A., and Ellison, N.B. (2020, January 25–30). How well do people report time spent on Facebook? An evaluation of established survey questions with recommendations. Proceedings of the ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Such studies are lacking because ensuring participant compliance is challenging, and published ones fail to show consistent results.

    “Such studies are lacking because ensuring participant compliance is challenging [4,49], and those published fail to show consistent results [50,51,52].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [4] Orben, 2020, Teenagers, Screens and Social Media: A Narrative Review of Reviews and Key Studies, Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [49] Allcott, 2019, The welfare effects of social media, Am. Econ. Rev. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [50] Vanman, 2018, The burden of online friends: The effects of giving up Facebook on stress and well-being, J. Soc. Psychol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [51] Tromholt, 2016, The Facebook Experiment: Quitting Facebook Leads to Higher Levels of Well-Being, Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [52] Hunt, 2018, No more FOMO: Limiting social media decreases loneliness and depression, J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    An affordance-based approach avoids relying on the commercial success of platforms or devices and establishes measurements that should theoretically remain more stable over time.

    “An affordance-based approach avoids relying on the commercial success of platforms or devices and instead establishes measurements which should theoretically remain more stable over time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    There has been little movement in the field to develop high-quality screen time measures because this involves methodological, security and privacy challenges.

    “there has been little movement in the field to develop high-quality screen time measures because this involves a variety of methodological, security and privacy challenges.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Researchers may start to realise new opportunities by teasing out causal relationships between screen time and psychological impacts with observational data alone.

    “researchers may also start to realise new opportunities by teasing out causal relationships between screen time and psychological impacts with observational data alone [54].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [54] Rohrer, 2018, Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data, Adv. Methods Pr. Psychol. Sci.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Studies of this nature would necessitate control groups where subsets of participants refrain from using screens.

    “studies of this nature would necessitate the use of control groups where subsets of participants are asked to refrain from using screens (or a certain subset of them).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Repeated data collection can become disruptive for participants' education, making researchers more likely to seek quick but less psychometrically substantive measurements.

    “repeated data collection can become disruptive for participants’ education and this can make it more likely that researchers will seek out measurements that are quick but which are less psychometrically substantive to draw strong conclusions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    No research to date has used a profiling or cluster-based approach to explore how screen time proportionalities map onto psychological or behavioural outcomes.

    “no research to date has used a profiling or cluster-based approach to explore how these various screen time proportionalities may map out onto psychological or behavioural outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Recording screen time on individual devices is now possible, but these approaches struggle to address time spent on different forms of screen-based engagement across multiple screens.

    “While recording screen time on individual devices such as a smartphone, or a specific smartphone app is now possible, even these approaches will struggle to address how much time is spent on different forms of screen-based engagement which take place on multiple screens.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
17 of 17

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Concerns that screen time negatively impacts psychosocial functioning, health and behaviours are widespread.

    “concerns that screen time negatively impacts psychosocial functioning, health and behaviours remain widespread, and are routinely voiced in academic, policy and media circles.”
1 of 1

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?

  • Most research used self- or parent-reported data on total screen use rather than assessing specific device or activity types that might have differing associations with sleep.

    “Most used self- or parent-reported data on total screen use rather than assessing specific device or activity types that might have differing associations with sleep.2,13”

    From Screen Use at Bedtime and Sleep Duration and Quality Among Youths (2024) · cites this paper as [13]

    Issue 2 says screen-time studies most often use users’ estimated reports, and Issue 1 says some studies measure total screen time while others measure specific devices or activities. The paper does not establish that most studies measure total use rather than specific types, or that parent reports predominate. Issue 3 discusses differing effects by activity type, but not specifically associations with sleep; no page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Screen time does not capture the content or context of screen use.

    “Screen time does not capture the content or context of screen use, which could be examined in future research [20, 128].”

    From Screen time and mental health: a prospective analysis of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study (2024) · cites this paper as [128]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Oxford University Press (2020). Oxford English Dictionary (2020), Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
K. Kaye, L., Orben, A., A. Ellis, D., C. Hunter, S., & Houghton, S.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk L39 4QP, UK
  • MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
  • School of Management, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
  • Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-05-22
Volume
17
Issue
10
Pages
3661
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ijerph17103661
PMC
PMC7277381
OpenAlex
W3026494741
Semantic Scholar
fa852005bc52ac924df6ef97a29a2222d469469b
Cited by
304
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 10 · 2014: 1
FWCI
56.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Edge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
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, screen use, self-report measures, objective measures, longitudinal effects
MeSH terms
Screen Time, Humans

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

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