(Reuters Health) - Toddlers who spend too much time in front of televisions, tablets, and smartphones may not become as skilled at problem-solving, communication and other skills needed for school as their peers who have less screen time, a new study suggests. Children in the study had an average of 17 hours of screen time a week when they were two years old, and 25 hours a week by the time they were three. This far exceeds one-hour daily limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics to allow children enough time for creative play and interactions with caregivers and peers. “Screen time is most often a sedentary or passive behavior, with very few learning opportunities,” said lead study author Sheri Madigan of the University of Calgary and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute in Canada. Part of the problem is that toddlers’ brains aren’t developed enough to apply things they learn from two-dimensional screens to what they experience in three-dimensional life, Madigan said by email. “If they see someone building blocks on the screen, this doesn’t help them build blocks in real life,” Madigan said. Another reason screen time can slow development is that the hours passed in front of televisions and tablets mean kids may miss out on chances to scribble with crayons or play games that help them learn how to kick a ball or take turns. “These are critical skills in early childhood, because mastery of skill is needed before further development can occur,” Madigan said. “You need to walk before you can run, and you need to know how to hold a crayon before you can write your name.” Compared to toddlers with less screen time, two-year-olds with more screen time tended to score lower, at age three, on developmental screening tests that measured communication, fine and gross motor skills, problem solving, and social skills. The same pattern was seen for three-year-olds. The more screen time they had, the poorer they scored on developmental tests when they reached age five. For the study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, researchers surveyed 2,441 mothers in Canada about how much time their kids spent on typical weekdays and weekends watching television, movies or videos; playing video games; or using computers, tablets or other devices like smartphones. Mothers also completed questionnaires about children’s progress with a range of developmental milestones during the course of the study. The researchers also tested for reverse causation, that is, they wanted to know whether parents chose to put toddlers with developmental problems in front of screens more than toddlers without developmental problems. This didn’t appear to be true, however - suggesting that the screen time might have contributed to developmental delays, and not that developmental delays might have contributed to kids getting extra screen time. The study wasn’t a controlled experiment designed to prove whether or how screen time early in childhood might directly impact development outcomes later in childhood. Still, it adds to a growing body of evidence linking limited screen time to better cognitive, physical and psychological development in early childhood, said Gary Goldfield, a researcher at the University of Ottawa who wasn’t involved in the study. “The majority of children of all ages exceed the screen time recommendations, so parents have to be more strict setting healthy limits,” Goldfield said by email. “For those exceeding guidelines, parents can buffer some of the negative effects of screen time by ensuring it does not interfere with adequate sleep (which it often does in older children and youth), daily physical activity or active play, and plenty of enriching, stimulating and positive face to face interaction with parents and caregivers, and of course other children,” Goldfield added. When kids do get screen time, it should be high-quality programming that’s designed with development in mind, said Dr. Suzy Tomopoulos of Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone and Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City. “Parents can minimize risks if screen time is child-appropriate, has educational content, and viewed together with the child,” Tomopoulos, who wasn’t involved in the study, said by email. “Parents should also turn off the television when no one is watching, during mealtimes and one hour before bedtime.” SOURCE: bit.ly/2DEBVK7 JAMA Pediatrics, online January 28, 2019.<doc-sep>Too much time in front of the TV and playing computer games can hold back toddlers’ development, researchers have warned. A study involving 2,400 Canadian children found more screen time was linked to lower scores in “milestone” tests of communication, problem solving, interpersonal skills and physical coordination. The amount of time two and three-year-olds spent gazing at a screen had a negative effect on their performance at three and five, it found. There was no evidence to suggest children with developmental problems were allowed more screen time by their parents to control challenging behaviour. Writing in the journal Jama Pediatrics, the team of Canadian psychologists said: “The present study examined developmental outcomes during a critical period of growth and maturation, revealing that screen time can impinge on children’s ability to develop optimally.” 30 best children's books Show all 30 1 /30 30 best children's books 30 best children's books 30. Tom Brown’s Schooldays by Thomas Hughes (1857) This moving, charming and poignant tale of boarding school life is included partly for its own merits, but also as it was the first in the school story genre which spawned so many thousands of books, through Enid Blyton right up to J K Rowling. And, of course, the bully Flashman, without whom we wouldn’t have George McDonald Fraser’s hilarious series detailing his further adventures. 30 best children's books 29. The Tale of Peter Rabbit by Beatrix Potter (1902) Even Potter knew she was writing nostalgically about an imagined past; but who could not fail to love this slyly observed tale of a naughty rabbit? Potter’s arch, almost Austen-esque prose interacts seamlessly with her keenly observed studies of flora and fauna. Avoid the new film, and stick to the original. 30 best children's books 28. How to Train Your Dragon by Cressida Cowell (2003) Quite simply, Cressida Cowell has an exceptional ability to give children what they like. Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III is a Viking who doesn’t fit in: gawky and geeky, his adventures with his hunting-dragon Toothless are madcap and marvellous. Give it to a child, and see them become engrossed immediately. 30 best children's books 27. The Lie Tree by Frances Hardinge (2015, Macmillan) The recent winner of the overall Costa Book Awards is a remarkable novel from a remarkable writer. Hardinge is a true original, her sentences poised and poetic, her alternative 19th-century world fully imagined, and her intelligent, inquiring female lead not simply a good role model but also a fine addition to literature. 30 best children's books 26. Noughts and Crosses by Malorie Blackman (2001) Former Children’s Laureate Malorie Blackman’s novel described a world in which black Africans had enslaved white Europeans. Whites, or noughts, were economically impoverished, whilst the blacks, or crosses, were in power. An inter-racial love affair between two teens brings first passion and then tragedy. Powerful, provocative and original. 30 best children's books 25. The Mouse and His Child by Russell Hoban (1967) A bittersweet and unusual tale, in which a clockwork mouse and his child are thrown out of a toy shop, and then must embark on a journey to find safety. Unlike the film Toy Story, in which the toys are complicit in their servitude, this allows discarded toys to find a world of their own, constructed according to their own terms. Full of striking imagery and exciting scenes. 30 best children's books 24. Down with Skool! A Guide to School Life for Tiny Pupils and their Parents by Geoffrey Willans and Ronald Searle (1953) As any fule know, reading Molesworth is like being a member of a secret skool gang. Complemented by Ronald Searle’s satirical drawings of depressed, deluded schoolmasters and grubby, disobedient schoolboys, all the world’s vanity and hypocrisy is on display through Molesworth’s cynical, instantly likeable and badly spelled voice. A grate writer, indeed. 30 best children's books 23. Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer (2001) A wondrously clever book that upturns children’s literature convention. Its hero, Artemis Fowl, is a 12 year old boy who also happens to be a criminal mastermind. Containing such characters as a kleptomaniac, flatulent dwarf, and a centaur called Foaly who’s also a technical whizz, this is a hilarious delight. 30 best children's books 22. The Scarecrows by Robert Westall (1981) I’ve chosen The Scarecrows over The Machine Gunners, which is perhaps Westall’s better known book, as I think this has a quality of terror and an understanding of adolescence that is matchless. It focuses on a boy’s tortured relationship with his stepfather, and the encroachment of a murder that happened many years before. Unforgettably spine-tingling, and profoundly affecting. 30 best children's books 21. The Harry Potter series by J K Rowling (late 20th century) First published over 20 years ago, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone blazed into the world’s consciousness like a bolt of lightning. Moving from the initial wonder and quirky charm of the first three books, the series took on a darker tone, resulting in an enthralling septet and a cultural phenomenon. 30 best children's books 20. The Ghost of Thomas Kemp by Penelope Lively (1973) Penelope Lively once said that “Children need to sense that we live in a permanent world that reaches away behind and ahead of us.” Her writing encompasses a huge range, and this, her Carnegie-winning novel about a house beset by the spirit of a sorceror, is eerie, effective and involving. 30 best children's books 19. Tom’s Midnight Garden by Philippa Pearce (1958) Considered by many to be one of children’s literature’s most outstanding examples. Tom is packed away to stay with his aunt and uncle: but when the clock strikes thirteen, he finds a gorgeous garden, and in it a little girl called Hatty, who seems to come from a different time. Emotionally rich, it will leave a lasting impression on any child. 30 best children's books 18. The Wizard of Earthsea by Ursula Le Guin (1968) The recent death of Ursula Le Guin, aged 88, has brought renewed attention to her works. Ged, a dark skinned boy from the goat herding island of Gont, demonstrates exceptional powers and is sent to learn how to be a wizard.<doc-sep>If a family can ask themselves these questions, and are satisfied with the answers, then they can be reassured that they are "likely to be doing as well as they can with this tricky issue", says the RCPCH.<doc-sep>In news that will surprise few but still alarm many, a study has found that kids 2-5 years old who engage in more screen time received worse scores in developmental screening tests. The apparent explanation is simple: when a kid is in front of a screen, they’re not talking, walking or playing, the activities during which basic skills are cultivated. The topic is a thorny one, as there are plenty of arguments on both sides as to the possible pros and cons of screen use at an early age, and as with any other topic pertaining to parenting, it is immediately personal to many people and reliance on anecdote is common. It’s only through studies like this one, these and other researchers note, that we can begin to be sure of anything. (Of course, we must study the studies as well.) The study, from the University of Calgary psychologists and published today in the JAMA journal Pediatrics, examined the effect of screen time during a developmental period on performance in basic skills at the end of each period — specifically, at 24, 36 and 60 months old. Caregivers reported average screen time, and also filled out standard questionnaires on motor and communication skills. A rather straightforward correlation appeared in the results: Greater screen time at 24 months was associated with poorer performance on developmental screening tests at 36 months, and similarly, greater screen time at 36 months was associated with lower scores on developmental screening tests at 60 months. Importantly, the effect was not bidirectional or ambiguous — kids with more screen time usually had lower scores, but kids with lower scores didn’t necessarily have more screen time. This strengthens the hypothesis that screen time leads to lower scores instead of an unknown variable or variables affecting both. The exact mechanism can’t be tested with the present data, but lead author Sheri Madigan suggests it isn’t exactly mysterious: “A lot of the positive stimulation that helps kids with their physical and cognitive development comes from interactions with caregivers,” she said in a University of Calgary news release. “When they’re in front of their screens, these important parent-child interactions aren’t happening.” And not just those, either. The paper explains in a bit more detail: When young children are observing screens, they may be missing important opportunities to practice and master interpersonal, motor, and communication skills. For example, when children are observing screens without an interactive or physical component, they are more sedentary and, therefore, not practicing gross motor skills, such as walking and running, which in turn may delay development in this area. Screens can also disrupt interactions with caregivers by limiting opportunities for verbal and nonverbal social exchanges, which are essential for fostering optimal growth and development. It’s hard to find a counter-argument to this. Screen time isn’t just plain bad, and as many have pointed out its ubiquity precludes the possibility of avoidance. So the question is not “whether or not” but “how much?” And while there are arguments for dividing screen time into high and low quality, or beneficial and non-beneficial (these are not differentiated in the study), those are much more applicable for older children who are capable of engaging with it in more sophisticated ways. At very early ages it’s hard to deny that a child’s time is better spent on activities through which they advance their most basic skills. For reference, the kids in the study were averaging 2-3 hours per day. But it’s important to note that there isn’t some magical number of hours that’s okay or harmful — “Unfortunately, we can’t derive this ‘tipping point’ from the statistical analyses that we provided,” Madigan told me in an email. “It will be an important avenue of our future research.” So you need to hide all screens from your kids and worry like mad if they somehow manage to wheedle an extra half hour of Dora time out of you while you finish dinner. The implication isn’t that screen time is inherently bad but that it risks replacing the “high quality caregiver-child interactions” that are so critical at this period of development. The solution therefore is not necessarily less screens, but more and better time spent with the kid. Giving parenting advice is well outside the scope of a tech blog, but as an uncle and generally speaking as a human, I think it’s safe to say that there are great ways of integrating screen-based content with ordinary play, and in fact many companies are dedicated to that possibility. Playing a game ought not to adversely affect communication if it’s a kid collaborating on a Minecraft base with their sibling, right? Or if a show is being watched in an active way that encourages communicating and trying new things? A parent will know best, but it’s important to pay attention in the first place, and establishing causal connections like the one suggested in this study is one more reason to do so. I’ve asked the researchers a few questions about the study and will update this post if I hear back.<doc-sep>
(CNN) — Among toddlers, spending a lot of time staring at screens is linked with poorer performance on developmental screening tests later in childhood, according to a new study. The study, published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics on Monday, found a direct association between screen time at ages 2 and 3 and development at 3 and 5. Development includes growth in communication, motor skills, problem-solving and personal social skills, based on a screening tool called the Ages and Stages Questionnaire. Signs of such development can be seen in behaviors like being able to stack a small block or toy on top of another one. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends limits on screen use for preschool children ages 2 to 5 to just one hour a day of high-quality programming. “On average, the children in our study were viewing screens two to three hours per day. This means that the majority of the children in our sample are exceeding the pediatric guidelines of no more than one hour of high-quality programming per day,” said Sheri Madigan, an assistant professor and research chair in determinants of child development at the University of Calgary, who was first author of the study. “Higher screen time viewing at 2 and 3 years of age was associated with children’s delays in meeting developmental milestones at 3 and 5 years of age, respectively,” she said. “This study shows that, when used in excess, screen time can have consequences for children’s development. Parents can think of screens like they do giving junk food to their kids: In small doses, it’s OK, but in excess, it has consequences.” For older children, parents are encouraged to develop personalized media plans for their children, but the American Academy of Pediatrics notes that all children and teens need at least around eight hours of sleep, one hour of physical activity and time away from media each day. A separate report released in 2017 by the nonprofit organization Common Sense Media found that children 8 and younger spend an average of two hours and 19 minutes a day with screen media. Most children of all ages in the United States spend a total of about five to seven hours a day in front of a screen, including watching TV, working on a computer or playing video games, according to the US National Library of Medicine. The new study included data on 2,441 mothers and children in Canada. The mothers were recruited for the study when they were pregnant between 2008 and 2010, and data was collected between 2011 and 2016. For each child in the study, the mother completed questionnaires related to the child’s performance on developmental tests at ages 24, 36 and 60 months. Mothers also reported the range of time their children spent using screen devices on a typical weekday and weekend day. The researchers found that greater screen time at 24 months was associated with poorer performance on developmental screening tests at 36 months, and greater screen time at 36 months was associated with lower scores on developmental screening tests at 60 months. Although the researchers did not examine the relationship between screen time and developmental outcomes numerically, they found “a stable association” between screen time and child developmental screening test scores that was not accounted for by other factors, according to the study. The average amount of screen time for children ages 24, 36 and 60 months in the study was about 2.4, 3.6 and 1.6 hours per day, respectively, the researchers found. “To our knowledge, the present study is the first to provide evidence of a directional association between screen time and poor performance on development screening tests among very young children,” the researchers wrote. The study had some limitations, including that some of the data was self-reported by the mothers and that devices can rapidly evolve over time, which could influence screen time. Also, the first assessments of the children in the study were at 24 months, whereas assessments starting at 12 or 18 months could have provided more data. Most important, just because an association between excessive screen time and poorer child development was found doesn’t mean excessive screen time causes poorer development. “Our study identifies a correlation between two things, and this does not mean that one causes the other,” Madigan said.