{"title":"Problematic Digital Technology Use Measures in Children Aged 0 to 6 Years: Scoping Review.","authors":"Špela Selak, Janja Horvat, Mark Žmavc","doi":"10.2196/59869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the interest of accurately assessing the effects of digital technology use in early childhood, researchers and experts have emphasized the need to conceptualize and measure children's digital technology use beyond screen time. Researchers have argued that many patterns of early digital technology use could be problematic, resulting in the emerging need to list and examine their measures.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to review existing empirical literature that is using measures for problematic digital technology use in preschool children with the end goal of identifying a set of reliable and valid measures, predicting negative outcomes for children's health, development, or well-being.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review across the Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases to identify peer-reviewed publications that were published from January 2012 to December 2023, were written in the English language, described an empirical study, and included a measure of problematic digital technology use beyond exposure (ie, screen time) in children aged 0 to 6 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 95 empirical studies, in which 18 composite measures of problematic use and 23 measures of specific problematic use aspects were found. Existing composite measures conceptualize problematic use as either a group of risky behaviors or as a group of symptoms of a presumed underlying disorder, with the latter being more common. Looking at their conceptual background and psychometric properties, existing composite measures fall short of reliably assessing all the crucial aspects of problematic digital technology use in early childhood. Therefore, the benefits and shortcomings of single-aspect problematic digital technology use measures are evaluated and discussed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>On the basis of current research, early exposure to digital technologies, device use before sleep, and solitary device use represent measures that have been consistently associated with negative outcomes for children. In addition, potential measures of problematic use include device use during meals, device use for emotional regulation, device multitasking, and technoference, warranting further research. Public health benefits of defining problematic digital technology use as a group of risky behaviors rather than a group of addiction symptoms are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48616,"journal":{"name":"Jmir Mental Health","volume":"12 ","pages":"e59869"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jmir Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/59869","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: In the interest of accurately assessing the effects of digital technology use in early childhood, researchers and experts have emphasized the need to conceptualize and measure children's digital technology use beyond screen time. Researchers have argued that many patterns of early digital technology use could be problematic, resulting in the emerging need to list and examine their measures.
Objective: We aimed to review existing empirical literature that is using measures for problematic digital technology use in preschool children with the end goal of identifying a set of reliable and valid measures, predicting negative outcomes for children's health, development, or well-being.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review across the Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases to identify peer-reviewed publications that were published from January 2012 to December 2023, were written in the English language, described an empirical study, and included a measure of problematic digital technology use beyond exposure (ie, screen time) in children aged 0 to 6 years.
Results: The search yielded 95 empirical studies, in which 18 composite measures of problematic use and 23 measures of specific problematic use aspects were found. Existing composite measures conceptualize problematic use as either a group of risky behaviors or as a group of symptoms of a presumed underlying disorder, with the latter being more common. Looking at their conceptual background and psychometric properties, existing composite measures fall short of reliably assessing all the crucial aspects of problematic digital technology use in early childhood. Therefore, the benefits and shortcomings of single-aspect problematic digital technology use measures are evaluated and discussed.
Conclusions: On the basis of current research, early exposure to digital technologies, device use before sleep, and solitary device use represent measures that have been consistently associated with negative outcomes for children. In addition, potential measures of problematic use include device use during meals, device use for emotional regulation, device multitasking, and technoference, warranting further research. Public health benefits of defining problematic digital technology use as a group of risky behaviors rather than a group of addiction symptoms are discussed.
期刊介绍:
JMIR Mental Health (JMH, ISSN 2368-7959) is a PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed sister journal of JMIR, the leading eHealth journal (Impact Factor 2016: 5.175).
JMIR Mental Health focusses on digital health and Internet interventions, technologies and electronic innovations (software and hardware) for mental health, addictions, online counselling and behaviour change. This includes formative evaluation and system descriptions, theoretical papers, review papers, viewpoint/vision papers, and rigorous evaluations.