8000mark

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This point is actually acknowledged in the study findings under "Strengths and Limitations":

A limitation is that the information we collected did not allow us to separate educational screen time from other types of screen time. Doing so may have helped us in examining the association between screen time and child development while considering both positive and negative aspects of screen time.

The original data used in the study did not allow this differentiation but these findings can be used as a starting point for further research.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I do not understand the amount of uninformed objections to the presented results in a number of comments here ... you can't just discount the results of a peer-reviewed study with some generic knee-jerk interjection off the top of your head. Read the original article here. It details which covariates were considered and how they were taken into account. Income bracket, educational background, gender, .... all this shit is not new to researchers.

Don't get me wrong: JAMA Pediatrics being a reputable journal shouldn't lull you into complacency, but JFC, just because you don't agree with the findings of a study doesn't mean you have to dismiss it completely on first glance.

view more: ‹ prev next ›