Prolonged touch screen device usage is associated with emotional and behavioral problems,but not language delay,in toddlers

BackgroundTouch screen devices are now ubiquitous, and their usage by young children is increasing. However, the effects of these devices on young children are still unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to address the associations of touch screen device exposure with symptomatic emotional and behavioral problems and language development in children between the ages of 18 and 36 months.MethodA total of 161 primary caregivers of children between the ages of 18 and 36 months were recruited from the pediatric ward and outpatient clinic at a medical center in southern Taiwan. All caregivers were asked to fill out the Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1½–5 (CBCL 1½–5) and a questionnaire on basic personal information and touch screen device usage, and they were also interviewed with the Communication and Language Screening Test for Birth to Three Chinese-Speaking Infant-Toddlers (CLST). Independent t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to examine the differences among the categories in the demographic variables and to characterize the touch screen device usage behaviors. Pearson’s correlation was used to analyze the relationship between language delay and the extent of touch screen device exposure. After primary univariate analysis, we used multiple regression models to examine the relationships among the effects of touch screen device usage behaviors on children's emotional and behavioral problems and language development.ResultThe children’s mean age was 25.63 months (SD = 5.35). Children who spent more time on touch screen devices were more likely to have emotional problems (β = .219, p < .010, 95 % CI: .279–1.518), anxious/depressive symptoms (β = .206, p < .050, 95 % CI: .170–1.244), somatic complaints (β = .291, p < .001, 95% CI: .455–1.462), social withdrawal symptoms (β = .194, p < .050, 95 % CI: 0.133–1.150), attention problems (β = .300, p < .001, 95 % CI: .432–1.267), and aggressive behaviors (β = .247, p < .010, 95 % CI: .967–3.983). The effects were not noted on language development (β = −.136, p < .100, 95 % CI: −2.595–.147).ConclusionYoung children who spent more time on touch screen devices were more likely to have emotional problems, anxious/depressive symptoms, somatic complaints, social withdrawal symptoms, attention problems, and aggressive behaviors, but not language delay.     

Changing dominance in mixed profession groups: putting theory into practice

An extended professional identity theory is proposed to enhance interprofessional collaboration. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether comparative feedback on interprofessional interaction can decrease the degree of profession-based dominance and general dominance in mixed profession groups. This observational study comprised a randomized double-blind pretest-posttest control group design with 19 mixed profession groups (10 intervention and nine control groups, each with three dental and three dental hygiene students). All groups received reflective feedback during two consecutive two hour team development meetings. Intervention groups also received comparative feedback. Profession-based dominance concerned the sum of three observation items (conversational turn-taking, dominance and contributing ideas) with a three-point scale: ?1 = dental dominance, 0 = no dominance, +1 = dental hygiene dominance. Polychoric correlations confirmed positive associations with the latent trait and an unidimensional underlying structure. Observation items were internally consistent (α > .70). General dominance concerned the sum of absolute values of observation items with a minimum value of zero (no dominance) and the maximum value of three (strong dominance). A two-way factorial ANOVA was performed. The results revealed a significant interaction effect with regard to general dominance, F(1,17) = 6.630, p = 0.020 and large effect size (partial eta squared = 0.28). Comparative feedback on interprofessional interaction decreases general dominance in mixed profession groups.     

Do reasoning limitations undermine discourse?

Why does discourse so often seem shallow, with people arguing past one another more than with one another? Might contributing causes be individual and logical rather than only dialogical? We consider here whether there exist errors in reasoning that could be particularly damaging in their effects on argumentive discourse. In particular, we examine implications for discourse of two such errors – explanation as a replacement for evidence and neglecting the likelihood of multiple causes contributing to an outcome. In Studies 1 and 2, we show these errors to be prevalent in a cross section of adults, as well as samples of community college students and young adolescents, with minimal age-related improvement. They also occur, although less frequently, among a sample of highly educated adults, and in Study 3, we examine their role in the discourse of college-educated adults. We point finally to evidence that these individual reasoning errors are potentially addressable through education.