Eun-Young Lee1, Kylie D Hesketh2, Ryan E Rhodes3, Christina M Rinaldi4, John C Spence1, Valerie Carson5. 1. Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H9, Canada. 2. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia. 3. School of Exercise Science, Physical and Health Education, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada. 4. Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2G5, Canada. 5. Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2H9, Canada. vlcarson@ualberta.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guided by the Socialization Model of Child Behavior (SMCB), this cross-sectional study examined direct and indirect associations of parental cognitions and behavior, the home and neighborhood environment, and toddlers' personal attributes with toddlers' physical activity and screen time. METHODS: Participants included 193 toddlers (1.6 ± 0.2 years) from the Parents' Role in Establishing healthy Physical activity and Sedentary behavior habits (PREPS) project. Toddlers' screen time and personal attributes, physical activity- or screen time-specific parental cognitions and behaviors, and the home and neighborhood environment were measured via parental-report using the PREPS questionnaire. Accelerometry-measured physical activity was available in 123 toddlers. Bayesian estimation in structural equation modeling (SEM) using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm was performed to test an SMCB hypothesized model. Covariates included toddlers' age, sex, race/ethnicity, main type of childcare, and family household income. RESULTS: In the SMCB hypothesized screen time model, higher parental barrier self-efficacy for limiting toddlers' screen time was associated with higher parental screen time limiting practices (β = 0.451), while higher parental negative outcome expectations for limiting toddlers' screen time was associated with lower parental screen time limiting practices (β = - 0.147). In turn, higher parental screen time limiting practices was associated with lower screen time among toddlers (β = - 0.179). Parental modeling of higher screen time was associated with higher screen time among toddlers directly (β = 0.212) and indirectly through the home environment. Specifically, higher screen time among parents was associated with having at least one electronic device in toddlers' bedrooms (β = 0.146) and, in turn, having electronics in the bedroom, compared to none, was associated with higher screen time among toddlers (β = 0.250). Neighborhood safety was not associated with toddlers' screen time in the SEM analysis. No significant correlations were observed between the SMCB variables and toddlers' physical activity; thus, no further analyses were performed for physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and their interactions with the home environment may play an important role in shaping toddlers' screen time. Findings can inform family-based interventions aiming to minimize toddlers' screen time. Future research is needed to identify correlates of toddlers' physical activity.
BACKGROUND: Guided by the Socialization Model of Child Behavior (SMCB), this cross-sectional study examined direct and indirect associations of parental cognitions and behavior, the home and neighborhood environment, and toddlers' personal attributes with toddlers' physical activity and screen time. METHODS:Participants included 193 toddlers (1.6 ± 0.2 years) from the Parents' Role in Establishing healthy Physical activity and Sedentary behavior habits (PREPS) project. Toddlers' screen time and personal attributes, physical activity- or screen time-specific parental cognitions and behaviors, and the home and neighborhood environment were measured via parental-report using the PREPS questionnaire. Accelerometry-measured physical activity was available in 123 toddlers. Bayesian estimation in structural equation modeling (SEM) using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm was performed to test an SMCB hypothesized model. Covariates included toddlers' age, sex, race/ethnicity, main type of childcare, and family household income. RESULTS: In the SMCB hypothesized screen time model, higher parental barrier self-efficacy for limiting toddlers' screen time was associated with higher parental screen time limiting practices (β = 0.451), while higher parental negative outcome expectations for limiting toddlers' screen time was associated with lower parental screen time limiting practices (β = - 0.147). In turn, higher parental screen time limiting practices was associated with lower screen time among toddlers (β = - 0.179). Parental modeling of higher screen time was associated with higher screen time among toddlers directly (β = 0.212) and indirectly through the home environment. Specifically, higher screen time among parents was associated with having at least one electronic device in toddlers' bedrooms (β = 0.146) and, in turn, having electronics in the bedroom, compared to none, was associated with higher screen time among toddlers (β = 0.250). Neighborhood safety was not associated with toddlers' screen time in the SEM analysis. No significant correlations were observed between the SMCB variables and toddlers' physical activity; thus, no further analyses were performed for physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and their interactions with the home environment may play an important role in shaping toddlers' screen time. Findings can inform family-based interventions aiming to minimize toddlers' screen time. Future research is needed to identify correlates of toddlers' physical activity.
Entities:
Keywords:
Barrier self-efficacy; Bayesian theorem; Outcome expectations; Parental modeling; Screen time limits; Socialization model of child behavior
Authors: Homan Lee; Katherine A Tamminen; Alexander M Clark; Linda Slater; John C Spence; Nicholas L Holt Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Meena Chandra; Bin Jalaludin; Susan Woolfenden; Joseph Descallar; Laura Nicholls; Cheryl Dissanayake; Katrina Williams; Elisabeth Murphy; Amelia Walter; John Eastwood; Valsamma Eapen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Adam D Walsh; David Crawford; Adrian J Cameron; Karen J Campbell; Kylie D Hesketh Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Elizabeth B Miller; Caitlin F Canfield; Helena Wippick; Daniel S Shaw; Pamela A Morris; Alan L Mendelsohn Journal: Infant Behav Dev Date: 2022-03-07
Authors: Soyang Kwon; Patricia Zavos; Katherine Nickele; Albert Sugianto; Mark V Albert Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-21 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Borja Del Pozo-Cruz; Francisco Perales; Phil Parker; Chris Lonsdale; Michael Noetel; Kylie D Hesketh; Taren Sanders Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Verónica Cabanas-Sánchez; Laura García-Cervantes; Laura Esteban-Gonzalo; María José Girela-Rejón; José Castro-Piñero; Óscar L Veiga Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 7.179