Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34002052›Full record

SynthesisNature human behaviour2021

A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use.

Douglas A Parry, Brittany I Davidson, Craig J R Sewall, Jacob T Fisher, Hannah Mieczkowski, Daniel S Quintana

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nature human behaviour, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 205 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
205citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

205 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

145 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Douglas A ParryDepartment of Information Science, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. dougaparry@sun.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6443-3425
Brittany I DavidsonSchool of Management, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9886-9043
Craig J R SewallSchool of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1102-5695
Jacob T FisherCollege of Media, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2968-2557
Hannah MieczkowskiDepartment of Communication, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2479-4509
Daniel S QuintanaNORMENT, Center for Psychosis Research, Oslo University Hospital and University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2876-0004

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is widespread public and academic interest in understanding the uses and effects of digital media. Scholars primarily use self-report measures of the quantity or duration of media use as proxies for more objective measures, but the validity of these self-reports remains unclear. Advancements in data collection techniques have produced a collection of studies indexing both self-reported and log-based measures. To assess the alignment between these measures, we conducted a pre-registered meta-analysis of this research. Based on 106 effect sizes, we found that self-reported media use correlates only moderately with logged measurements, that self-reports were rarely an accurate reflection of logged media use and that measures of problematic media use show an even weaker association with usage logs. These findings raise concerns about the validity of findings relying solely on self-reported measures of media use.

Indexed as

Screen TimeSelf ReportHumansReproducibility of ResultsSocial Media

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.