Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Adolescent Screen Time and Sleep Quality: Predictive Factors and Their Effect on Academic Achievement

A peer-reviewed version of this preprint was published in:
Adolescents 2025, 5(4), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/adolescents5040055

Submitted:

21 August 2025

Posted:

22 August 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Adolescents’ increasing screen time has been linked to poor sleep quality, which may in turn affect academic performance. This study aimed to examine screen time patterns among Jordanian adolescents and assess their associations with sleep quality and academic achievement. A descriptive correlational study was conducted among 477 students aged 12–14 years from four randomly selected schools in northern Jordan. Participants completed the validated Questionnaire for Screen Time of Adolescents (QueST) and the Adolescent Sleep–Wake Scale–Short Version (ASWS-S), while academic performance was assessed using GPA from school records. Results showed that average screen time was 9.13 hours per day. Weekend screen time emerged as a significant negative predictor of sleep quality (β = –0.27, p = .016). Gender and school type were also significant predictors. Adolescents with screen devices in their bedrooms and those with chronic medical conditions reported higher screen time. Although total screen time did not significantly predict academic achievement, it showed a moderate negative correlation with sleep quality (r = –.18, p < .01). These findings suggest that excessive screen use, particularly on weekends, may impair sleep quality among adolescents. Interventions targeting screen habits could help enhance sleep and potentially benefit academic performance.
Keywords: 
adolescents
;  
screen time
;  
sleep quality
;  
academic achievement
;  
predictive factors
;  
media use
Subject: 
Public Health and Healthcare  -   Nursing

1. Background

Screen time has become a growing concern for adolescents due to the widespread availability of digital media. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2025), teens using screens for more than four hours daily are significantly more likely to experience poor sleep routines. Screen time includes the use of smartphones, tablets, televisions, video games, and computers, for both educational and entertainment purposes (Canadian Paediatric Society, 2019; Pandya & Lodha, 2021; Khalil et al., 2020).
In the U.S., adolescents aged 12–13 averaged 7.7 hours of screen use daily during the COVID-19 pandemic, which correlated with higher stress and poorer mental health (Nagata et al., 2022). Similarly, in Jordan, 98% of households own a mobile phone (Department of Statistics/Jordan and ICF, 2019), and many students exceed the recommended two hours of daily screen use (Yousuf et al., 2021). A study of Jordanian students found that 26% watched TV for more than two hours, 70% used electronic gadgets, and 32% used handheld devices (Atoum & Rimawi, 2020).
Despite guidelines from organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (2016) and the Canadian Pediatric Society (2019), only 37% of U.S. youth meet the screen time recommendations (Walsh et al., 2018). Globally, increased screen time has been linked to declining adolescent mental health (Throuvala et al., 2021) and higher depression risk (Liu et al., 2016).
Sleep is another area of concern. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine recommends 8–10 hours of sleep for adolescents (Paruthi et al., 2016), yet CDC (2024) data show that 77% of high school students do not meet this recommendation. Poor sleep has been shown to affect brain development, learning, and executive functioning (Mason et al., 2021; Unsworth & Robison, 2020). Adolescents often experience daytime sleepiness and reduced vigilance, particularly when using screens before bed (National Sleep Foundation, 2019; Musshafen et al., 2021).
Factors such as content, timing, and location of screen use impact sleep quality (Lissak, 2018). Blue light exposure disrupts circadian rhythms, increasing the risk of insomnia (Alam et al., 2024; Guindon et al., 2024). Additionally, high recreational screen use has been associated with lower academic performance (Bravo-Sánchez et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2017).
Screen use patterns are influenced by gender, device access, parental monitoring, and socioeconomic status (Scott et al., 2019; Heshmat et al., 2018; Ozturk & Yalçin, 2021). Boys are more likely to play video games, while girls are more likely to use social media. Lack of screen time rules and having screens in bedrooms are associated with higher usage (Langøy et al., 2019; Atoum & Rimawi, 2020; Tripathi & Mishra, 2019).
Despite existing research primarily from Western populations, there is a significant gap in understanding these relationships within the Jordanian context, where mobile phone ownership is remarkably high. While previous Jordanian studies have explored aspects of screen time, none have comprehensively examined how screen time, sleep quality, and academic performance collectively interact, nor have they identified predictive factors within this specific adolescent population. This study fills this critical gap by being one of the first to investigate these complex relationships in Jordanian adolescents, uniquely identifying weekend screen time as the strongest negative predictor of sleep quality and exploring how school type, gender, and bedroom device access also play significant roles. Crucially, while no direct link was found between total screen time and academic performance, our findings indicate a moderate correlation between screen time and poorer sleep, suggesting a critical indirect pathway influencing academic outcomes

2. Theoretical Framework

This study is guided by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (EST), which posits that human development is an outgrowth of the continually changing interactions between the individual and the surrounding systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The EST perspective provides researchers with a holistic lens to investigate the environmental factors that influence screen time behavior among adolescents, thereby affecting their sleep and academic performance. These layers may include, among others, the microenvironment (family routines, bedroom structure, types of schools available), mesosystem (interaction between home and school), and macroenvironment (societal norms regarding technology usage) (Ragasa et al., 2024). By integrating EST, the study acknowledges that adolescents’ media consumption is not only a private behavior but also influenced by factors such as parental control, access to digital gadgets, and cultural norms that shape the appropriation of such media (Paulus et al., 2023). This framework, therefore, provides a means for attaining a comprehensive understanding of the actual development of screen time behaviors and their impacts on adolescent well-being, with the potential to inform ecologically valid school health intervention approaches (Ragasa et al., 2024).

3. Study Questions

  • What is the average screen time on weekdays and weekends?
  • What types of media screens are commonly used by students?
  • What is the relationship between total screen time and academic performance (GPA) among adolescents?
  • How does total screen time correlate with overall sleep quality, as measured by the Adolescent Sleep–Wake Scale (ASWS)?
  • What is the relationship between academic performance (GPA) and sleep quality in adolescents?
  • What factors predict screen time and sleep quality?

4. Methods

4.1. Design, Setting, and Participants

This descriptive correlational study was conducted in public and private schools located in the northern region of Jordan. The target population consisted of 7th and 8th-grade students aged 12 to 14 years. Four schools were selected using simple random sampling: two public and two private institutions. Students diagnosed with developmental delays, chronic medical illnesses that might affect their sleep quality, or those who did not obtain parental consent were excluded.
Sample size calculation was based on the minimum required total and per-group sample size for a two-tailed ANOVA using G*Power. “To detect an effect of η2p (partial eta-squared) = .04 with 80% power in a one-way between-subjects ANOVA (three groups, alpha = .05), G*Power suggests we need 79 participants in each group (N = 237)”. Typical effect size in psychology is η2p = .04, which equates to Cohen’s d = 0.40. The final sample comprised 477 adolescents

4.2. Procedure

Approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the authors’ institution (XXX). Approval was also received from the Ministry of Education. Informed written consent was obtained from both the students and their guardians.
Following approvals, school principals were contacted, and researchers visited selected schools. Researchers explained the purpose of the study, its benefits, and the procedures involved. Data collection was conducted in classroom settings, ensuring confidentiality and voluntary participation. Students took approximately 20 to 25 minutes to complete the questionnaires.

4.3. Measures

4.3.1. Demographic Data Sheet

A researcher-developed questionnaire collected data on age, gender, school grade, parental marital status, family income, chronic medical conditions, and presence of screens in bedrooms.

4.3.2. Questionnaire for Screen Time of Adolescents (QueST)

Screen time was assessed using the QueST (Knebel et al., 2021), which measures daily screen use across weekdays and weekends in five domains: (1) study/homework, (2) work/internships, (3) video viewing (e.g., movies, news, sports), (4) video gaming, and (5) social media/chat apps. Participants recorded hours and minutes spent on each activity, or zero if not applicable. Total screen time was calculated using the formula:
(Weekdayvolume×5+Weekendvolume×2)÷7(Weekday volume × 5 + Weekend volume × 2) ÷ 7(Weekdayvolume×5+Weekendvolume×2)÷7.
The QueST has strong content validity, with expert-rated clarity (CVI = 94%) and representativeness (CVI = 98%).

4.3.3. Adolescent Sleep-Wake Scale – Short Version (ASWS-S)

Sleep quality was measured using the 10-item ASWS-S (Essner et al., 2015), covering three subscales: Going to Bed (Items 1–3), Falling Asleep/Reinitiating Sleep (Items 4–8), and Returning to Wakefulness (Items 9–10). Items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale, with seven items reverse-scored (1, 3–8). The recall period was adapted from “past month” to “past week” based on Sufrinko et al. (2015). Subscale and total scores were calculated by averaging relevant items, with higher scores indicating better sleep quality.
The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .64–.89 in healthy samples; α = .74–.84 in clinical populations). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .85.

4.3.4. Grade Point Average (GPA)

Students’ academic performance was measured using their GPA from the previous academic semester. GPA was confirmed via school records.

4.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27.0. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic variables, screen time, sleep quality, and GPA. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationships between screen time, academic performance (as measured by GPA), and sleep quality, including subscales of the Adolescent Sleep–Wake Scale (ASWS). Multiple linear regression analyses identified significant predictors of screen time and sleep quality. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

5. Results

5.1. Participant Characteristics

A total of 477 adolescents participated in the study. The mean age of participants was 13.43 (SD=.49) years, with 48.8% (n=233) being female and 51.2%(n=244) male. More than half (52.4% (n=250)) were enrolled in public schools, while 47.6% (n=227) attended private schools. Most participants (93%, n=447) reported living with both parents. The majority, 36.7% (n = 175), had at least one screen device in their bedrooms. Additionally, 14.3% (n = 68) of students reported having chronic medical conditions. The student’s grade point average (GPA) ranges from 55 to 99, with the mean student GPA being 88% (SD = 9.14). Demographic data are presented in Table 1.

5.2. Screen Media Usage

Among the adolescents surveyed (N = 477), mobile phones emerged as the most widely used media device, reported by 82.0% of participants. Usage was slightly higher among males than among females. Television followed closely, with 81.3% of students indicating regular use, showing no notable gender differences. Tablet use was reported by nearly one-third of participants, with usage levels relatively similar across genders. In contrast, laptops and desktop computers were less commonly used, reported by 25.8% and 18.9% of adolescents, respectively (Table 2).

5.3. Screen Time

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for adolescents’ daily screen time (N = 477) across weekdays and weekends, categorized by activity type. On weekdays, adolescents spent the most time watching videos (M = 2.22 hours, SD = 1.42), followed by playing video games (M = 1.57 hours, SD = 1.39) and using social media or chat applications (M = 1.41 hours, SD = 1.22). The least amount of screen time was dedicated to work/internship-related activities (M = 1.01, SD = 1.17).
On weekends, overall screen time increased across all categories. Watching videos was the most time-consuming activity (M = 3.52, SD = 1.69), followed by playing video games (M = 2.72, SD = 2.00) and using social media/chat (M = 2.08, SD = 1.70). Screen time associated with studying and work also increased slightly on weekends (M = 2.04 and M = 1.37, respectively).
The mean total screen time was 8.09 hours per day on weekdays (SD = 2.69) and 11.72 hours on weekends (SD = 3.31), with an overall average of 9.13 hours per day across the week (SD = 2.52). Total screen time was calculated as a weighted average:
Total screen time=(Weekday time×5)+(Weekend time×2)/7
These findings highlight a marked increase in screen use at weekends, particularly for entertainment-related activities.

5.4. Sleep Quality

Table 4 presents descriptive statistics for the Adolescent Sleep Wake Scale (ASWS) subscale and total score among adolescents (N = 477). The Falling Asleep and Reinitiating Sleep subscale (FA/RS) exhibited the highest mean score (M = 4.20, SD = 1.02), indicating relatively better sleep functioning in this domain. In contrast, the Returning to Wakefulness subscale (RTW) had the lowest mean score (M = 3.55, SD = 1.35), suggesting greater difficulty and variability in morning wakefulness. The Going to Bed subscale (GTB) and the Total Sleep Quality Score (ASWSTOT) yielded mean scores of 3.70 (SD = 1.04) and 3.81 (SD = 0.81), respectively, reflecting moderate sleep quality perceptions in those areas. The reported quartiles (25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles) provide further detail on the score distribution, highlighting variability across individuals’ responses.

5.5. The Relationship Between Screen Time, Academic Performance (GPA), and Sleep Quality

Table 4 presents Pearson correlation coefficients examining the relationships between screen time, academic performance (as measured by GPA), and sleep quality, including subscales of the Adolescent Sleep–Wake Scale (ASWS). Total screen time was not significantly correlated with GPA (r = .01, p > .05), indicating no relationship between screen time and academic achievement. However, total screen time showed a significant negative correlation with overall sleep quality (r = –.18, p < .01), as well as with the GTB (Going to Bed; r = –.14, p < .01), FA/RS (Falling Asleep and Reinitiating Sleep; r = –.16, p < .01), and RTW (Returning to Wakefulness; r = –.09, p < .05) subscales.
Weekday screen time was also significantly negatively associated with sleep quality: ASWS total (r = –.15, p < .01), GTB (r = –.12, p < .01), and FA/RS (r = –.13, p < .01), though it was not significantly associated with GPA (r = –.02, p > .05). Weekend screen time similarly showed significant negative correlations with ASWS total (r = –.18, p < .01), GTB (r = –.13, p < .01), FA/RS (r = –.15, p < .01), and RTW (r = –.10, p < .05), while its correlation with GPA was weak and non-significant (r = .07, p > .05).

5.6. Predictors of Sleep Quality and Screen Time

Table 5 summarizes the results of two multiple linear regression models predicting students’ total sleep quality score (ASWSTOT) and total screen time (STTOT). In the first model, which examined predictors of sleep quality, type of school (B = –0.245, t = –3.10, p = .002, 95% CI [–0.400, –0.089]) and gender (B = –0.272, t = –3.62, p < .001, 95% CI [–0.420, –0.124]) were significant negative predictors, indicating lower sleep quality among public school students and females. Weekend screen time was also a significant negative predictor of sleep quality (B = –0.272, t = –2.43, p = .016, 95% CI [–0.056, –0.006]), indicating that increased screen time on weekends is associated with poorer sleep quality. Other predictors, including fathers and mothers’ education levels, weekday screen time, screen media in the bedroom, and the presence of medical conditions, were not statistically significant in predicting sleep quality (all p > .05).
In the second model predicting total screen time (STTOT), type of school (B = –0.498, t = –2.04, p = .042, 95% CI [–0.979, –0.017]), presence of medical conditions (B = –0.846, t = –2.60, p = .010, 95% CI [–1.485, –0.207]), and media devices in the bedroom (B = –0.889, t = –3.69, p < .001, 95% CI [–1.363, –0.415]) were all significant negative predictors. These findings suggest that students attending public schools, those with medical conditions, and those with screen media in their bedrooms report significantly higher screen time. Other variables, including gender and parental education, did not significantly predict screen time (all p > .05).

6. Discussion

This study examined the relationship between screen time, sleep quality, and academic performance among Jordanian adolescents. Results revealed excessive screen use, particularly on weekends, and widespread poor sleep quality. Average screen time exceeded 9 hours on weekdays and 11 hours on weekends, far surpassing the 2-hour daily limit recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (2022). Similar global trends have been reported (Nagata et al., 2022; Yousuf et al., 2021), with mobile phones being the most used devices (Atoum & Rimawi, 2020).
Over two-thirds of students scored above the PSQI cutoff, indicating poor sleep quality, a pattern consistent with previous research linking excessive screen use to disrupted sleep (Throuvala et al., 2021; Lissak, 2018). Blue light exposure, late-night usage, and screen-related awakenings likely contributed to circadian rhythm disturbances and reduced sleep duration (Alam et al., 2024).
Gender and school type were significant predictors of sleep quality. Girls reported worse sleep, aligning with prior findings (Barel & Tzischinsky, 2022). Additionally, private school students showed poorer sleep, possibly due to higher academic demands or increased screen access. Notably, weekend screen time emerged as the strongest predictor of poor sleep, reflecting the impact of unstructured, prolonged use during off-school hours (NSF, 2019; CDC, 2024).
Total screen time was significantly associated with screen presence in bedrooms and with chronic health conditions, supporting earlier evidence on environmental and health-related influences on screen habits (Musshafen et al., 2021; Langøy et al., 2019).
Despite expectations, screen time was not significantly linked to academic performance (GPA), possibly due to the multifaceted nature of academic success, which encompasses variables such as motivation, family support, and school quality (Bravo Sánchez et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2017). This finding aligns with other studies among adolescents and university students, which have found no direct association between screen time and GPA (Negi, 2024; Pradeep et al., 2023).
Although this study did not find a direct significant correlation between total screen time and academic performance (GPA), a key insight emerged: total screen time showed a significant negative correlation with overall sleep quality across all ASWS domains. This strong association between screen time and disrupted sleep due to factors like blue light exposure and cognitive arousal is particularly concerning given that sleep quality itself emerged as a stronger predictor of academic success (Negi, 2024; Pradeep et al., 2023). This suggests a crucial indirect pathway where excessive screen time, especially on weekends, compromises sleep hygiene, which in turn negatively impacts academic outcomes. Therefore, while screen time may not directly depress grades, its significant detriment to sleep quality poses a substantial threat to adolescents’ learning and cognitive functioning.
Applying Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979), these results emphasize that interrelated systems shape adolescents’ screen behaviors. Bedroom screen presence and weak parental monitoring reflect microsystem influences; school type reflects mesosystem factors; and societal norms surrounding media use represent macrosystem influences (Paulus et al., 2023; Ragasa et al., 2024). These findings underscore the need for multifaceted strategies that encompass screen use, sleep hygiene, and academic support across various contexts, including home, school, and policy.

7. Strengths

This study offers notable strengths that enhance confidence in its findings. It utilized a robust sample of 477 adolescents from both public and private schools in Jordan, providing comprehensive insight into this under-researched, non-Western population. Methodological rigor was maintained through the use of validated instruments. Screen time was assessed with the Questionnaire for Screen Time of Adolescents (QueST), known for its strong content validity (CVI = 94% clarity, 98% representativeness). Sleep quality was measured using the Adolescent Sleep-Wake Scale – Short Version (ASWS-S), which demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .85). Furthermore, academic performance was objectively measured using students’ GPA from school records, avoiding reliance on self-report. Limitations
Despite these valuable insights, this study has several limitations. Firstly, its cross-sectional design precludes the establishment of causal relationships between screen time, sleep quality, and academic performance. Future research employing longitudinal designs is essential to elucidate these causal pathways. Secondly, reliance on self-report instruments for screen time and sleep quality may introduce recall bias or social desirability bias; objective measures would provide more precise data in subsequent studies. Thirdly, conducting the research in a single governorate in northern Jordan limits the generalizability of these findings to the broader Jordanian adolescent population. Finally, unmeasured confounders, such as extracurricular activities, diet, or psychosocial stressors, were not accounted for and may have influenced the observed relationships. Nevertheless, this study provides one of the first comprehensive examinations of these complex issues in Jordanian adolescents, offering crucial baseline data and identifying key predictive factors for future, more targeted research and interventions.

8. Conclusions

This study highlights the complex interplay among screen time, sleep quality, and academic performance in Jordanian adolescents, an understudied population where mobile phone ownership is remarkably high. Our findings show that excessive weekend screen use detrimentally impacts sleep quality. While no direct link was found between total screen time and academic performance, sleep quality emerged as a stronger predictor of academic success, suggesting screen time’s negative influence on academics is largely mediated through impaired sleep. Key predictors of screen time included bedroom media devices and existing medical conditions.
These results hold important implications for educators, parents, school nurses, and health professionals. Schools should implement media literacy and sleep education curricula. School nurses can identify at-risk students through health assessments and deliver targeted interventions. Parental involvement is essential, including monitoring media use, co-viewing content, and keeping bedrooms screen-free, to foster healthier routines that can indirectly support better academic outcomes. Future research should employ objective measurements and longitudinal designs to further understand causal pathways and inform effective multi-level interventions.

Funding

No funding was secured for this study.

Ethical Approval Statement

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board at Jordan University of Science and Technology (IRB No. 15/149/2022, Research No. 350/2022, dated 13.06.2022). From the Ministry of Education, Jordan (No. 427/2022, dated 31/7/2022). Informed consent was obtained from parents, and assent was obtained from students.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Deanship of Research at Jordan University of Science and Technology for approving the study, and the adolescents and their teachers who facilitated the process of data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no real or perceived conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alam, M., Abbas, K., Sharf, Y., & Khan, S. (2024). Impacts of blue light exposure from electronic devices on circadian rhythm and sleep disruption in adolescent and young adult students. Chronobiology in Medicine, 6(1), 10-14. [CrossRef]
  2. American Academy of Pediatrics. (2016, November). Media use in school-aged children and adolescents. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/138/5/e20162592/60321/Media-Use-in-School-Aged-Children-and-Adolescents.
  3. American Academy of Sleep Medicine. (2016, April 3). Teen sleep duration health advisory. https://aasm.org/advocacy/position-statements/teen-sleep-duration-health-advisory/.
  4. Atoum, D. & Rimawi, D. (2020). Screen time in children, a survey of school students in Jordan. Jordan Medical Journal, 54(3), 125–129. https://journals.ju.edu.jo/JMJ/article/ view/104408.
  5. Barel, E., & Tzischinsky, O. (2022). The role of sleep patterns from childhood to adolescence in vigilant attention. International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health, 19(21), 14432. [CrossRef]
  6. Bravo-Sánchez, A., Morán-García, J., Abián, P. & Abián-Vicén, J. (2021). Association of the use of the mobile phone with physical fitness and academic performance: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1042. [CrossRef]
  7. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
  8. Canadian Paediatric Society. (2019, June 6). Digital media: Promoting healthy screen use in school-aged children and adolescents. Retrieved March 25, 2022, from https://cps.ca/documents/position/digital-media.
  9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2024, May 14). FastStats: Sleep in high school students. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/data-research/facts-stats/high-school-students-sleep-facts-and-stats.html.
  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2025). Associations between screen time use and health outcomes among U.S. teens. Preventing Chronic Disease, 22, 24–0537. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2025/24_0537.htm.
  11. Department of Statistics/Jordan, & ICF. (2019). Jordan population and family health survey 2017–18. Amman, Jordan, and Rockville, MD: Department of Statistics/Jordan and ICF.
  12. Essner, B., Noel, M., Myrvik, M. & Palermo, T. (2015). Examination of the factor structure of the Adolescent Sleep–Wake Scale (ASWS). Behavioral Sleep Medicine, 13(4), 296–307. [CrossRef]
  13. Guindon, G. E., Murphy, C. A., Milano, M. E., & Seggio, J. A. (2024). Turn off that night light! Light-at-night as a stressor for adolescents. Frontiers In Neuroscience, 18, 1451219. [CrossRef]
  14. Heshmat, R., Qorbani, M., Mozaffarian, N., Djalalinia, S., Sheidaei, A., Motlagh, M. E., Safiri, S., Gohari, K., Ataie-Jafari, A., Ardalan, G., Asayesh, H., Mansourian, M. & Kelishadi, R. (2018). Socioeconomic inequality in screen time frequency in children and adolescents: the weight disorders survey of the CASPIAN IV study. World Journal of Pediatrics, 14(1), 66–76. [CrossRef]
  15. Janssen, X., Martin, A., Hughes, A. R., Hill, C. M., Kotronoulas, G., & Hesketh, K. R. (2020). Associations of screen time, sedentary time and physical activity with sleep in under 5s: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 49, 101226. [CrossRef]
  16. Khalil, S. A., Kamal, H. & Elkholy, H. (2020). The prevalence of problematic internet use among a sample of Egyptian adolescents and its psychiatric comorbidities. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 68(2), 294–300. [CrossRef]
  17. Kim, S. Y., Kim, M. S., Park, B., Kim, J. H. & Choi, H. G. (2017). The associations between internet use time and school performance among Korean adolescents differ according to the purpose of internet use. PLOS ONE, 12(4), e0174878. [CrossRef]
  18. Knebel, M. T. G., da Costa, B. G. G., dos Santos, P. C., de Sousa, A. C. F. C. & Silva, K. S. (2021). The conception, content validation, and test-retest reliability of the Questionnaire for Screen Time of Adolescents (QueST). Journal de Pediatria, 98(2), 175–182. [CrossRef]
  19. Langøy, A., Smith, O. R. F., Wold, B., Samdal, O. & Haug, E. M. (2019). Associations between family structure and young people’s physical activity and screen time behaviors. BMC Public Health, 19(1). [CrossRef]
  20. Lissak, G. (2018). Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children and adolescents: Literature review and case study. Environmental Research, 164, 149–157. [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, M., Wu, L., & Yao, S. (2016). Dose–response association of screen time-based sedentary behaviour in children and adolescents and depression: a meta-analysis of observational studies. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(20), 1252-1258. [CrossRef]
  22. Lok, R., Qian, J., & Chellappa, S. L. (2024). Sex differences in sleep, circadian rhythms, and metabolism: Implications for precision medicine. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 101926. [CrossRef]
  23. Marciano, L. & Camerini, A. (2021). Recommendations on screen time, sleep and physical activity: associations with academic achievement in Swiss adolescents. Public Health, 198, 211–217. [CrossRef]
  24. Mason, G. M., Lokhandwala, S., Riggins, T., & Spencer, R. M. (2021). Sleep and human cognitive development. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 57, 101472. [CrossRef]
  25. McArthur, B. A., Volkova, V., Tomopoulos, S., & Madigan, S. (2022). Global prevalence of meeting screen time guidelines among children 5 years and younger: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(4), 373–383. [CrossRef]
  26. Musshafen, L. A., Tyrone, R. S., Abdelaziz, A., Sims-Gomillia, C. E., Pongetti, L. S., Teng, F., Fletcher, L. M. & Reneker, J. C. (2021). Associations between sleep and academic performance in US adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Medicine, 83, 71–82. [CrossRef]
  27. Nagata, J. M., Cortez, C. A., Cattle, C. J., Ganson, K. T., Iyer, P., Bibbins-Domingo, K. & Baker, F. C. (2022). Screen time use among us adolescents during the covid-19 pandemic. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(1), 94. [CrossRef]
  28. National Sleep Foundation. (2019). Sleep in America Poll 2019. https://www.thensf.org/2019-sleep-in-america-poll-press-release/#:~:text=Washington%2C%20D.C.%20(March%208%2C,the%20price%20the%20following%20day.
  29. Negi, M., & Basavantappa, C. S. (2024). Effect of screen time and physical activity on sleep quality among adolescents. International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, 11(10), 4037–4042. [CrossRef]
  30. Okoronkwo, S., Ugochukwu, D., & Kelechukwu, V. (2020, August). Television and video films and the rhythm of violence: Assessing the negative effect of youths’ exposure to violent television and video films content. New Media and Mass Communication, 92. [CrossRef]
  31. Ozturk Eyimaya, A. & Yalçin Irmak, A. (2021). Relationship between parenting practices and children’s screen time during the covid-19 pandemic in turkey. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 56, 24–29. [CrossRef]
  32. Pandya, A. & Lodha, P. (2021). Social Connectedness, Excessive Screen Time During COVID-19 and Mental Health: A Review of Current Evidence. Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 3. [CrossRef]
  33. Paulus, M. P., Zhao, Y., Potenza, M. N., Aupperle, R. L., Bagot, K. S., & Tapert, S. F. (2023). Screen media activity in youth: A critical review of mental health and neuroscience findings. Journal of Mood & Anxiety Disorders, 3, 100018. [CrossRef]
  34. Pradeep, K. V. S. B., Madhavi, K. P., Prasad, V. D., & Bhavani, G. G. (2023). Impact of screen time on sleep quality, quantity and academic performance among medical students in north coastal Andhra Pradesh-A cross-sectional study. Global Journal of Medicine & Public Health, 12(4),1-9.
  35. Ragasa, S., Sambo, K., & Vivo, C. A. (2024). The screen time ecological model (stem): the development of a conceptual and practice model on screen time for children. Philippine Journal of Allied Health Sciences, 7(2), 77–85. [CrossRef]
  36. Scott, H., Biello, S. M. & Woods, H. C. (2019). Social media use and adolescent sleep patterns: cross-sectional findings from the UK millennium cohort study. BMJ Open, 9(9), e031161. [CrossRef]
  37. Sufrinko, A. M., Valrie, C. R., Lanzo, L., Bond, K. E., Trout, K. L., Ladd, R. E. & Everhart, D. E. (2015). Empirical validation of a short version of the Adolescent Sleep–Wake Scale using a sample of ethnically diverse adolescents from an economically disadvantage community. Sleep Medicine, 16(10), 1204–1206. [CrossRef]
  38. Throuvala, M. A., Griffiths, M. D., Rennoldson, M., & Kuss, D. J. (2021). The role of recreational online activities in school-based screen time sedentary behaviour interventions for adolescents: a systematic and critical literature review. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(4), 1065-1115. [CrossRef]
  39. Tripathi, M. & Mishra, S. K. (2019). Screen time and adiposity among children and adolescents: a systematic review. Journal of Public Health, 28(3), 227–244. [CrossRef]
  40. Unsworth, N., & Robison, M. K. (2020). Working memory capacity and sustained attention: A cognitive-energetic perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(1), 77. [CrossRef]
  41. Walsh, J. J., Barnes, J. D., Cameron, J. D., Goldfield, G. S., Chaput, J. P., Gunnell, K. E., ... & Tremblay, M. S. (2018). Associations between 24 hour movement behaviours and global cognition in US children: A cross-sectional observational study. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2(11), 783–791. [CrossRef]
  42. Yousuf, M. S., Harvey, H. L., Parahoo, S. K., Ziadeh, B. S., Kilani, M. & Al-Kamil, E. (2021). The effects of pediatric primary prevention programs on screen-time and reading habits of children in Jordan. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 15(1). [CrossRef]
Table 1. Characteristics of study participants (N=477).
Table 1. Characteristics of study participants (N=477).
Variables Category n %
Gender Male 244 51.2
Female 233 48.8
School Public school 250 52.4
Private School 227 47.6
Parents marital status married 447 93.7
divorced or widowed 30 6.3
Father’s working status employed 368 77.1
no work or retired 109 22.9
Mother’s working status employed 202 42.3
no work or retired 275 57.7
Fathers’ educational level primary 43 9.0
secondary 95 19.9
tertiary 339 71.1
Mothers’ educational level primary 52 10.9
secondary 119 24.9
tertiary 306 64.2
Having medical or health problems Yes 68 14.3
No 409 85.7
Having the television or other screen media in bedrooms Yes 175 36.7
No 302 63.3
Age * 13.43 (0.496)
GPA * 88.06(9.146)
Family income* 752.36 (315.088)
Note: Mean (SD)*.
Table 2. Distribution of the types of media used by students of different genders. .
Table 2. Distribution of the types of media used by students of different genders. .
Types of media Male (n=244) Female (n=233) Total (n=477)
n % n % N %
Tablets 77 16.1% 72 15.1% 149 31.2%
TV 194 40.7% 194 40.7% 388 81.3%
Mobile 210 44.0% 181 37.9% 391 82.0%
Laptop 62 13.0% 61 12.8% 123 25.8%
Desktop 46 9.6% 44 9.2% 90 18.9%
Note. Percentages and totals are based on respondents. The dichotomy group tabulated at value 1=yes.
Table 3. The average time spent on media during the week and on weekends.
Table 3. The average time spent on media during the week and on weekends.
Screen Time M SD Min Max
Weekdays
Studying 1.89 1.32 0 7
Performing work/internship-related activities 1.01 1.17 0 6
Watching videos 2.22 1.42 0 6
Playing video games 1.57 1.39 0 10
Using social media/ chat applications 1.41 1.22 0 6
Weekends
Studying 2.04 1.59 0 7
Performing work/internship-related activities 1.37 1.52 0 10
Watching videos 3.52 1.69 0 9
Playing video games 2.72 2.00 0 10
Using social media/ chat applications 2.08 1.70 0 7
Total screen time on weekdays 8.090 2.69 2 21
Total screen time on weekends 11.7233 3.31 3 25
Total screen time 9.1283 2.52 2.29 21.57
Note. Total screen time= [[volume on weekdays * 5 + volume on weekend days * 2] / 7).
Table 4. The correlation between screen time and students’ academic performance and sleep quality.
Table 4. The correlation between screen time and students’ academic performance and sleep quality.
Variables GPA ASWSTOT GTB FA/RS RTW
ASWS Total -.02
ST Total .01 -.18** -.14** -.16** -.09*
ST weekdays -.02 -.15** -.12** -.13** -.07
ST weekends .07 -.18** -.13** -.15** -.10*
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Note. Going to Bed Subscale – GTB, Falling Asleep and Reinitiating Sleep Subscale – FA/RS, Returning to Wakefulness Subscale – RTW, ASWS Total Sleep Quality Score - ASWSTOT.
Table 5. Factors predicting sleep quality and screen time.
Table 5. Factors predicting sleep quality and screen time.
Model ASWSTOT* 95.0% CI

 STTOT* 95.0% C I
B t p Lower Bound Uper
Bound		 B t p Lower Bound Lower Bound
Type of School -.245 -3.098 .002 -.400 -.089 -.498 -2.036 .042 -.979 -.017
Gender -.272 -3.616 .000 -.420 -.124 -.169 -.719 .472 -.631 .293
Father’s education -.013 -.374 .709 -.083 .056 .154 1.401 .162 -.062 .370
Mother’s education .037 .986 .324 -.036 .110 .094 .810 .418 -.134 .323
Medical conditions .107 1.023 .307 -.099 .314 -.846 -2.601 .010 -1.485 -.207
Television in bedrooms .145 1.850 .065 -.009 .299 -.889 -3.688 .000 -1.363 -.415
ST weekdays -.030 -1.881 .061 -.061 .001
ST weekends -.272 -2.427 .016 -.056 -.006
*Dependent Variable: ASWS Total Sleep Quality Score – ASWSTOT, Screen Time Total - STTOT.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated

Accessibility

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings