Search

This paper discusses findings from online surveys completed by parents of 0–3-year-old children in Norway, Portugal and Japan concerning their young children's use of touchscreen technology. The study investigated parental practices, views and perspectives related to children's digital practices and explored these in relation to wider cultural discourses around early childhood in the participant countries. The study adopted Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory to inform the questionnaire and interpretative data analysis of how parents' views and experiences are influenced by a wide range of social, cultural and personal factors. The findings demonstrate some coherence between beliefs among parents regarding very young children's use of touchscreen technologies and their place in the children's home lives. Quantitative and qualitative results highlight that the respondents from all countries expressed the need for further guidance regarding technology use, and better communication with early education and care centres. The study findings are discussed in relation to the reported uses of touchscreen technologies in the three different cultural contexts, parents' views on the benefits and/or disadvantages of children's touchscreen technology use, and the potential influences of dominant cultural discourses on parents' perceptions, views and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To empirically test the hypothesis that the 10 roles on the Revised Role Checklist are represented in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health participation areas. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Subjects: Investigators from Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States recruited a total of 295 adults from the general population. There were 103 (34.9%) male and 191 (64.7%) female participants with one participant not indicating gender. The age distribution of participants was from <25 (n = 68) to 75+ with a mode of 25–34 years. Main measure: The Revised Role Checklist Part 1 was used to assess perceived incumbency in 10 roles. In addition, subjects were asked to provide role examples. Results: Of the 7087 examples provided by participants, 6578 (92.8%) fit the original hypothesis that the roles in the Revised Role Checklist were covered in participation areas. Fit was determined when the role example was either named in the associated International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health participation area or when the criteria of: “does this example conceivably fit in the respective area as ‘a person’s involvement in life situations’ fit relative to each role.” Slight modification of the scope of three roles of the original hypothesis resulted in a 97.6% match. Conclusion: The roles in the Revised Role Checklist are well represented in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health categories of participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]