Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The activity patterns of children, especially after-school patterns, are receiving more professional attention.
However, evidence regarding the value of various activities in childrens lives is contradictory. The purpose of this study was to
assess perceptions of discretionary activities, overscheduling, and levels of stress from adolescents perspective.
METHODS: A sample of 882 children, ages 9 to 13, recruited at 9 health education centers in the United States was selected
for this study. Children answered questionnaires using remote, handheld devices. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics
and multivariate logistic regression. The outcomes of interest were activity-based stress and desire for more free time.
RESULTS: The primary predictor for the desire for more free time was hours of screen time (television, computer, video
games): those who reported 3 or more hours were nearly 3 times more likely to desire more free time. Further, children who
chose their own activities experienced more activity-related stress than those who shared decisions with parents. The single
greatest predictor of activity-related stress was the reported number of hours spent on homework. Students who averaged at
least 2 hours on homework per night were nearly twice as likely to report frequent activity-related stress.
CONCLUSION: Parents of school-aged children should assess activity-related stress and the degree to which children perceive
they are busy. Teachers, school counselors, and school administrators should be aware of these perceptions as they are making
decisions regarding school schedules and should teach personal skills such as time management and stress control.
Keywords: children and adolescent health; perceived stress; overscheduling of activities.
Citation: Brown SL, Nobiling BD, Teufel J, Birch DA. Are kids too busy? Early adolescents perceptions of discretionary activities,
overscheduling, and stress. J Sch Health J Sch Health. 2011; 81: 574-580.
Received on February 12, 2010
Accepted on September 2, 2010
a Associate Professor, (slbrown@siu.edu), Southern Illinois University, 475 Clocktower Drive (Mailcode 4632), Carbondale, IL 62901.
bAssistant Professor, (bran80@siu.edu), Salisbury University, 1100 Camden Ave, Salisbury, MD.
574
September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 2011, American School Health Association
METHODS
This study was conducted as part of KidsHealth KidsPoll. The project was a collaborative effort among a
university research team, the Nemours Foundation,
the National Association of Health Education Centers
(NAHEC), and participating NAHEC member, health
education centers.
Subjects
Following institutional review board approval, children aged 9 to 13 years, who were students at schools
attending classes in 9 health education centers across
6 states, were recruited for the study. Prior to each
schools visit to the center, officials at the school
were contacted for permission to administer the survey to students during the visit to the center. If
the school agreed, passive parent permission for the
survey was obtained with each parents permission
for the student to visit the center. As a sample of
convenience, demographic data for the students in
the sample approximated National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) statistics for the same age
group. Students in the group ranged in age from
9 to 13, with an average age of 10.3; 53% were
boys.
Other demographic data were collected at the school
level, rather than from each student. A total of 883
students came from 21 schools. At the school level,
61% were White, 23% Black, 13% Hispanic, 2%
Asian or Pacific Islander, and 1% Native American.
The US Census Bureau Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA) was used to measure locale. Seventeen percent
of schools were in large city centers, 9% midsize city
c Doctoral Candidate, (teufel@siu.edu), Southern Illinois University, 475 Clocktower Drive (Mailcode 4632), Carbondale, IL 62901.
dProfessor, (birchd@ecu.edu), Department of Health Education and Promotion, East Carolina University, 3106 Carol Belk Building, Greenville, NC 27858-4353.
Address correspondence to: Brandye D. Nobiling, Assistant Professor, (bran80@siu.edu), Salisbury University, 1100 Camden Ave, Salisbury, MD.
Journal of School Health September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 2011, American School Health Association
575
Table 1. Relationship Between Research Questions and National Health Education Standards15 (NHES)
Item
Number
1
2
3
Research Question
How many non-school-related activities are children involved in?
Who chooses childrens activities?
What is the average amount of daily screen time (ie, TV, video games,
computer) children engage in?
What is the average time spent doing homework during the school
week?
What are childrens perceptions of the amount of time dedicated to
homework regularly?
Do children wish they had more free time?
Do children feel stressed?
What would children choose to do with more free time?
4
5
6
7
8
NHES
Standard 2.8.4: Analyze how the school and community can impact
health practices and behaviors
Standard 1.8.3: Analyze how environment impacts personal health
Standard 5.8.7: Analyze the outcomes of a health-related decision
RESULTS
Kids Busyness Levels
The vast majority (62%) of students claim that they
choose their own out-of-school activities, followed by
29% who say they use cooperative decisionmaking
with their parents. Only 9% said their parents chose
most of their activities. Older students were more likely
to claim autonomy over their activities.
Reports of screen time were bimodal; about half
reported 2 or fewer hours of screen time, while over
40% reported more than 3 hours. Boys were more
likely to report more than 3 hours. Older students were
also more likely to report 3 or more hours of screen
time. There were no gender differences among those
who chose the activities or the number of activities.
More than three fourths (82%) of participants
claimed to have an hour or less of homework per
night. Ten percent said they have about 2 hours, and
8% reported having 3 or more hours per night. Neither
gender, age, who chose activities, or number of activities was associated with time spent on homework.
Interestingly, most participants either said their
school gave the right amount (39%) or way too
much homework (36%). There were no differences by
gender, number of activities, or who chose activities.
About the same proportion of those who reported <1,
1, and 2 hours of homework thought their schools
gave too much homework (34%, 28%, and 30%),
while those who reported 3+ hours of homework
were much more likely (66%) to say they get way too
much homework.
The great majority of students wished they had a
lot more free time. Boys were more likely to wish
for more free time (66% vs. 54%) (Table 2). When
forced to select only 1 activity in which to engage if
they had more free time, nearly half (45%) said they
would hang out or play with friends. Another fourth
(26%) said sports or other physical activity. Thirteen
percent said their first choice would be family time, and
only 6% chose reading. Ten percent chose none of
these. Boys were more likely to say sports or physical
Age
Total (%)
Boys (%)
Girls (%)
9 (%)
10 (%)
11 (%)
12+ (%)
14
25
22
15
24
14
26
23
13
24
15
23
21
17
24
11
34
22
9
24
15
24
24
13
24
13
21
21
18
27
25
19
17
15
24
9
29
62
10
28
62
6
31
63
14
33
53
8
29
63
7
27
66
3
28
69
20
15
16
7
42
15
14
14
7
50
23
17
19
6
35
21
19
16
9
35
23
17
16
6
38
21
12
18
7
42
9
11
15
3
62
59
23
10
8
59
22
11
8
58
23
10
9
64
21
7
8
56
26
11
7
61
21
11
7
53
25
12
10
DISCUSSION
Results of average screen time reported in this study
are consistent with existing literature. Other studies
have found that children spend an average range
of 13-30 hours per week watching television.15,16
Participants most often recorded that if they had more
free time they would most likely choose to spend it
hanging out with friends. Since the term hanging
out is likely to involve unstructured activities, this
finding supports research indicating that children and
adolescents prefer free play.9,10,13 And although a few
research studies warn that excessive unstructured play
with peers may lead to delinquency,8 spending more
time with others can build interpersonal skills and
foster the development of social health.12
Studies have also linked levels of child busyness
to levels of parents busyness, implying that the
busier parents are, the busier their children tend to
be. Quist posits that if parents are the ones who
are too busy, perhaps the children are registered in
a myriad of organized activities because Mom and
Dad dont have the time in their schedule to spend
with them10 (p. 27). Clearly interventions including
parents are necessary to promote the importance
of spending quality and quantity time with their
children. Quantity time does not have to be structured;
deliberate activities, such as doing chores around the
house, going for a walk, or sitting outside together,
can offer many teaching moments. For quantity time to
Age
Total (%)
Boys (%)
Girls (%)
9 (%)
10 (%)
11 (%)
12+ (%)
11
39
14
36
11
36
13
40
10
44
15
31
11
40
10
39
9
43
13
35
15
43
13
29
8
24
24
44
4
18
17
61
3
16
15
66
4
22
20
54
4
22
13
61
3
17
20
60
4
18
17
61
2
14
17
67
10
26
23
17
24
11
24
23
16
26
7
29
24
18
22
10
33
18
17
22
11
27
23
15
24
10
25
23
18
24
5
17
29
23
26
26
13
6
45
10
32
12
5
39
12
19
15
6
52
8
29
12
11
37
11
28
16
4
43
9
23
15
4
49
9
24
5
4
58
Journal of School Health September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 2011, American School Health Association
Table 4. Odds Ratio (OR) (With 95% CI) for Wish for More Free
Time and Stressed Always or Most of the Time Because
of Too Much to Do
Gender
Girls
Boys
Age (years)
9
10
11
12+
Who chooses activities?
Child
50/50
Parent
Number of activities
0
1
2
3
4 or more
Hours of homework
<1
1
2
3 or more
Hours of screen time
<1
1
2
3 or more
Stressed Always or
Most of the Time
OR (CI)
1.0
1.3 (0.88-1.94)
1.0
1.1 (0.77-1.54)
1.0
1.4 (0.82-2.30)
1.1 (0.68-1.91)
1.5 (0.74-3.01)
1.0
1.1 (0.72-1.79)
1.1 (0.70-1.80)
1.2 (0.66-2.08)
1.0
0.8 (0.53-1.27)
1.1 (0.52-2.36)
1.0
0.6 (0.40-0.90)
1.5 (0.78-2.78)
1.0
1.0 (0.50-2.03)
1.0 (0.51-2.12)
1.7 (0.77-3.90)
1.4 (0.68-2.90)
1.0
1.2 (0.59-2.28)
1.4 (0.73-2.82)
2.1 (1.01-4.23)
2.2 (1.13-4.29)
1.0
1.3 (0.81-2.13)
2.3 (1.07-4.99)
1.1 (0.54-2.34)
1.0
0.9 (0.57-1.32)
1.7 (1.00-3.01)
4.7 (2.41-9.31)
1.0
1.1 (0.59-1.89)
1.7 (0.94-3.06)
2.7 (1.63-4.53)
1.0
1.8 (1.02-3.20)
0.9 (0.48-1.57)
1.9 (1.17-3.01)
REFERENCES
1. Forum of Child and Family Statistics. Americas children: key
national indicators of well-being. 2009. Available at: http://
www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables.asp. Accessed May
19, 2009.
2. Lowry R, Weschler H, Galuska DA, Fulton JE, Kann L. Television viewing and its associations with overweight, sedentary
lifestyle, and insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetables
among US high school students: differences by race, ethnicity,
and gender. J Sch Health. 2002;72(10):413-421.
3. Robinson TM. Does television cause childhood obesity? JAMA.
1998;279(12):959-960.
4. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, Division of Adolescent and School Health.
YRBSS: Youth risk behavior surveillance system. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/index.htm.
Updated April 2, 2009. Accessed May 21, 2009.
5. Lawson RW. How U.S. children and adolescents spend
their time: what it does (and doesnt) tell us about their
development. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001;10(5):160-164.
6. Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Lee SM, Foley JT, Heitzler C, Huhman M. Influence of limit-setting and participation in physical
activity on youth screen time. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):89-96.
7. Hofferth SH, Sandberg JF. How American children spend their
time. J Marriage Fam. 2001;63(2):295-308.
8. Newman PR, Newman BM. Development Through Life: A Psychosocial Approach. 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage
Learning; 2009.
9. Burdette HL, Whitaker RC. Resurrecting free play in young
children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:46-50.
10. Quist D. Whos Playing Around Now? Overscheduled Parents Mean
Overscheduled Kids. IMFC Review. Canada: Institute of Marriage
and Family; 2007. Available at: http://www.imfcanada.org/
article_files/Whos_Playing_Around_Now.pdf. Accessed May
18, 2009.
11. McHale SM, Crouter AC, Tucker CJ. Free-time activities in
middle childhood: links with adjustment in early adolescence.
Child Dev. 2001;72(6):1764-1778.
580
September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 2011, American School Health Association