Same category error as always. "Screen time" is meaningless noise. They could be spending eight hours a day in the Kindle app reading classics. A good-faith study would evaluate what the kids are doing, not the tools they're using to do it.

> They could be spending eight hours a day in the Kindle app reading classics

Have you been around kids recently? I think we all know what they're doing on the phone, and it's not The Great Gatsby.

Not even just a category error -- this is blatant malpractice to have this as a headline! The article is talking about reading scores, and this is especially pernicious given the fact that the last couple of years has not been "typical" by any measure; I seem to recall a global pandemic that might have had some influence.

The numbers here are so overdetermined that it will never be possible to do a causal analysis, and jumping to "screen time" is almost outlandishly unjustified.

If they were addicted to their Kindles then why did their reading score drop?