RE S E A R C H AR T I C L E

Are Kids Too Busy? Early Adolescents’Perceptions of Discretionary Activities,Overscheduling, and StressSTEPHEN L. BROWN, PhDa BRANDYE D. NOBILING, PhD, CHESb JAMES TEUFELc DAVID A. BIRCH, PhD, CHESd

ABSTRACTBACKGROUND: The activity patterns of children, especially after-school patterns, are receiving more professional attention.However, evidence regarding the value of various activities in children’s lives is contradictory. The purpose of this study was toassess 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 selectedfor this study. Children answered questionnaires using remote, handheld devices. Data were analyzed using descriptive statisticsand 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, videogames): those who reported 3 or more hours were nearly 3 times more likely to desire more free time. Further, children whochose their own activities experienced more activity-related stress than those who shared decisions with parents. The singlegreatest predictor of activity-related stress was the reported number of hours spent on homework. Students who averaged atleast 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 perceivethey are busy. Teachers, school counselors, and school administrators should be aware of these perceptions as they are makingdecisions 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, 2010Accepted on September 2, 2010

With increasing rates of childhood overweight,more attention has been given to the activity

patterns of children, especially after-school patterns.Studies have shown that increases in televisionviewing and homework among children since the1970s are leading to more sedentary lifestyles.1−3

According to the Youth Risk Behavior Study in 2007,more than a third of adolescents watched television for3 or more hours on an typical school day,4and aboutone fourth played video games or used computersfor nonscholastic purposes 3 or more hours on anaverage school day.4 Television viewing of more than3 to 4 hours a day has been linked to lower schoolperformance.5

A recent study by the Youth Media CampaignLongitudinal Survey (YMCLS) explored the potentialassociations among limit-setting, physical activity, andscreen time among 9-13-year-olds.6 This study found

aAssociate 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.

positive associations among age, male gender, blackrace/ethnicity, low-income, and hours of screen time.Conversely, the study found negative associationsamong physical activity (both free-time and organizedactivities), parental limits on screen time, andlikelihood to exceed 2 hours of screen time eachday.6 Associations found in this study raise questionsregarding the parental role in screen time restrictionand parental control over other daily activities.

Findings like these have prompted questions aboutwhat children’s schedules are really like. In a culturewhere parents are encouraged to value their children’sautonomy,7 are children allowed to be involved in toomany activities? Are parents encouraging too manyactivities? And, in addition to calorie imbalances, arechildren and adolescents experiencing other undesir-able side effects? To date, there has been little researchon children’s perceptions of stress and busyness.

574 • Journal of School Health • September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 • © 2011, American School Health Association

Perhaps the most important study on children’stime was conducted by Hofferth and Sandberg.7,8 Itinvestigated how children under the age of 13 spendtheir time, and how variables such as parents’ level ofeducation, family size, and family dynamics affectedchildren’s school achievement. They categorized timeusage in 4 ways: (a) time spent in school settings;(b) free play versus organized activities; (c) learningactivities outside the classroom; and (d) family activ-ities. Although television viewing time did not affectscores of achievement tests of reading, writing, andmathematics abilities, family time did.7 Children whoreported more family meal time were more proficientidentifying letters and reading words aloud, as well assolving word problems. Family time also affected scoresof the behavioral index, which measures parental per-ceptions of their children’s behavior problems. Thestudy also found that children with employed mothershad less free time for both structured and unstructuredactivities, primarily due to increased time in daycaresettings.7

Compared to teens in East Asia or Europe, Americanteens spend more of their waking hours in discre-tionary activities, 50% versus 25-35% in East Asia and35-45% in Europe.5 Hofferth7 compared Americanchildren’s lives in 1997 to those in 1981, concludingthat children have lost 12% of regular free time, 25%of play activities, and 50% of unstructured activities.Conversely, contemporary children spend 50% moretime involved with structured sports and homework.7

Research regarding the value of structured versusunstructured activity is unclear. Some studies reportmostly positive outcomes from structured activities,while others have shown associations with increasedstress and ‘‘overscheduling’’ conflicts. Similarly, whilea few studies suggest that unstructured (and unsuper-vised) play can lead to delinquency, others argue thatdepriving children of unorganized activities dampenscreativity and decisionmaking.9,10

Social scientists as early as Piaget believed thatunstructured play was an opportunity for vari-ous forms of development, including social, lin-guistic, cognitive, and emotional. Research suggeststhat unstructured play is crucial in providing chil-dren opportunities to acquire resiliency skills.11,12

Wenner13gives 3 propositions to support the needfor free play in childhood: (1) ‘‘Childhood play iscrucial for social, emotional, and cognitive develop-ment. (2) Imaginative and rambunctious ‘free play,’as opposed to games or structured activities, is themost essential type. (3) Kids and animals that do notplay when they are young may grow into anxious,

cDoctoral 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.

socially maladjusted adults’’13 (p. 24). His last pointalludes to the work of psychiatrist Stuart Brown, whointerviewed approximately 6000 individuals regardingtheir childhoods. Brown’s data suggest a clear asso-ciation between the amount of free play as childrenand adjustment and happiness as adults. Lawson5 sug-gests that the best approach for development is likely acombination of structured and unstructured activitiesthat can teach personal and social skills, develop goodhabits, and allow kids to play as an outlet to combatdaily stressors.

This study investigated early adolescents’ percep-tions of the degree of busyness and stress in theirown lives. Eight research questions guided the study.Although not specifically written to measure the per-formance indicators related to the National HealthEducation Standards, 3 items generally addressed 3standards (NHES) for grades 3-5 and 6-8 (Table 1).14

METHODS

This study was conducted as part of KidsHealth Kids-Poll. The project was a collaborative effort among auniversity research team, the Nemours Foundation,the National Association of Health Education Centers(NAHEC), and participating NAHEC member, healtheducation centers.

SubjectsFollowing institutional review board approval, chil-

dren aged 9 to 13 years, who were students at schoolsattending classes in 9 health education centers across6 states, were recruited for the study. Prior to eachschool’s visit to the center, officials at the schoolwere contacted for permission to administer the sur-vey to students during the visit to the center. Ifthe school agreed, passive parent permission for thesurvey was obtained with each parent’s permissionfor the student to visit the center. As a sample ofconvenience, demographic data for the students inthe sample approximated National Center for Edu-cation Statistics (NCES) statistics for the same agegroup. Students in the group ranged in age from9 to 13, with an average age of 10.3; 53% wereboys.

Other demographic data were collected at the schoollevel, rather than from each student. A total of 883students 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 percentof schools were in large city centers, 9% midsize city

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)

NHESResearch QuestionItemNumber

1 How many non-school-related activities are children involved in?2 Who chooses children’s activities?3 What is the average amount of daily screentime (ie, TV, video games,

computer) children engage in?4 What is the average time spent doing homework during the school

week?5 What are children’s perceptions of the amount of time dedicated to

homework regularly?Standard 2.8.4: Analyze how the school and community can impact

health practices and behaviors

htlaehlanosrepstcapmitnemnorivnewohezylanA:3.8.1dradnatS?emiteerferomdahyehthsiwnerdlihcoD67 Do children feel stressed?8 What would children choose to do with more free time? Standard 5.8.7: Analyze the outcomes of a health-related decision

centers, 28% large city fringe, 5% midsize city fringe,1% large towns, 18% small towns, and 9% rural.Average school size was 501.

Instrumentation and ProcedureInstrument items were not on a scale; therefore,

internal reliability was not applicable. To addressface validity of the survey, the research team alongwith experts in the area of child development, schoolhealth education, and stress in children constructed theinstrument. These experts represented both the edu-cation and medical professions. In addition, the finalversion of the instrument was reviewed by schoolprincipals and teachers prior to administration. Theinstrument was piloted with 1 class at 1 participatingcenter. The data collection method, using handhelddevices, had been used at all of the participating cen-ters in previous KidsHealth KidsPoll studies. Before theactual administration of the questionnaire, studentswere allowed to practice with the handheld devices.

The 10-item child-friendly questionnaire included2 demographic items and 8 construct-related items.Students answered each item using handheld datacollection devices. Items on the instrument addressedeach of the study’s 8 research questions, including theamount and type of activities in which participants areinvolved. In this study, child participants were told theword ‘‘activity’’ meant activities that are planned ororganized, such as sports, lessons, teams, clubs, groups,scouts, or tutoring.

Data AnalysisData collected with handheld response devices were

imported into the Statistical Program for the SocialSciences (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). An alpha levelof .05 was established a priori. Descriptive statisticssuch as proportions, central tendency, and variancewere calculated. Inferential statistics included Pearsonproduct correlation and multivariate logistic regressionfor nominal data assessing odds ratios for outcomesbased on predictive variables.

RESULTS

Kids’ Busyness LevelsThe vast majority (62%) of students claim that they

choose their own out-of-school activities, followed by29% who say they use cooperative decisionmakingwith their parents. Only 9% said their parents chosemost of their activities. Older students were more likelyto claim autonomy over their activities.

Reports of screen time were bimodal; about halfreported 2 or fewer hours of screen time, while over40% reported more than 3 hours. Boys were morelikely to report more than 3 hours. Older students werealso more likely to report 3 or more hours of screentime. There were no gender differences among thosewho chose the activities or the number of activities.

More than three fourths (82%) of participantsclaimed to have an hour or less of homework pernight. Ten percent said they have about 2 hours, and8% reported having 3 or more hours per night. Neithergender, age, who chose activities, or number of activ-ities was associated with time spent on homework.

Interestingly, most participants either said theirschool gave the right amount (39%) or way toomuch homework (36%). There were no differences bygender, number of activities, or who chose activities.About the same proportion of those who reported <1,1, and 2 hours of homework thought their schoolsgave too much homework (34%, 28%, and 30%),while those who reported 3+ hours of homeworkwere much more likely (66%) to say they get way toomuch homework.

The great majority of students wished they had alot more free time. Boys were more likely to wishfor more free time (66% vs. 54%) (Table 2). Whenforced to select only 1 activity in which to engage ifthey had more free time, nearly half (45%) said theywould hang out or play with friends. Another fourth(26%) said sports or other physical activity. Thirteenpercent said their first choice would be family time, andonly 6% chose reading. Ten percent chose ‘‘none ofthese.’’ Boys were more likely to say sports or physical

576 • Journal of School Health • September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 • © 2011, American School Health Association

Table 2. Frequencies of Responses by Gender and Age for Items 1-4

Gender Age

Total (%) Boys (%) Girls (%) 9 (%) 10 (%) 11 (%) 12+ (%)

Activities besides school:∗

None 14 14 15 11 15 13 25One 25 26 23 34 24 21 19Two 22 23 21 22 24 21 17Three 15 13 17 9 13 18 15Four or more 24 24 24 24 24 27 24Who chooses activities?∗

My parents/guardians 9 10 6 14 8 7 3We both choose 29 28 31 33 29 27 28I choose most activities 62 62 63 53 63 66 69How many hours of screen

time on most school days?∗,†

Less than 1 hour 20 15 23 21 23 21 91 hour 15 14 17 19 17 12 112 hours 16 14 19 16 16 18 153 hours 7 7 6 9 6 7 33 or more hours 42 50 35 35 38 42 62Hours of homework on school days:Less than 1 hour 59 59 58 64 56 61 531 hour 23 22 23 21 26 21 252 hours 10 11 10 7 11 11 123 or more hours 8 8 9 8 7 7 10

∗χ2 tests statistically significant for age (p < .05); N = 882.†χ2 tests statistically significant for gender (p < .05).

activity (32% vs. 19%), whereas girls were more apt toselect time with friends (52% vs. 39%). Older studentswere also more likely to name time with friends (9 =37%, 10 = 43%, 11 = 49%, 12+ = 58%) (Table 3).

To statistically control for intercorrelation amongvariables, odds ratios were calculated using multivari-ate logistic regression. The outcomes of interest wereactivity-based stress and desire for more free time.When analyzed together, the primary predictor fordesire for more free time was hours of screen time.Those who reported 3 or more hours of screen timeper day were nearly 3 times more likely to desire morefree time than those who reported 2 or fewer hours ofscreen time.

When analyzed with the effect of the other vari-ables, participants who said they cooperate with theirparents in choosing activities were less likely to befrequently ‘‘stressed about all they do’’ than thosewho either chose their own activities or whose parentschose most of their activities. Further, having moreactivities, particularly 3 or more, doubled the likeli-hood that children will say they are stressed by all theydo. Excessive screen time also doubled the likelihood offrequent stress. The single greatest predictor of activity-related stress was the reported number of hours spenton homework. Students who said they average about2 hours of homework per night were nearly twice aslikely to report frequent activity-related stress. Thosewho said they do 3 or more hours per night werealmost 5 times as likely to report this stress (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

Results of average screen time reported in this studyare consistent with existing literature. Other studieshave found that children spend an average rangeof 13-30 hours per week watching television.15,16

Participants most often recorded that if they had morefree time they would most likely choose to spend ithanging out with friends. Since the term ‘‘hangingout’’ is likely to involve unstructured activities, thisfinding supports research indicating that children andadolescents prefer free play.9,10,13 And although a fewresearch studies warn that excessive unstructured playwith peers may lead to delinquency,8 spending moretime with others can build interpersonal skills andfoster the development of social health.12

Studies have also linked levels of child busynessto levels of parents’ busyness, implying that thebusier parents are, the busier their children tend tobe. Quist posits that ‘‘if parents are the ones whoare too busy, perhaps the children are registered ina myriad of organized activities because Mom andDad don’t have the time in their schedule to spendwith them’’10 (p. 27). Clearly interventions includingparents are necessary to promote the importanceof spending quality and quantity time with theirchildren. Quantity time does not have to be structured;deliberate activities, such as doing chores around thehouse, going for a walk, or sitting outside together,can offer many teaching moments. For quantity time to

Journal of School Health • September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 • © 2011, American School Health Association • 577

Table 3. Frequencies of Responses by Gender and Age for Items 5-8

Gender Age

Total (%) Boys (%) Girls (%) 9 (%) 10 (%) 11 (%) 12+ (%)

Do you think school gives you:∗Somewhat or way too little homework 11 11 10 11 9 15 8About right amount of homework 39 36 44 40 43 43 24Somewhat too much homework 14 13 15 10 13 13 24Way too much homework 36 40 31 39 35 29 44Which matches your feelings:†

Wish had a little or a lot less free time 4 3 4 4 3 4 2Feel have the right amount of free time 18 16 22 22 17 18 14Wish had a little more free time 17 15 20 13 20 17 17Wish had a lot more free time 61 66 54 61 60 61 67How often do you feel stressed?Never 10 11 7 10 11 10 5Once in a while 26 24 29 33 27 25 17Some of the time 23 23 24 18 23 23 29Most of the time 17 16 18 17 15 18 23Always 24 26 22 22 24 24 26What would you do with more time?∗,†

Play sports/physical activity 26 32 19 29 28 23 24Spend time with family 13 12 15 12 16 15 5Read 6 5 6 11 4 4 4Hang out/play with friends 45 39 52 37 43 49 58None of these 10 12 8 11 9 9

∗χ2 tests statistically significant for age (p < .05); N = 882.†χ2 tests statistically significant for gender (p < .05).

occur, parents and children alike need to ‘‘unschedule’’themselves5 (p. 27).

Future studies should explore children’s perceptionsof their parents’ busyness. Recent polling data17,18

have shown that many parents (especially middle-class parents) have become increasingly aware andconcerned about these trends, yet feel powerless tomake changes and stem the tide. A Search Institutepoll found that 41% of parents said their ‘‘childbeing overscheduled in so many activities’’ madeparenting difficult19 (p. 9). School and communityofficials can also add to the problem of overscheduledchildren by promoting numerous extracurricularactivities to children without considering the possibleconsequences these activities may have on the familyunit.

New initiatives, such as Family Time First and Fam-ily Time IN, community action initiatives developedby Doherty20 and colleagues with Eden Prairie andSoutheast Minnesota community members, respec-tively, have been developed to teach families how toincrease and prioritize family time. These community-organizing approaches, though relatively new, expectto strengthen the family by trying to prevent familyoverscheduling and hyperactivity.20

Family mealtime has also been receiving more focusas a research topic. Controlling for variables such asincome, family structure, and social class, frequency offamily mealtime is positively associated with childhoodwell-being.21,22 Unfortunately there has been a declinein the proportion of married-couple households who

eat dinner together.23 One study showed a decreasefrom 50% in 1977 to 34% in 1999.7 Family structureand age of children also influence family mealtime. Forinstance, families where mothers are employed16 andfamilies whose children are older23 spend less time eat-ing as a family. Investigating how societal family timetrends are filtered through cultural influences mayalso deserve further exploration. For example, Whitefamilies spend less time eating together than Black andHispanic families, who in turn eat together less thanAsian families.22All of these researches suggest thatthe decline in family mealtime due to busier sched-ules of children and parents may have implications forchildren and parents alike.

These societal changes also show up in other parent-child time interactions. For instance, children in malebreadwinner-female homemaker families read morethan children in any other types of families. Theresearchers concluded that the differences were largelypredicted by the amount of time the parent hadavailable.7 Interestingly, the study found no significantassociation between homework during the elemen-tary grades and academic achievement, meaning theamount of homework given by elementary schoolteachers predicts nothing in terms of children’s aca-demic achievement. However, there was a significantassociation with the amount of time spent readingoutside the classroom. All these perhaps suggest thateducators and parents should work together to ensurethat more homework time is devoted to reading athome.

578 • 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 FreeTime’’ and Stressed ‘‘Always’’ or ‘‘Most of the Time’’ Becauseof Too Much to Do†

Wish for MoreFree Time

Stressed ‘‘Always’’ or‘‘Most of the Time’’

OR (CI) OR (CI)

GenderGirls 1.0 1.0Boys 1.3∗ (0.88-1.94) 1.1 (0.77-1.54)

Age (years)9 1.0 1.010 1.4 (0.82-2.30) 1.1 (0.72-1.79)11 1.1 (0.68-1.91) 1.1 (0.70-1.80)12+ 1.5 (0.74-3.01) 1.2 (0.66-2.08)

Who chooses activities?Child 1.0 1.050/50 0.8 (0.53-1.27) 0.6∗ (0.40-0.90)Parent 1.1 (0.52-2.36) 1.5 (0.78-2.78)

Number of activities0 1.0 1.01 1.0 (0.50-2.03) 1.2 (0.59-2.28)2 1.0 (0.51-2.12) 1.4 (0.73-2.82)3 1.7 (0.77-3.90) 2.1∗ (1.01-4.23)4 or more 1.4 (0.68-2.90) 2.2∗ (1.13-4.29)

Hours of homework<1 1.0 1.01 1.3 (0.81-2.13) 0.9 (0.57-1.32)2 2.3∗ (1.07-4.99) 1.7∗ (1.00-3.01)3 or more 1.1 (0.54-2.34) 4.7∗ (2.41-9.31)

Hours of screen time<1 1.0 1.01 1.1 (0.59-1.89) 1.8∗ (1.02-3.20)2 1.7 (0.94-3.06) 0.9 (0.48-1.57)3 or more 2.7∗ (1.63-4.53) 1.9∗ (1.17-3.01)

CI, confidence interval.∗p < .05.† OR N = 882.

In this study, the relationship between perceivedlevel of stress and the desire for more free time wasbimodal. More specific studies on the relationshipbetween hours of screen time and perceived level ofstress could test whether our findings were anomaliesor in fact peculiar phenomenon deserving of furtherinvestigation.

LimitationsThis study did not look at family dynamics; doing

so may provide additional insight into the issue ofchildren’s perceived busyness levels. Variables suchas culture, head of household, parental employment,and parental education levels may also allow a deeper,more thorough understanding of children’s lives.4

Although this study used non-random sampling,sample demographics parallel those from the NationalCenter for Educational Statistics (NCES).24 NCES ‘‘isthe primary federal entity for collecting and analyzingdata related to education in the U.S. and othernations.’’24

IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOLS

School health educators must be sensitive toand aware of students’ commitments outside of theclassroom. Teachers must appreciate the many hatschildren must wear on a regular basis. For example, a10-year-old girl who is a full-time student, takes danceclasses 3 days a week, is involved in Girl Scouts, singsin a church choir, and is involved in intramural sports,may not perform as consistently on standardized testsdue to external variables that may affect her day-to-day health. Further, middle and high school teachersmust be sensitive to the fact that their students arejuggling 6 to 7 academic subjects. And because mostteachers do not coordinate their assignments, studentsmay have little homework some weeks and hoursa night other weeks. This homework pattern is ontop of the normal challenges puberty brings. Manyhigh school students are also busy with part-time jobs,sports teams, and romantic relationships.

School health instruction should promote the devel-opment of skills specific to decisionmaking, goal set-ting, and time management. Health education teacherscan address these skills through instructional activitiesand assessment products based on decision-makinginventories, responses to decision-making scenarios,and goal setting and time management scenarios.Schools, parents, and other stakeholders can worktogether to develop policies related to the amount oftime spent on homework and other extracurricularschool activities. Such initiatives could meet NHESaddressed in this study. Schools and their respectivecommunities can impact health practices and behav-iors by affecting children’s perceptions of the amountof time spent on homework regularly, and influencinghow environment impacts students’ personal health(Standards 2.8.4 and 1.8.3, respectively).14

Existing literature related to busyness among bothchildren and their parents indicates the importanceof parent and family involvement in school healtheducation. Birch25has identified involvement in deci-sionmaking, health education programs designed forparents and family members, and at-home learningactivities as 3 types of parent and family involvement.In addition, parents and other family members couldbe involved in the planning, implementation, and eval-uation of after-school programs. These programs couldserve as another forum for addressing youth busynessand other stressors related to hectic lifestyles. It isimportant to note that research suggests that participa-tion in after-school programs is associated with highertest scores and academic achievement, especially forlow-income children.26,27

In addition to the above-mentioned skills, childrenand parents may benefit from instruction in stressmanagement and coping. Acquisition of these skills,through lessons on stress appraisal and social support,

Journal of School Health • September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 • © 2011, American School Health Association • 579

for example, may allow students to analyze outcomesof health-related decisions (NHES, 5.8.7).14

Human Subjects Approval StatementThis study was approved by the institutional review

board at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

REFERENCES

1. Forum of Child and Family Statistics. America’s children: keynational indicators of well-being. 2009. Available at: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables.asp. Accessed May19, 2009.

2. Lowry R, Weschler H, Galuska DA, Fulton JE, Kann L. Televi-sion viewing and its associations with overweight, sedentarylifestyle, and insufficient consumption of fruits and vegetablesamong 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 HealthPromotion, Division of Adolescent and School Health.YRBSS: Youth risk behavior surveillance system. Avail-able 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 spendtheir time: what it does (and doesn’t) tell us about theirdevelopment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001;10(5):160-164.

6. Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Lee SM, Foley JT, Heitzler C, Huh-man M. Influence of limit-setting and participation in physicalactivity on youth screen time. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):89-96.

7. Hofferth SH, Sandberg JF. How American children spend theirtime. J Marriage Fam. 2001;63(2):295-308.

8. Newman PR, Newman BM. Development Through Life: A Psy-chosocial Approach. 10th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth CengageLearning; 2009.

9. Burdette HL, Whitaker RC. Resurrecting free play in youngchildren. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159:46-50.

10. Quist D. Who’s Playing Around Now? Overscheduled Parents MeanOverscheduled Kids. IMFC Review. Canada: Institute of Marriageand Family; 2007. Available at: http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Who’s_Playing_Around_Now.pdf. Accessed May18, 2009.

11. McHale SM, Crouter AC, Tucker CJ. Free-time activities inmiddle childhood: links with adjustment in early adolescence.Child Dev. 2001;72(6):1764-1778.

12. Ginsburg KR. The importance of play in promoting healthychild development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds.Pediatrics. 2007;119(1):182-191.

13. Wenner M. The serious need for play. Sci Am Mind.2009;20(1):22-29.

14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NationalHealth Education Standards. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/SHER/standards/index.htm. Updated October15, 2007. Accessed December 5, 2009.

15. Bianchi SM, Robinson J. What did you do today? Children’suse of time, family composition, and the acquisition of socialcapital. J Marriage Fam. 1997;59(2):332-344.

16. Medrich EA, Roizen J, Rubin V, Buckley S. The Serious Businessof Growing Up: A Study of Children’s Lives Outside School. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press; 1982.

17. Anderssen E, McIlroy A. Quebec distinct in nursery too,poll finds. The Globe and Mail. 2004. Available at:www.theglobeandmail.com. Accessed May 19, 2009.

18. Center for the New American Dream. What do kids reallywant that money can’t buy? 2003. Available at: http://www.newdream.org/publications/bookrelease.php. Accessed May21, 2009.

19. Roehlkepartain EC, Scales PC, Roehlkepartain JL, Gallo C,Rude SP. Building strong families: highlights from a pre-liminary survey from YMCA of the USA and Search Insti-tute on what parents need to succeed. 2002. Available at:http://www.abundantassets.org/pdfs/BSF-Highlights.pdf. Ac-cessed May 21, 2009.

20. Anderson JR, Doherty WJ. Democratic community initiatives:the case of overscheduled children. Fam Relat.2005;54:654-665.

21. Neumark-Sztainer D, Hannan PJ, Story M, Croll J, Perry C.Family meal patterns: associations with sociodemographiccharacteristics and improved dietary intake among adolescents.J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103(3):317-322.

22. Eisenberg ME, Neumark-Sztainer D, Feldman S. Does TVviewing during family meals make a difference in adolescentsubstance use? Prev Med. 2009;48(6):585-587.

23. Putnam R. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of AmericanCommunity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster; 2000.

24. National Center for Education Statistics. State profiles: Illinois.2006. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp. Accessed October 21, 2009.

25. Birch DA. Step by Step to Involving Parents in Health Education.Santa Cruz, CA: ETR Associates; 1996.

26. Miller BM. The promise of after-school programs. EducLeadersh. 2001;58(7):6-12.

27. Posner JK, Lowe Vandell D. Low-income children’s after-school care: are there beneficial effects of after-schoolprograms? Child Dev. 1999;65:440-456.

580 • Journal of School Health • September 2011, Vol. 81, No. 9 • © 2011, American School Health Association