Interestingly... I've been searching for Sigman A on pubmed. He has contributed to no papers that are on there.
That could mean one of three things:
- That he's listed under another name and I'm not searching correctly (highly possible)
- That his scientific paper is not listed on pubmed.
- That he has done NO randomized controlled trials that have been properly peer reviewed, meaning that I am far more reluctant to believe his "recommendations" have any basis in fact.
Personally, given that he's the psychologist who stated that excessive TV viewing could cause autism, I'd be carrying a very large pinch of salt around with me if I ever met him...
On pubmed there are quite a few papers listed regarding television viewing and young children. You can only see the abstract on there, so you can't fully assess how the research was done or how its been received in the community, but it's a good starting point.
From a quick scan down, most seem to be looking into possible link between obesity or diabetes and television viewings. That feels logical to me - after all if you're sat in front of the TV all day and excluding other activities, then you're not being very active.
There's a big chunk looking at the effects of violent TV (and video game) viewing on children. I.e. lack of age appropriate viewing, by the sound of it.
There are a few studies looking at attention spans of children, particularly once they reach teenagers, correlated to how much TV they viewed as youngsters. That sounds interesting and I'd like to look more into that study - does anyone know if it's published in full anywhere?
Anyway, the point of this very long winded post is to point out that just because something is a "study" does not mean it's good science. We could call this random chat here on mumsnet a "study" and publish our "results" - it would be fairly meaningless to all concerned. For it to be good science it needs to be a proper randomized trial, with a decently large set of data (i.e. lots of test subjects if you want the results to apply across the whole population, not just a handful) and properly peer reviewed so other scientists can put their hand up and say "oi, you cocked up your method totally there..."