> Your "better" study is not an experiment Strictly speaking, the discussed research of toddlers using touchscreens is not an experiment also. In experimental

> Your "better" study is not an experiment Strictly speaking, the discussed research of toddlers using touchscreens is not an experiment also. In experimental setup researcher must control independant variable (touchscreen use). For this research it would mean to get a group of toddlers, split them randomly into two groups, give touchscreens to one group and some "placebo" to other. Researchers didn't do that, they split toddlers into two groups on the ground of the existing touchscreen use. So what they did is called a "correlational research", not an "experiment". Correlation doesn't allow to speak about casuality. Maybe children ability to a visual search drive them to use touchscreens. Maybe touchscreens teach them to search. Maybe some other factor (like parenting style, or family income) teach them to love touchscreens and to effectively search for visual stimuli. To be frank, I do not like this reseach much. It is correlational reseach, and there were no attempts to exclude interfering variables: if toddler used touchscreen more, than he/she would be better at tasks on a screen, wouldn't he/she?