Parental screentime limits and child computer and information literacy and computational thinking: a multilevel analysis of 2023 ICILS data

Background Adolescents’ digital skill development is shaped not only by school environments but also by parental regulation of technology use. While Parental Mediation Theory distinguishes between restrictive and enabling strategies, empirical research has rarely differentiated between forms of restrictive mediation, particularly the distinction between strict (no exceptions) and flexible (homework-permitted) screen-time limits. Moreover, existing studies often rely on self-reports for gauging student achievement, lack comprehensive controls, or overlook how the flexibility of rules may matter. This study examines how different forms of parental screen-time limits are associated with Grade 8 students’ computer and information literacy (CIL) and computational thinking (CT), and whether these associations vary by socioeconomic status. Methods We analyze data from the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) 2023 using three-level linear models (students nested within schools within countries). The analytic samples include 96,455 students (CIL; 4,609 schools; 29 countries) and 60,223 students (CT; 2,722 schools; 19 countries). Outcomes are CIL and CT plausible values. Key predictors distinguish strict and flexible parental screen-time limits (reference: no limits). Models adjust for gender, socioeconomic status (SES), immigration status, computer experience, ICT self-efficacy, and internet access, with covariates group-mean centered. Cross-level interactions test whether SES moderates associations between parental rules and outcomes. Results Within schools, strict screen-time limits are negatively associated with both outcomes (CIL: B = -14.94, p < .001; CT: B = -17.31, p < .001), whereas flexible limits are positively associated with performance, particularly for CT (CIL: B = 2.17, p < .001; CT: B = 8.34, p < .001). Similarly, at the between-school level, strict screen-time limits are negatively associated with both outcomes (CIL: B = -48.12, p < .001; CT: B = -47.22, p < .001), whereas flexible limits are positively associated with performance, particularly for CT (CIL: B = 9.74, p < .05; CT: B = 33.67, p < .001). Interaction models indicate no statistically significant moderation by SES for CIL. For CT, however, the positive interaction between flexible parental limits and SES (B = 3.82, p < .01) suggests that the association between flexible regulation and CT is stronger among higher-SES students, consistent with cumulative advantage. Conclusions Not all restrictive parental strategies operate equivalently. While strict limitations appear to constrain opportunities for digital skill development, flexible rules that permit educational use are associated with higher performance, particularly among socioeconomically advantaged students for computational thinking. These findings extend Parental Mediation Theory by demonstrating that the structure and flexibility of rules—rather than restriction per se—are central to understanding digital skill acquisition. The results highlight the importance of context-sensitive parental guidance and suggest that policies should support parents in adopting balanced, education-oriented approaches to screen-time regulation.