MULTIMODAL ASSESSMENT OF THE MOTHER–CHILD RELATIONSHIP IN A SUBSTANCE‐EXPOSED SAMPLE: DIVERGENT ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE EMOTIONAL AVAILABILITY SCALES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to compare ratings of mother–child relationship quality from diverse assessment perspectives. The quality of the mother–child relationship was rated in a sample of 34 mothers with substance‐use difficulties and their children using the Emotional Availability Scales (EAS; Z. Biringen, ), based on videotaped observation of a 20‐min, free‐play session. These ratings were compared to clinician ratings on the Parent–Infant Ratings Global Assessment Scale (PIR‐GAS; ZERO TO THREE, 2005) and maternal ratings on the Parenting Stress Index‐Short Form (PSI‐SF; R.R. Abidin, ). Ratings on the Emotional Attachment and Emotional Availability (EA2) Clinical Screener (EA2 Clinical Screener) and adult dimensions of the EAS (particularly maternal sensitivity), but not child dimensions, were associated with clinician ratings on the PIR‐GAS. In contrast, child dimensions of the EAS, but not adult dimensions, were associated with maternal ratings on the Child scales of the PSI‐SF (particularly parent–child difficult interactions). While clinician ratings seem to be more sensitive to maternal contributions to the relationship, maternal ratings seem to emphasize child behaviors. Results highlight the importance of multimethod assessment in fully capturing the transactional nature of the mother–child relationship in high‐risk samples. The validity of the EA2 Clinical Screener as an index of the quality of mother–child relationship in a high‐risk, substance‐exposed sample is also supported.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".