Atypical maternal behavior toward feeding‐disordered infants before and after intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The display of atypical behaviors and disrupted communication during parent–infant interactions, as assessed by the Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification (AMBIANCE), has been linked to disorganized infant attachment, which, in turn, has been linked to psychopathology. The present study examined the usefulness of the AMBIANCE as an indicator of the efficacy of two brief interventions in reducing atypical behaviors and disrupted communication during play interactions. Twenty‐eight mother–infant dyads participated (14 per intervention). All infants had feeding problems. One intervention, Interaction Guidance, focused on training caregivers to respond sensitively to their infants (play‐focused intervention). The other intervention focused on training mothers to use new feeding techniques (feeding‐focused intervention). Results showed a significant decrease in AMBIANCE scores in the play‐focused group from pre‐ to postintervention, but not in the feeding‐focused group. There was a significant decrease in the level of disrupted communication from pre‐ to postintervention sessions in the play‐focused group but not in the feeding‐focused group. 73% of mothers from the play‐focused group and 17% of mothers from the feeding‐focused group initially classified as “disrupted” attained a classification of “nondisrupted” at the postintervention session. Some limitations of the study include small sample size, differences in timing of assessment for each intervention, and use of samples of convenience. Nonetheless, these findings provide preliminary evidence both of the usefulness of AMBIANCE as an instrument for assessing clinical efficacy and the efficacy of Interaction Guidance. ©2001 Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".