Infant communication and the mother–infant relationship: The importance of level of risk and construct measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Infants' emerging communication skills are understood to be associated with the maternal relationship, particularly for children experiencing high levels of social risk. This study attempts to determine the extent to which this association is influenced by (a) the mental health risk of the dyad and (b) different operational definitions and measurement of both the dyadic relationship and the construct of “communication.” Ninety‐six infants (10–30 months) and their mothers were recruited: A total of 46 were at‐risk dyads referred to a mental health clinic for relationship‐based emotional and/or behavioral difficulties, and 50 were nonrisk dyads not seeking mental health services and served as a normative reference or comparison group. Several factors were assessed: (a) developmental competence, (b) maternal psychopathology, (c) quality of mother–infant interaction during play, (d) attachment security classification, (e) prelinguistic and social‐affective communication, and (f) linguistic communication. In all infants studied, the quality of mother–infant interaction during play, rather than the attachment security classification, was associated with infants' prelinguistic and social‐affective communication abilities, but not with linguistic communication. Different aspects of mother–infant interaction predicted prelinguistic communication for clinic and comparison infants whereas only infant age predicted linguistic communication. All infants displayed communication abilities in the normal range, but the statistically poorer performance demonstrated by clinic‐referred infants could become clinically meaningful in later childhood. Best practices should include communication screening of infants presenting with attachment problems and screening for relational difficulties in infants presenting with communication delays. ©2004 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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".