PERCEIVED AND PERFORMED INFANT CARE COMPETENCE OF YOUNGER AND OLDER ADOLESCENT MOTHERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The investigators examined differences in perceived and performed infant care competence for younger (less than 17 years of age) and older (17 to 19 years of age) adolescent mothers. Associations were tested between perceived infant care competence measured at several time points and performed mothering at 12 to 18 months infant age. A convenience sample of 78 adolescent mothers was recruited from two major teaching hospitals in Winnipeg, Canada. The Infant Care Questionnaire (ICQ), a self-report measure of infant care ability, was completed during the 3rd trimester and the 1st and 4th postnatal weeks. Performed mothering was assessed with Caldwell's HOME scale administered in the adolescent mother's home when the infant was 12 to 18 months old. Significant increases in competence perceptions over time were demonstrated for both ICQ subscales, the Mom&Baby, F(2, 47) = 22.73, p = 0.000, and Emotionality, F(2, 47) = 43.16, p = 0.000. This increase in infant care competence mirrors the maternal role competence trajectory reported in studies with older mothers. While no significant age group differences were found for Mom&Baby or Emotionality, older adolescent mothers were rated significantly higher on one of the HOME subscales, Variety in Daily Stimulation, t(n = 45), = 2.12, p =.04, and a second approached significance, Responsiveness, t(n = 45) = 1.86, p =.07. Pearson correlations between the Mom&Baby and Emotionality and the HOME subscales, Responsiveness and Environment, ranged between -0.30 and -0.37. Future research is required to further explain the negative correlations between perceived and performed infant care competence, establish clinical validity of self-report methods with adolescent mothers, and assess the influence of social, cultural, and economic factors not considered in this study.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".