An Investigation of Maternal Stress After Neonatal Hearing Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An investigation was undertaken to determine whether mothers whose infants failed a newborn hearing screening (MWIF) had significantly more stress and were consequently at risk for dysfunctional attachment than those mothers whose infants passed a newborn hearing screening (MWIP). The Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Abidin, 1995), a screening and diagnostic assessment questionnaire designed to measure the relative magnitude of stress in a parent-child dyad, was used. Twenty MWIP and 20 MWIF participated. The PSI was administered through a telephone interview approximately 1 month after participants' discharge while their infants were between their fourth and fifth week of life. In the case of MWIF, the interview occurred before their infant's hearing retest. No significant differences in Total Stress, Life Stress, Child Domain, and Parent Domain subscale raw scores of the PSI were found between MWIP and MWIF (p > .05). An examination of the individual PSI profiles of all participants for "high" and "low" normative percentile scores (i.e., percentile scores > or = 90th percentile and percentile scores < or = 0 percentile for the former and latter, respectively) revealed that the incidence of high scale/subscale percentile scores was essentially equivalent between groups. MWIP, however, displayed lower scale/subscale percentile scores. The results of the study suggest that those mothers whose infants receive a refer outcome after a newborn hearing screening demonstrate equivalent stress levels as those mothers whose infants received a pass.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".