Scores on the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale for Father–Toddler Dyads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fathers of 49 Canadian children (ages 13 to 24 months) were observed interacting with their child at home using the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS). Consensus ratings from two observers were used in the analysis. Compared with the NCATS reference data for 164 mothers of similar ethnicity and marital status with similar-aged children, mothers were more responsive than fathers in the interactions. Mothers had significantly higher scores on the overall Total NCATS score, on the Total Parent score, and on the Parent Contingency score than the fathers. In contrast, children were more responsive to fathers than mothers. Children interacting with their fathers had significantly higher Total Child scores and higher Child Contingency scores than those interacting with their mothers. Maternal and paternal age and education were not correlated to scores on the NCATS. Implications for practitioners are discussed and the results are compared to a study of mothers and fathers interacting with children ages 2 to 12 months old in which the observations were measured by the NCATS. Results suggest that NCATS cutoff scores used to identify mothers in need of intervention should be used with caution for father--toddler interactions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".