Six‐month follow‐up of two mother–infant psychotherapies: Convergence of therapeutic outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fifty‐eight mothers and infants participating in two infant–mother psychotherapeutic interventions in a comparative infant–mother clinical intervention study were followed six months after treatment ended. One treatment was an infant‐led psychotherapy, Watch, Wait, and Wonder (WWW). The other was a more traditional mother–infant psychodynamic psychotherapy (PPT). Infants ranged in age from 10 to 30 months at the outset of treatment, which took place in weekly sessions over approximately five months. Results indicated that positive effects observed from the beginning to the end of treatment in both treatment groups in infant symptoms, parenting stress, and mother–infant interaction were maintained or improved further at six‐month follow‐up. Additionally, decreased maternal depression, gains in infant cognitive development and emotion regulation, and improved infant–mother attachment security or organization had been observed posttreatment only in the WWW group. Interestingly, between the posttreatment to follow‐up period the PPT group also showed such gains. Thus, for these variables it would be more accurate to say that the outcomes were similar for the two treatment groups but change emerged at a different pace. Nevertheless, an advantage persisted in the WWW group in relation to mothers' comfort dealing with infant behaviors and their ratings of parenting stress which improved more in this group from the end of treatment to follow‐up. The direct inclusion of the infant as an initiator in WWW was set forth as an explanation of differentially timed treatment effects. ©2002 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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 it