MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406112336 · doi:10.3109/01460862.2015.1134720

Caregiver-Infant Interaction Quality: A Review of Observational Assessment Tools

2016· review· en· W2406112336 on OpenAlexaff
Panagiota Tryphonopoulos, Nicole Letourneau, Enrico DiTommaso

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Child and Adolescent Nursing · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of CalgaryBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfant mental healthPsychologyIntervention (counseling)ReferralInfant developmentObservational studyDevelopmental psychologyMaternal sensitivityEarly childhoodQuality (philosophy)Mental healthModalitiesClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between caregiver and infant interaction quality and infant developmental outcomes has long been established. As children mature, problems stemming from troubled caregiver-infant relations may result in referral to mental health, early intervention, or child protection services. The accurate and appropriate assessment of caregiver-infant interaction is critical for early recognition of problematic relations and for informing suitable treatment modalities. Evaluating the quality of the caregiver-infant relationship poses a challenge for researchers and clinicians seeking to explore the association between infant development and the quality of early caregiving experiences. This paper describes and compares commonly used measures of caregiver-infant interaction, including the Parent-Child Interaction Scales, Mutual Regulation Scales, Parent-Child Early Relationship Assessment, Mother-Infant Communication Screening, Ainsworth Maternal Sensitivity Scales, Maternal Behavior Q-sort, and the Emotional Availability Scales.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.188
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComprehensive Child and Adolescent NursingSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207