Can Parenting Intervention Prevent Cascading Effects From Placement Instability to Insecure Attachment to Externalizing Problems in Maltreated Toddlers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple placement changes disrupt continuity in caregiving and undermine well-being in children in child welfare. This study conducted secondary data analysis of a randomized controlled trial to examine whether a relationship-based intervention, Promoting First Relationships(©) (PFR), reduced risk for a maladaptive cascade from placement instability to less secure attachment to elevated externalizing problems. Participants included caregivers (birth or foster/kin) of toddlers (10-24 months) recently transitioned to their care because of child welfare placement decisions. Although main effects of PFR on security and externalizing problems were not previously observed, this study's results revealed that PFR attenuated the association between multiple placement changes (baseline) and less security (postintervention) and that the indirect effect of placement instability on greater externalizing problems (6-month follow-up) via less security was evident only in toddlers in the comparison condition. These findings shed light on how a history of multiple caregiver changes may influence toddlers' risk for poor adjustment in subsequent placements, and the promise of supporting caregivers through a parenting intervention to prevent such risk.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".