Testing the limits: Extending attachment-based intervention effects to infant cognitive outcome and parental stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a sample of 41 infants and toddlers (21 interventions, 20 controls) who were neglected or at serious risk for neglect, this randomized clinical trial examined the efficacy of a parent-child attachment-based video-feedback intervention on parental sensitivity, parental stress, and child mental/psychomotor development. Results showed that following the 8-week intervention, scores for maternal sensitivity and child mental and psychomotor development were higher in the intervention group than in the control group. The intervention appears to have no effect on self-reports of stress. All parents report lower levels of stress postintervention; however, when defensive responding is not considered (i.e., extremely low score of parental stress), parents in the control group report somewhat lower scores, raising questions as to the significance of this finding. Considering the small nature of our sample, replication of the present results is needed. Nevertheless, the present findings contribute to the burgeoning literature suggesting that the early attachment relationship provides an important context that influences developmental outcome in different spheres and raises questions as to how such intervention strategies may or may not affect the subjective experience of parenting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".