MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606048005 · doi:10.1017/s0954579417000189

Testing the limits: Extending attachment-based intervention effects to infant cognitive outcome and parental stress

2017· article· en· W2606048005 on OpenAlexaff
Karine Dubois‐Comtois, Chantal Cyr, George M. Tarabulsy, Diane St‐Laurent, Annie Bernier, Ellen Moss

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment and Psychopathology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresCentre Jeunesse de Quebec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIntervention (counseling)Psychomotor learningDevelopmental psychologyPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)NeglectMaternal sensitivityClinical psychologyRandomized controlled trialCognitionChild developmentAffect (linguistics)PsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.305 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations24
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment and PsychopathologySame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207