The New Parent Checklist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To design and establish content and face validity of an evidence-informed tool that promotes parental self-reflection during the transition to parenthood. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The New Parent Checklist was developed using a three-phase sequential approach: Phase 1 a scoping review and expert consultation to develop and refine a prototype tool; Phase 2 content analysis of parent focus groups; and Phase 3 assessment of utility in a cross-sectional sample of parents completing the New Parent Checklist and a questionnaire. RESULTS: The initial version of the checklist was considered by experts to contain key information. Focus group participants found it useful, appropriate, and nonjudgmental, and offered suggestions to enhance readability, utility, as well as face and content validity. In the cross-sectional survey, 83% of the participants rated the New Parent Checklist as "helpful" or "very helpful" and 90% found the New Parent Checklist "very easy" to use. Open-ended survey responses included predominantly positive feedback. Notable differences existed for some items based on respondents' first language, age, and sex. Results and feedback from all three phases informed the current version, available for download online. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The New Parent Checklist is a comprehensive evidence-informed self-reflective tool with promising content and face validity. Depending on parental characteristics and infant age, certain items of the New Parent Checklist have particular utility but may also require further adaptation and testing. Local resources for information and/or support are included in the tool and could be easily adapted by other regions to incorporate their own local resources.
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 | 0.036 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.008 |
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".