Transformational change in parenting practices after child interpersonal trauma: A grounded theory examination of parental response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child interpersonal trauma is associated with a host of negative outcomes, both concurrently and in adulthood. Parental responses following trauma can play an important role in modulating child responses, symptoms, and post-trauma functioning. However, parents themselves are also impacted after their child experiences trauma, reporting distress, psychopathology, concerns about the child's safety, changes in discipline and protectiveness, and feelings of blame. Most of this previous research, however, suffers from methodological limitations such as focusing on description and correlations, providing static "one shot" assessments of parenting after trauma, and relying mainly on results related to child sexual abuse. This project developed a comprehensive, explanatory theory of the dynamic process by which parenting changes in response to a range of child trauma, using a sample of parents whose children had experienced a range of interpersonal trauma types. Grounded theory analyses revealed a three-phase dynamic model of discontinuous transformation, in which parents experienced destabilization, recalibration, and re-stabilization of parenting practices in response to child trauma. Parents were focused on Protecting and Healing the child victim, often at the expense of their own needs. Most parents reached a phase of posttraumatic growth, labelled Thriving Recovery, but processes that hindered this recovery are also discussed. This study provides the first evidence that dynamic systems of change as well as vicarious posttraumatic growth can apply to parents of child trauma victims. Generating an explanatory theory provides important avenues for future research as well as interventions and services aimed at families who have experienced child trauma.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".