Validation of the AMBIANCE‐brief: An observational screening instrument for disrupted caregiving
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resulting from a community-identified need for a well-validated indicator of caregiving difficulties for use in practice settings, a brief form of the Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification System (AMBIANCE) was developed for use as a screening instrument. Prior to its dissemination, this study aimed to assess the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the AMBIANCE-Brief. Adolescent mother-infant dyads (N = 69) participated in the Strange Situation Procedure, as well as play sessions with and without toys. Maternal disrupted caregiving was coded from the play sessions using the AMBIANCE and AMBIANCE-Brief. The AMBIANCE-Brief demonstrated convergent validity with the AMBIANCE in the play session with toys (r = .65, p < .001) and without toys (r = .61, p < .001). Concurrent validity of the AMBIANCE-Brief was also demonstrated in relation to infant attachment disorganization in the play session with toys (r = .36, p < .05) and without toys (r = .32, p < .01). These findings suggest a shorter protocol for assessing disrupted caregiving may be feasible and valid for use in community settings. Future studies are in progress to train community practitioners in the use of the AMBIANCE-Brief and to evaluate their reliability.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it