Parenting Practices, Bedtime Routines, and Consistency: Associations with Pediatric Sleep Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Investigate the direct and moderating effects of daytime parenting practices on the relationship between bedtime routines and pediatric sleep problems. METHODS: A community sample of 407 parents with children 2-10 years old completed measures of parenting practices (i.e., laxness and over-reactivity) and bedtime routines (i.e., consistency and reactivity to changes in routines). Sleep problems (i.e., severity and signaled night waking) were assessed by a parent-report questionnaire and sleep diaries. RESULTS: Higher parenting laxness (β = .13) and less bedtime routine consistency (β = -.34) significantly predicted sleep problem severity. Laxness moderated the relationship between bedtime reactivity and sleep problem severity: when bedtime reactivity was high, higher parental laxness was associated with more severe sleep problems. CONCLUSIONS: Daytime parenting practices are important to consider when children are reactive to changes in bedtime routines, as permissive or inconsistent daytime parenting practices were found to be associated with more severe sleep problems. Future research should examine the effects of parenting practices and bedtime routines on problematic signaled night waking in a clinical sample of children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".