Contact with biological parents following placement in foster care: Associations with preschool child externalizing behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Externalizing behavior problems are a salient issue in the context of child protection services, where associations with placement stability and caregiving behavior have been documented. Moreover, although research on the association between contact with biological parents and foster child externalizing behavior problems is scarce and has yielded mixed results, several studies have shown links between the two variables. The purpose of this study is to determine the association of face-to-face contact with biological parents and externalized behaviors, while taking into account placement instability and foster parent interactive sensitivity. Fifty preschoolers and their foster parents were visited at home. Child externalizing behavior problems were self-reported by foster parents, foster parent sensitivity was measured via play observations, and information relative to placement was collected through interviews with biological parents and gathered from social services data. Results reveal that more frequent contact with biological parents and lower levels of foster parent sensitivity are independently linked to greater levels of externalizing behavior problems even after controlling for placement instability. Discussion focuses on the importance of children's relationship experiences during foster care and the necessity to investigate their role to more clearly understand foster child socioemotional development.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".