An Attachment-Based Parental Capacity Assessment to Orient Decision-Making in Child Protection Cases: A Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two parenting capacity assessment (PCA) protocols, with a short parent-child intervention embedded in each protocol, evaluated the potential for enhanced parenting to orient child placement decision. Parents ( n = 69), with substantiated reports of maltreatment by child protective services, and their children (0–6) were randomly assigned to one of two PCAs with either the Attachment Video-feedback (PCA-AVI) or a psychoeducational intervention (PCA-PI) as the embedded intervention component. The PCA-AVI group showed the highest increases in parent-child interaction quality at post-test. Also, at PCA completion, evaluators’ conclusions about the parents’ capacity to care for both PCA groups were associated with parent-child interactive improvements at post-test, the court’s placement decision at post-test, and child placement one year later. However, only conclusions drawn by PCA-AVI evaluators were predictive of child re-reports of maltreatment in the year following PCA. PCAs, relying on short attachment interventions to assess the potential for enhanced parenting, are promising tools to orient child placement decisions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".