Factor Structure of the Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire in a US-Based Cohort of Mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As research efforts in the field of pediatrics are oriented toward a better understanding of the synergistic relationship between different facets of early relational health (ERH) and child development and wellbeing, it is essential to focus on the quality of research instruments available for measuring different components of ERH. This study investigates the measurement characteristics of a widely used parent/caregiver-reported measure of bonding, the Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire (PBQ), in a US-based sample (n=610) of English-speaking biological mothers who completed the PBQ at 4 months postpartum. To evaluate the factor structure of the PBQ, confirmatory and exploratory statistical techniques were employed. The current study failed to replicate the PBQ’s original 4-factor structure. Exploratory factor analysis results supported the creation of a 14-item abbreviated measure, the PBQ-14. The PBQ-14 showed evidence of good psychometric properties, including high internal consistency (ω=.87) and correlation with depression ( r =.44, p<.001) assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), as would be expected. The new unidimensional PBQ-14 is suitable for use in the US as a measure of general postnatal parent/caregiver-to-infant bonding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".