Examining the link between parental relationship functioning and parent sensitivity: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Fathers remain neglected in attachment research, despite paternal sensitivity being important for children’s development. Past research suggested that fathers’ parenting may be influenced by contextual factors, including relationship functioning between parents.Objective This meta-analysis examined the association between paternal sensitivity and parental relationship functioning, and compared the magnitude of associations to those of maternal sensitivity.Method A search conducted across five databases up to February 2023 yielded 44 studies and N = 4,616 fathers (mean father age: 31.7 years; mean child age: 19.1 months). All studies included an observational measure of paternal sensitivity and a measure of parental relationship functioning.Results Paternal sensitivity was positively associated with the quality of the co-parenting relationship (r = .13, 95% CI [.01, .25]) and parental romantic relationship (r = .09, 95% CI [.03, .15]).. Associations were similar for mothers and fathers.Conclusion This study contributes to our understanding of factors that enhance paternal sensitivity.Implications The results of this research may inform family-wide intervention and prevention efforts to support child well-being.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".