Parent–Infant Attachment and Gross Motor Development During the First 2 Years of Life: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The attachment system is crucial in several aspects of child development. We aimed at synthesizing the existing knowledge on the association between mother/father attachment to the infant and gross motor development during the first 2 years of life. A systematic review following PRISMA standards was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42022308841) in April 2022 and conducted in May 2022 (updated: July 2023, July 2024, and January 2025). PubMed, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, and PSICODOC databases were searched. Peer-reviewed observational studies in English or Spanish with a minimum score of five on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, used for assessing bias risk, were included. Results are critically presented and synthesized. Ten studies were selected out of the initial pool of 813 records. Findings are described based on the parent-infant attachment and gross motor development, the association of parental roles and co-parenting dynamics, and the effect of stress on motor development. Positive early parent-infant interactions and secure parent-infant attachment are associated with better infant motor development. Studies with larger samples and more specific motor assessments are suggested for the advancement of the field.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".