Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38002856›Full record

ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Coding Dyadic Behavior in Caregiver-Child Interaction from a Clinical Psychology Perspective: How Should Multiple Instruments and Outcomes Be Dealt with?

Anne Jung, Nina Heinrichs

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anne JungDepartment of Psychology, Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology and Psychotherapy, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8847-7484
Nina HeinrichsDepartment of Psychology, Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology and Psychotherapy, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 100131, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany.
Bielefeld University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The experiences children have in the interactions with their caregivers influence their developmental outcomes. To target caregiving and optimize intervention effects, the assessment of caregiver-child interactions is highly relevant for families affected by parental mental disorders. Behavioral observation is a widely used method for assessing family dynamics, and the literature offers a wide variety of instruments with which to code such data. However, a structured overview of behavioral observation instruments (BOIs) is lacking, and the multitude of types of dyadic behaviors (DBs) assessed within each BOI are complicating their application. We aim to provide an overview of the BOIs applied to families affected by mental disorders and suggest a DB taxonomy that may be used across BOIs. We first conducted a systemic literature search to identify the most frequently used BOIs and the DBs they capture in clinical psychology. Second, we asked 13 experts to sort DB terms based on perceived conceptual similarity and analyzed these results using multidimensional scaling. We found approximately 450 different terms for DBs, and we argue that DBs can be classified within two overarching dimensions, i.e., in terms of structure and in terms of reaction to a child's signals. These efforts can facilitate the coding and application of BOIs in clinical practice.

Indexed as

behavioral observationcaregiver–child interactionchild developmentdyadic interaction

Identifiers

PMID38002856
PMCPMC10670483
OpenAlexW4388068394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.