ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Identifying vulnerable mother-infant dyads: a psychometric evaluation of two observational coding systems using varying interaction periods.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A psychometric evaluation of the NICHD Parent-Infant Interaction Scales to inform clinical practice.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Clinical services require feasible assessments of parent-infant interaction in order to identify dyads requiring parenting intervention. We assessed the reliability and predictive validity of two observational tools and tested whether briefer forms could be identified which retain acceptable psychometric properties over short observation periods. Methods: A stratified high-risk community sample of 250 mother-infant dyads from The Wirral Child Health and Development Study completed 7-min play-based interaction at 6-8 months. Film-footage was independently coded by two trained raters using PIIOS and NICHD-SECCYD systems. Incremental predictive validity was assessed from 3, 5 and 7 min observation to attachment outcomes (Strange Situation; 14 months) and infant mental health (BITSEA; 14 and 30 months). Results: Excellent inter-rater reliability was evident at code and subscale level for each tool and observation period. Stability of within-rater agreement was optimal after 5 min observation. ROC analysis confirmed predictive (discriminant) validity (AUCs >0.70) to top decile age 2 mental health outcomes for PIIOS total score and a brief 3-item composite from NICHD-SECCYD (sensitivity, intrusiveness, positive regard; NICHD-3), but not to attachment outcomes. Logistic regression showed dyads rated at-risk for externalizing problems using NICHD-3 were also at significantly higher risk for insecurity at 14 months (OR = 2.7, Conclusion: PIIOS total and NICHD-3 ratings from 5 min observation are both reliable and valid tools for use in clinical practice. Findings suggest NICHD-3 may have greater utility due to its comparative brevity to train and code, with suitability for use over a broader developmental time frame (3-24 months).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.