ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
A psychometric evaluation of the NICHD Parent-Infant Interaction Scales to inform clinical practice.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is no recommended measure of parent-infant interaction that is psychometrically robust, feasible (i.e., brief and simple to use) and validated for use from birth to 12 months for routine use in Perinatal Mental Health Services (PMHS). This study tested the cross-sectional construct validity of the global sensitivity scale and a sensitivity composite from the NICHD Parent-Infant Interaction scales in a clinical sample of parents and babies, and the inter-rater reliability of all the NICHD scales in a sub-sample of dyads with infants under 3 months of age. Methods: Secondary analysis using parent-infant interaction videos from a Randomized Controlled Trial in specialist PMHS in England were used. Participants were 275 dyads who completed baseline self-reports (parental mental health symptoms, parent-reported bonding) and parent-infant observation tasks where sensitivity was measured (free play, book sharing, clothing change). Parents with infants over 2 months of age ( Results: Amongst dyads with infants 0-3 months, inter-rater reliability was good for the global and composite sensitivity scale, but poor-to-moderate for the scales of parental intrusiveness, dyadic mutuality and the infant scales. In the full sample of dyads, there was a small but significant negative association between the global and composite sensitivity scales and parental mental health symptom severity, but this association was not statistically significant when sensitivity was observed in the free play alone. In terms of child development, greater sensitivity was only associated with fewer socio-emotional problems when it was observed during the clothing change task. There was a statistically significant negative association between observed sensitivity and bonding difficulties, and the strength of this association was greater for younger infants than older infants. Conclusion: These findings contribute to the evidence base of the NICHD scales in a PMHS setting and suggest ways that the clinical utility of the NICHD scales could be improved for routine practice.
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.