The purpose of this investigation is to assess family stress, coping, perceptions of their infant, and alterations in mood that may result from the hospitalization of their critically ill newborn infant. Eligible patients were those infants hospitalized in the Special Care Nursery (SCN) at Christiana Care Health Services, who were born up to 31 weeks' gestational age. Twenty-seven families (mothers and/or fathers) completed four questionnaires at 2-week intervals during the course of their premature infants' hospitalization. Data were primarily evaluated by using analysis of variance (ANOVA)/multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). A score for neonatal acute physiology (SNAP) was obtained in each infant to assess the effect of the severity of neonatal illness on the questionnaire variables. Families with high stress scores on the Parental Stressor Scale had different coping strategies than those with less stress scores. A high level of maternal depressive symptomatology was associated with altered methods of coping, general stress, and perception of infant health. There was no relationship between the SNAP score on the overall level of stress families. Families who completed more than two questionnaires differed from those who only completed two or less questionnaires, although the sample size was too small to assess longitudinal changes in this study population. Level of stress and depressive symptoms are two major influences of how families cope with the current hospitalization of a premature infant. The degree of neonatal illness is not a major contributor to the parents' coping ability. Healthcare providers need to understand these dynamics when supporting families during the hospitalization of their premature infant.
The major criterion for classification systems is that students said to evidence any specific handicapping condition must demonstrate at least one universal and one specific characteristic. We conducted two investigations, using the category “learning disabilities” as an example, to examine the extent to which this criterion is met. In the first study, we demonstrated that 85% of 248 3rd-, 5th-, and 12th- grade students identified as normal could be classified as learning disabled. In a second investigation, we contrasted low-achieving students enrolled in regular fourth-grade classes with students labeled as learning disabled (LD). Analysis of these data indicated that 88% of the low-achieving sample could be identified as LD and that 4% of the LD sample did not meet any of the criteria for classification as LD. We found no specific characteristics that differentiated the groups. Implications for classification practices in general and for serving students who are failing in school are discussed.
This study examined the extent to which school personnel were able to differentiate learning disabled students from low achievers by examining patterns of scores on psychometric measures. Subjects were 65 school psychologists, 38 special education teachers, and a “naive” group of 21 university students enrolled in programs unrelated to education or psychology. Provided with forms containing information on 41 test or subtest scores of 9 school-identified LD students and 9 non-LD students, judges were instructed to indicate which students they believed were learning disabled and which were non-learning disabled. Accuracy and inter-judge agreement confirmed the difficulty of differentially diagnosing students with learning disabilities suggesting that having information from a battery of tests does not increase the decision maker's ability to discriminate between LD and non-LD students. Considering the extreme difficulty of integrating empirical and non-empirical information, it is recommended that current assessment practices be simplified.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.