Evaluating Caregiver Sensitivity to Infants: Measures Matter

Abstract

The significance of caregiver sensitivity for child development has been debated among scholars, not least due to sensitivity's inconsistent predictive value over time and across contexts. A lack of uniformity in the definition of sensitivity contributes to this debate, but shortfalls of inter-tool concordance and construct validity in the instruments used to assess sensitivity may also be at issue. This study examines correspondences among four established standardized measures of caregiver sensitivity in independent classifications of the same sample of mothers of infants. 50 European American mother- infant dyads of diverse SES were independently assessed with three observational caregiver sensitivity measures: the Emotional Availability Scales (EAS; Biringen, 2008), the Parent Child Interaction - Nursing Child Assessment Feeding Scale (PCI-NCAFS; Oxford & Findlay, 2015), and the Maternal Behaviour Q-Sort (MBQS; Moran, Pederson & Bento, 2009). Ratings were juxtaposed with classifications of the same sample based on the original Ainsworth Maternal Sensitivity Scales (AMSS; Ainsworth, 1969). The EAS, NCAFS, and MBQS related to the AMSS, but large proportions of variance were unshared. Researchers and clinicians should be cautious when assuming that popular observational assessment instruments, commonly believed to measure a generic construct of caregiver sensitivity, are interchangeable, as these measures may evaluate different features of sensitivity to infants.

Conceptualisation of Parenting in Research on Young Children with or at Elevated Likelihood of Autism: a Systematic Review of Observational Measures

“…Our most prominent finding at a methodological level is the large heterogeneity in observational measures, and hence, in parenting constructs, that are used in research on young children with or at elevated likelihood of autism, confirming prior research (Bohr et al, 2018;Ku et al, 2019;Wan et al, 2019). A first and obvious explanation for this heterogeneity is the different research focus of the included studies.…”

“…An alternative explanation is that research projects often develop their own observational measures to suit the particular interest of the project or for practical reasons (e.g., for the validity of observational measures, it would also make it easier to compare results across studies (Bohr et al, 2018).…”

“…Precisely this lack of clear parenting constructs has been discussed by Bohr, Putnick, Lee and Bornstein (2018), who evaluated the correspondences among four standardised measures of caregiver sensitivity. Through the computation of Pearson's zero-order one-tailed correlations and, based on these zero-order correlations, percentages of unshared variance, they discovered that large proportions of variance were unshared and that these measures may therefore evaluate different aspects of sensitivity.…”

Persistence of Effects of VLBW/PT Birth Status and Maternal Emotional Availability (EA) on Child EA Trajectories

“…Maternal sensitivity has long been considered and demonstrated to be a critical parenting dimension and has been linked to children’s socio-emotional outcomes (Bohr et al, 2018). Similarly, structuring (or scaffolding; Vygotsky, 1978) is also considered a key parenting dimension, has a long history, and is integrated in many parenting studies including those with a teaching, cognitive stimulation, or learning component (e.g., Saltaris et al, 2004; Briscoe et al, 2017).…”

Conceptualisation of parenting in research on young children with or at elevated likelihood of autism: A systematic review of observational measures

“…Because the development of an observational measure requires time and energy, Lotzin and colleagues (2015) suggest that researchers channel their resources into the refinement of existing measures with evidence of validity, rather than into the development of a new tool. Apart from the benefits this would have for the validity of observational measures, it would also make it easier to compare results across studies (Bohr et al, 2018).…”