A caregiver–child socioemotional and relationship rating scale
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11277355 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Robert B McCall (0009-0008-8811-151X, University of Pittsburgh, corresponding author), Christina J Groark (0000-0001-6671-1241, University of Pittsburgh), Larry Fish (University of Pittsburgh) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 201-219 |
| Publication date | 2010-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Infant Mental Health Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0163-9641 • E-ISSN: 1097-0355 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/imhj.20252 |
| PMID | 20556236 |
| PMCID | PMC2885814 |
| OpenAlex | W94711044 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 27 |
This article reports the construction and pilot reliability, validity, and psychometric properties of a new caregiver–child rating scale that emphasizes caregiver–child socioemotional interactions and relationships. While the scale was developed and studied in orphanages for young children, it potentially could be used in nonresidential early care and education settings as well as for parent–child interactions in the home. The intent was to assess a few dimensions that comprehensively cover the range of caregiver–child socioemotional interactions and relationships, by means of a scale that could be administered in a relatively short time period in a variety of situations and would not require extensive coder training, manuals, or materials. Results showed that the scale can be reliably administered even using observation periods as short as 5 min, that inter‐rater reliability was acceptable (based on data from two raters working in two orphanages, and five raters working in another), and that ratings of caregivers were similar across different types of caregiving activities (i.e., feeding, dressing/bathing, free play) and for caregivers attending to children birth to 4 and 4 to 8 years of age. In the orphanage context, factor analyses showed that the scale primarily reflects caregiver–child mutual engagement and relationship with subordinate components of caregiver punitiveness and caregiver‐ versus child‐directed behaviors and intrusiveness
Bathing · Developmental psychology · Intrusiveness · Rating scale · Socioemotional selectivity theory · Child Abuse and Trauma · Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development · Child Welfare and Adoption · Clinical Psychology · Medicine · Psychology
Trayectorias del desarrollo infantil en instituciones de protección en Colombia
At the heart of institutional care
Structure, Caregiver–Child Interactions, and Children’s General Physical and Behavioral Development in Three Central American Institutions
Chinese collective foster care model
Characteristics of environments, caregivers, and children in three Central American orphanages
A socioemotional intervention in a Latin American orphanage
Caregivers in day-care centers
Cognitive Recovery in Socially Deprived Young Children
A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Attachment Disorganization/Disorientation
Early Maternal and Child Influences on Children's Later Independent Cognitive and Social Functioning
Sensitivity and Attachment
The Effects of Early Social‐Emotional and Relationship Experience on the Development of Young Orphanage Children
Caregiving and the Regulation of Child Growth and Development
Attachment and psychopathology
Institution‐based early intervention program
Improvements in early care in Russian orphanages and their relationship to observed behaviors
The emotional quality of childcare centers in Israel
Responsive parenting
Predicting cognitive-language and social growth curves from early maternal behaviors in children at varying degrees of biological risk
Child's play with adults, toys, and peers
Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,38 |
| Citation span | 2010 - 2026 (17) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |