35 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2023
    1. Results of regressionequations controlling for multiple family, parent, and child characteristics revealed that both greaterelaboration and positive emotional valence were uniquely related to parents’sensitivity (standardizedβ=.15,p=.05, andβ=.13,p=.04, respectively), but only elaboration was uniquely related to learning support(β=.35,p<.001).

      TBS: The overall results from journal article state that greater elaboration and positive emotional valence were related to parents' sensitivity and only the elaboration was related to learning support and not the positive emotional valence.

    2. This study highlights the special importance of the elaboration of parents’schemas inunderstanding caregiving behaviors among families living in poverty and the potential value of enhancingelaboration in family-focused preventive interventions.

      ROF: Signifies importance of parents' living in poverty understanding their role and the risk their children are in due to their living situation. This article provides examples of how to elaborate on their caregiving behaviours and the ability to enhance this in family-focused preventive interventions.

    3. The elaboration and emotional valence of parents’schemas were codedfrom brief responses to open-ended questions about children’s personality; observations of parents’sensitivity and learning support were assessed in structured and unstructured settings.

      TBS: Key information being assessed based on parent's experiences with their child under the circumstance.

    4. Thus, the elaboration of parents’schemas may represent a vitalmeans of supporting caregiving behaviors among families living inpoverty

      Elaboration of parents' schemas supports to caregiving behaviours among families.

    5. In this way, we might help ensure thatparents living in poverty are as successful as possible in nurturingtheir children’s resilience

      Equity for all families to provide their child with the same nurture in their child's resilience.

    6. This study highlights the potential value of the elaboration ofparents’schemas as a target of preventive interventions. Somepreventive interventions appear successful in helping parents tobe more reflective in the ways they think about their children

      The value of study clearly outlined, some interventions were successful in supporting parents to be more reflective in the ways they perceive their child.

    7. It seemslikely that reciprocal and transactional relations between parents’schemas and caregiving behaviors unfold over time

      The relationship unfolds overtime and demonstrates limitations to the study for the long term answers of this topic.

    8. Most important, because this study was cross-sectionaland parents’schemas and caregiving behaviors were not experi-mentally manipulated, the direction of effects are uncertain.

      The conduction of the study created limitations and made the results uncertain.

    9. can provide such a powerful snapshot into parents’schemas

      The short parent interview provided a wealth of information about the parents' schemas.

    10. Second, thisstudy included a relatively large racially diverse sample of families,and it relied on multiple informants and methods of assessment.

      How the study was conducted.

    11. First, it focused onthe independent contributions of two aspects of parents’schemas,elaboration, and emotional valence, and their associations with twoaspects of caregiving behaviors especially important in the contextof poverty, parents’sensitivity, and learning support.

      The purpose

    12. parents strive tofigure out what theirchildren need from them and adapt their caregiving behaviorsaccordingly

      Challenges parents face to support their child.

    13. Theamount of elaboration of parents’schemas was virtually indepen-dent of how positively or negatively parents perceived their chil-dren.

      Parents' perception on their child either positive or negative impact on the parents' schemas.

    14. It highlights the potential value of parents’schemas,especially the elaboration of those schemas, as a means of under-standing and promoting family resilience.

      The main focus of study and the connection between affecting variables in families living in poverty.

    15. This suggests that relationsbetween elaboration and parents’sensitivity and between emotionalvalence and parents’sensitivity were quite similar across differentkindsoffamilies

      Showing a trend of elaboration and parents' sensitivity and between emotional valence and parents' sensitivity from most families.

    16. Of special note,there was virtually no relation between the elaboration and emo-tional valence of parents’schemas (r=.02,p=.82), and there was amoderate relation between parents’sensitivity and learning support(r=.37,p<.001).

      Results and the relationships

    17. Multiple covariates were included in this study to ensure thatestimates of the relations between parents’schemas of their childrenand caregiving behaviors were as precise as possible and not the resultof common factors that also were associated with differences amongfamilies.

      Areas assessed to support overall picture of the families in poverty and the effects on children's lives under these conditions.

    18. Research assistants completed seven items,such as“Parent attempted to teach the child something about the task,”rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1=almost neverand 5=almostalways

      Areas parents needed to show to demonstrate their support and interaction with their child

    19. Parents’learning support was assessed by lab-based and manual-trained research assistants—who were different from and did notknow the project interviewers—based on each of three 3-min videorecordings of parents and children bowling with a stuffed ball and

      Parents' learning support based on three minute video interaction between parents and children doing an activity

    20. Parents’sensitivity was assessed by project interviewers, basedon everything they observed while in families’homes (adapted fromDodge et al., 1990). They completed seven items, such as“Parentwas positive and reinforcing to child,”rated on a 5-point Likertscale, with 1=almost neverand 5=almost always

      Sensitivity was assessed by interviewers (leaves room for bias, unfair judgement but there was a criteria to strictly follow)

    21. Parents’sensitivity was assessed by project interviewers, basedon everything they observed while in families’homes

      Sensitivity was assessed by interviewers (leaves room for bias, unfair judgement but there was a criteria to strictly follow)

    22. Project interviewersasked three open-ended questions, with no follow-up prompts: (a)How would you describe your child’s personality? (b) What’sthebestthing about your child? and (c) Knowing your child as you do, what doyou think will be their biggest challenge as they grow up?

      Questions asked to the parent about their child with no follow up to ensure fairness and same variables in the results. These are open ended and allow parents to show their knowledge about their child.

    23. Children were 21–39-months old, and 51%were girls. Thirty-seven percent of children were White, 25% wereBlack, 19% were Latine, 17% were Multiracial, 2% were Asian, andless than 1% were Native American.

      Children age and sex Children culture

    24. Forty-seven percent of parentswere single, 65% had a high school degree or less, and 60% did notwork outside the home.

      Single parents 47% High school degree or less 65% No work outside the home 60%

    25. Parents were recruited through Early Head Start home-basedprograms in seven cities, small towns, and rural areas of Wisconsinand Pennsylvania. Altogether, 242 families participated in thisstudy, representing about 65% of all families asked. Most familieswere living in poverty, with a median family income of $1,555 permonth and a median income-to-needs ratio of 0.75.

      Key information about the participants 242 families (65% of families asked participated) Living in poverty- medium income of $1550 per month Income-to-needs ratio of 0.75

    26. This studyexamined individual differences among families living in povertybecause knowing more about how parents’schemas affect caregivingbehaviors in this specific context may help us understand resilienceand better support parents and children in greatest need.

      Purpose of study (find better support for parents and children in greatest need- poverty) and method (through examining difference families with similar living circumstances to know more about parents' schemas affect caregiving behaviours).

    27. whereas learning support, which includes both cognitive stimulationand the ways in which parents help children master novel challenges,is a critically important but rarely examined caregiving behavior inthis area of research.

      Learning support- cognitive stimulation and support of children with their education. The journal article states the high importance of this quality; and expresses how this is rarely examined as a caregiving behaviour.

    28. Parents’sensitivity, which involvesthe ability to identify and contingently respond to children’s needs in apositive manner without being harsh, is a commonly examinedcaregiving behavior

      Parents' sensitivity is the type of response (either negative or positive) to children's needs.

    29. parents’schemasmay have a special role in reducing internalizing andexternalizingproblems (Meins et al., 2013) and supporting academic achievement(Meins et al., 2019) among families with lower incomes.

      Parents' schemas role and the support it can have on children.

    30. Parents living in poverty face chronic stressors, which caninterfere with thinking and deplete the psychological resourcesnecessary to solve problems, be sensitive and responsive, andprovide the learning support necessary to promote children’s posi-tive adjustment

      The effects poverty has on parents psychological resources that has ramifications on the support their children receive from their caregivers.

    31. there isgreater pressure on parents living in poverty because their childrenface more risks.

      Children living in poverty are at a higher risk of having low level of school readiness, academic underachievement, social-emotional difficulties, encounters with criminal justice system and physical health problems.

    32. emotion, warmth is related to being sensitive and responsive andexhibiting competent caregiving behaviors, whereas critical state-ments and negative affect are related to harsh and coercive parent–child interactions

      Expressed emotions warmth- sensitive, responsive and demonstrating capable caregiving behaviours. critical statements & negative affect- harsh and threatening parent/child interactions.

    33. the emotional valence of parents’schemas reflects how positively or negatively parents perceive theirchildren

      Emotional valence meaning

    34. Schemas are patterns of thought that organizecategories of information, including information about other people.

      Schemas definition