Maternal interactive behaviour towards children with and children without cleft lip and palate

Koomen, Helma M.Y.; Hoeksma, Jan B.

doi:10.1002/edp.2430010306

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Few differences between CLP and control Koomen and Hoeksema (1992) Mothers of children w/CLP (n = 33) vs matched control (n = 34)…”

Section: Maternal Language Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This work has also investigated objective ratings of children's "cues" to parents during interaction, to determine whether children with clefts may provide fewer, or less clear, cues in the regulation of their caregivers' attention. Studies have shown that infants with orofacial clefts and their parents are less active, playful, and sensitive during parent-child interactions than controls (Barden, Ford, Jensen, Rogers-Salyer, & Salyer, 1989;Field & Vega-Lahr, 1984;Koomen & Hoeksema, 1992;Wasserman & Allen, 1985;Wasserman, Allen, & Solomon, 1986). For example, Barden et al (1989) found that infants with heterogeneous CFAs spent less time than controls looking, touching, and otherwise engaging their mothers during interaction.…”

Section: Parent Coping and Parent-child Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social-Emotional Development of Infants and Young Children With Orofacial Clefts

Collett

Speltz

2006

Infants & Young Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children with orofacial clefts are believed to have distinctly elevated risk for a variety of adverse social-emotional outcomes including behavior problems, poor self-concept, and parent-child relationship difficulties. This assumption has been based primarily on theories of facial appearance and social bias, a handful of empirical studies, and clinical impressions. Studies of these children have been limited by methodological problems such as diagnostic heterogeneity, ascertainment bias, and absent or poorly matched control groups. In an attempt to address at least some of these methodological problems, the longitudinal research described in this article examined the developmental course of infants with unilateral cleft lip & palate (CLP) and cleft palate only (CPO). We followed these infants to age 7, with ongoing comparisons to a demographically matched group of typical children. Outcome measures targeted child attachment, maternal/child interaction during feeding and teaching tasks, parent satisfaction with surgical outcomes, parent and teacher behavior rating scales, and child self-concept and behavioral adaptation. Although our findings have provided limited support for the hypothesis that infants and young children with CLP/CPO are at greater risk for social-emotional problems than their peers, we have found that among infants with clefts, early assessment can predict subsequent social-emotional outcomes. In this article, we review theory and data in this area of study, summarize our longitudinal findings, describe our success and failures with respect to methodological rigor, and discuss emerging research and areas for further inquiry.

show abstract

“…Few differences between CLP and control Koomen and Hoeksema (1992) Mothers of children w/CLP (n = 33) vs matched control (n = 34)…”

Section: Maternal Language Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Parent Coping and Parent-child Relationshipsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social-Emotional Development of Infants and Young Children With Orofacial Clefts

Collett

Speltz

2006

Infants & Young Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could make mothers more passive with their child. Koomen and Hoeskman (1991) found that mothers of infants with cleft lip and palate were less sensitive in their behavior during the interaction than were mothers of infants without cleft, although they were equally able to receive and interpret the infants' signals. Langlois et al (1995) suggested that neonates perceived as more attractive receive warmer caretaking from their parents than children perceived as less attractive.…”

Section: Early Mother-child Interactions In Children With Orofacial Cleftmentioning

confidence: 90%

Early Mother-Child Interaction and Later Quality of Attachment in Infants with an Orofacial Cleft Compared to Infants without Cleft

Habersaat

Monnier

Peter

et al. 2013

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective : The main objective of this study was to assess mother-child patterns of interaction in relation to later quality of attachment in a group of children with an orofacial cleft compared with children without cleft. Design : Families were contacted when the child was 2 months old for a direct assessment of mother-child interaction and then at 12 months for a direct assessment of the child's attachment. Data concerning socioeconomical information and posttraumatic stress symptoms in mothers were collected at the first appointment. Participants : Forty families of children with a cleft and 45 families of children without cleft were included in the study. Families were recruited at birth in the University Hospital of Lausanne. Results : Results showed that children with a cleft were more difficult and less cooperative during interaction at 2 months of age with their mother compared with children without a cleft. No significant differences were found in mothers or in dyadic interactive styles. Concerning the child's attachment at 12 months old, no differences were found in attachment security. However, secure children with a cleft were significantly more avoidant with their mother during the reunion episodes than secure children without cleft. Conclusion : Despite the facial disfigurement and the stress engendered by treatment during the first months of the infant's life, children with cleft and their mothers are doing as well as families without cleft with regard to the mothers' mental health, mother-child relationships, and later quality of attachment. A potential contribution for this absence of difference may be the pluridisciplinary support that families of children with cleft benefit from in Lausanne.

show abstract

“…Several studies have attempted to clarify whether this early adverse event may durably affect parent–infant relationships, particularly the quality of early mother–infant interactions (Endriga & Speltz, ; Langlois, Ritter, Casey, & Sawin, ; Murray et al., ) and infant attachment characteristics (Coy, Speltz, & Jones, ; Speltz, Endriga, Fisher, & Mason, ). Considering interactive characteristics, Koomen and Hoeksma () showed, for instance, that mothers of CLP infants were somewhat less sensitive, more directive, and more stimulating than were other mothers when they interacted with their 6‐ and 12‐month‐old infants. Moreover, Habersaat et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attachment in Infants With Cleft Lip and/or Palate: Marginal Security and Its Changes Over Time

Borghini¹,

Despars²,

Habersaat³

et al. 2018

Infant Mental Health Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the attachment quality and how this changed over time among infants who had cleft lip and palate (CLP), by conducting a prospective longitudinal study addressing the effects of this type of perinatal event on the parent-infant relationship and the emotional development of the infants. At 12 months of age, the Strange Situation Paradigm (SSP; M. Ainsworth, M.C. Blehar, E. Waters, & T. Wall, 1978) was administered to a sample of 38 CLP infants (born between 2003 and 2010) and 17 healthy controls. At 4 years of age, the Attachment Story Completion Task (ASCT; I. Bretherton, D. Ridgeway, & J. Cassidy, 1990) was administered to 32 individuals from the CLP sample and 14 from the control group. As reported in the literature, CLP infants display secure attachment behaviors as frequently as do control infants (55%). However, a more detailed analysis of the attachment scales revealed that CLP infants show more avoidance and less proximity seeking. In addition, a closer examination of the subcategories of attachment styles revealed that most CLP infants (71%) displayed distal attachment strategies such as the B1/B2 or A1/A2 subcategories. At 4 years old, CLP infants clearly displayed more deactivation and less security than did the control sample. Moreover, when detailing the evolution of attachment individually, almost 60% of the CLP children showing distal strategies at 12 months became deactivated or disorganized when they reached 4 years. Indeed, subtle differences in attachment behaviors at 12 months old-which can be considered marginally secure at that age-may reveal attachment vulnerabilities, which seem to be more apparent over the course of development.

show abstract

Maternal interactive behaviour towards children with and children without cleft lip and palate

Cited by 14 publications

References 6 publications

Social-Emotional Development of Infants and Young Children With Orofacial Clefts

Social-Emotional Development of Infants and Young Children With Orofacial Clefts

Early Mother-Child Interaction and Later Quality of Attachment in Infants with an Orofacial Cleft Compared to Infants without Cleft

Attachment in Infants With Cleft Lip and/or Palate: Marginal Security and Its Changes Over Time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About