The practical utility of the Welch Emotional Connection Screen for rating parent–infant relational health

Abstract

Emotional Connection (EC) measured by the Welch Emotional Connection Screen (WECS) was related to the Parent–Infant Interaction Rating System (PIIRS), a 5‐point adaptation of the rating system developed for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1999, Developmental Psychology, 35, 1399). Parent–infant dyads (n = 49 mothers; 43 fathers) were videotaped during face‐to‐face interaction at infant age 6 months; interactions were coded with both the WECS and PIIRS. At age 3, mothers completed the Child Behavior Checklist. WECS ratings of EC were associated with PIIRS rating items for both mother–infant and father–infant dyads. Mother–infant EC related positively to maternal sensitivity and positive regard for child, child positive mood and sustained attention, and dyadic mutuality, and negatively with maternal intrusiveness. Father–infant EC related positively to fathers' positive regard for child, child positive mood and sustained attention, and dyadic mutuality. Mother–infant EC predicted child behavior problems at age 3 better than mother–infant PIIRS ratings of dyadic mutuality. With fathers, neither EC nor dyadic mutuality ratings predicted mother‐reported child behavior problems. Findings highlight the practical utility of the WECS for identifying potentially at‐risk dyads and supporting early relational health.

Maternal Interaction With Infants Among Women at Elevated Risk for Postpartum Depression

“…Our findings support the value of screening mothers’ interactions with their infants in ongoing clinical care, using psychometrically sound measures ( Weiss and Quides, 2012 ; Zalewski et al, 2017 ; Fagan et al, 2019 ). Such assessments could have profound utility in preventing later developmental and mental health problems for children.…”

Do toys get in the way? The duration of shared emotional experiences is longer when mothers engage their infants without toys

“…Then, through sequential analysis, coders consider what happens after the event, the targeted behavior. Drawing from previous research on interactional synchrony (e.g., Feldman, 2007), dichotomous ratings of emotional connection (e.g., Frosch et al., 2019; Hane et al., 2019), and dyadic mutuality during mother‐infant play (see Fagan et al., 2019), the “I SEE You” Video‐Based Sequence Coding System for Shared Emotional Experiences (SEEs) was developed. In this way, we sought to advance understanding of parent‐infant relational health through “moment‐to‐moment analysis” (e.g., Avdi et al., 2020) of maternal bids for interaction and dyadic‐level shared emotional experiences.…”

In‐the‐moment ratings on the Early Relational Health Screen: A pilot study of application in home visiting and primary care

“…Given the conceptual overlap with the ERHS the Dyadic Mutuality scale was of particular interest, as it is comparably designed to assess the synchrony of interaction, including reciprocity in play, communication, and shared enjoyment, thus reflecting interaction that is mutually regulated by maternal and infant contributions. Prior work has validated this measure (e.g., Else‐Quest et al., 2011; Fagan et al., 2019). Interrater reliability in coding the NICHD scales was established by two independent raters (not overlapping with the coders who scored the ERHS); these NICHD scale raters double‐coded a set of 15 parent‐child interaction videos, and interrater agreement was strong (all ICCs > = .70, range .76–.91).…”

“…Furthermore, although many of these tools are designed to capture relational qualities, specific dimensions or scales rated using extant measures often emphasize rating the parent and child behavior separately rather than scales that rate qualities of mutual dyadic interaction that capture the likely dynamic and interactive parent and child contributions to individual‐focused codes (e.g., Biringen & Easterbrooks, 2012; Posada et al., 1999). Finally, requirements for administration for many of these tools may constrain clinical utility and serve as barriers for implementation in the clinical setting, for example, relatively lengthy periods of observation (e.g., the Crowell procedure, (Crowell & Feldman, 1988), “artificial” interactive protocols such as the Still Face (Weinberg & Tronick, 1994) or Strange Situation Paradigm (Ainsworth et al., 1978), or post‐session coding based on repeated videotape review (e.g., Biringen & Easterbrooks, 2012; Clark, 1999; Fagan et al., 2019). These pose significant hurdles to use in everyday practice and thus may limit the utility of these tools for wide‐scale screening and surveillance in “real‐world” settings.…”