1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The primary objective of this study was to explore birth status as a risk factor for developmental patterns of change in the mother–child relationship and in child EA [emotional availability] in a sample of typically developing fullterm and VLBW/PT [very low birth weight/ preterm] children from infancy to emerging school age. The specific objectives of this study were threefold. As a needed intermediate step in investigating the effect of VLBW/PT status on EA, the first objective was to model and describe the developmental trajectories of five components of EA: maternal sensitivity, structuring and non-hostility, and child responsiveness and involvement, from infancy through emerging school age in a sample including both VLBW/PT and fullterm children. The second objective was to identify potential effects of being VLBW/PT on these trajectories. […] The third objective was to determine whether the effect of VLBW/PT status on children’s socio-emotional development (child EA) remained after accounting for a potential protective effect of maternal EA […].» (p. 3-4)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«A total of 109 child–mother dyads were observed in interactions in their homes when children were approximately 6, 12, 18, and 57-months old. [A total of] 48 fullterm and 61 healthy VLBW/PT infants were recruited from a major community teaching hospital (Montréal, QC) at the same time and by the same research team for the present study in collaboration with the VLBW follow-up clinic and the chief Neonatologist.» (p. 4)

Instruments :
- Questionnaire
- Guide d’entretien semi-directif
- Grille d’observation

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse de contenu
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

«The principal results from [this] study’s growth curve analyses indicate that, even after controlling for maternal EA, there was a persistent negative effect of VLBW/PT birth status on child EA trajectories, i.e., responsiveness and involvement. After 6 months of age, VLBW/PT infants lagged behind their fullterm counterparts on their levels of responsiveness and involvement with their mothers. These findings remained even after accounting for the effects of maternal sensitivity and structuring over time. When [the authors] tested for mean level changes there was evidence for linear increases in means of responsiveness and involvement for both fullterm and VLBW/PT children, but the VLBW/PT children still continued to lag behind the fullterm children. Due to the fact that the effects persisted when maternal variables were controlled for in the models, [the authors can be] fairly confident that maternal EA are not responsible for this lagged difference in the two groups.» (p. 10)