Advertisement

A Transactional Model of Failure to Thrive: A Look at Misclassified Cases

  • Robert H. Bradley
  • Patrick M. Casey

Abstract

In a previous study, we attempted to identify factors in the home environments of non-organic failure-to-thrive (NOFT) infants that distinguish them from similar infants living in poor socioeconomic circumstances (Casey, Bradley and Wortham, 1983). A case controlled design was employed. NOFT children were matched with normally growing control children on age, sex, race, family income, family size, maternal education, and marital status of mother. Findings from the study indicated that mothers of NOFT infants were less accepting (more punitive) towards their infants, less responsive to their infants, and less well organized in caregiving. On the other hand, NOFT infants were not living in less stimulating environments nor under generally more adverse or stressful circumstances.

Keywords

Maternal Education Discriminant Score Transactional Model Affective Communication Maltreated Child 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aber, J., Zigler, E. Developmental considerations in the definition of child maltreatment. In R. Rizley, D. Cicchetti (eds.), Developmental Perspectives on Child Maltreatment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. Belsky, J. Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 320–335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belsky, J. The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 1984, 55, 83–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley, R. Assessing the family environment of young children. In H. Fitzgerald, B. Lester & M. Yogman (Eds.), Theory and Research in Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 3. New York: Plenum (in press).Google Scholar
  5. Bradley, R., Caldwell, B. Pediatric usefulness of home assessment. In B. Camp (Ed.), Advances in Behavioral Pediatrics, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  6. Bronfenbrenner, U. Ecological validity in research on human development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, D.C., 1976.Google Scholar
  7. Caldwell, B., Bradley, R. Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment. University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. Casey, P., Bradley, R., Wortham, B. Social and non-social home environments of children with non-organic failure to thrive. Pediatrics, 1984, 73, 348–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cicchetti, D., Braunwald, K. An organizational approach to the study of maltreated infants. Journal of Infant Mental Health, 1984, 5, 172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coddington, R. The significance of life events on the etiologic factors in diseases of children - a study of a normal population. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1972, 16, 205–213.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennis, W. Children of the Creche. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1973.Google Scholar
  12. Egeland, B., Sroufe, A. Developmental sequelae of maltreatment in infancy. In R. Rizley & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Developmental Perspectives on Child Maltreatment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.Google Scholar
  13. Frodi, A., Lamb, M. Child abuser’s responses to infant smiles and cries. Child Development, 1980, 51, 238–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaensbauer, T., Mrazek, D., Harmon, R. Affective behavior patterns in abused and/or neglected infants. In N. Freud (Ed.), The Understan-ding and Prevention of Child Abuse: Psychological Approaches. London: Concord Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  15. Gaensbauer, T., Sands, K. Distorted affective communication in abused/ neglected infants and their potential impact on caretakers. American Journal of Child Psychiatry, 1979, 18, 236–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giovannoni, J., Becerra, R. Defining Child Abuse. New York: Free Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  17. Ricciutti, H. Interaction of multiple risk factors contributing to high risk parenting. In V. Sassenrath (Ed.), Minimizing High Risk Parenting. New York: Johnson & Johnson Baby Products Co., 1983.Google Scholar
  18. Rizley, R., Cicchetti, D. Developmental Perspectives on Child Maltreatment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.Google Scholar
  19. Schneider-Rosen, K., Cicchetti, D. The relationship between affect and cognition in maltreated infants: Quality of attachment and development of visual self-recognition. Child Development, 1984, 55, 648658.Google Scholar
  20. Sherrod, K., O’Connor, S., Vietze, P., Altemeier, W. Child health and maltreatment. Child Development, 1984, 55, 1174–1183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Skeels, H., Dye, H. A study of the effects of differential stimulation on mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 1939, 44, 114–136.Google Scholar
  22. Vietze, P., Falsey, S., O’Connor, S., Sandler, H., Sherrod, K., Altemeier, W. Newborn behavioral and interactional characteristics of nonorganic failure-to-thrive infants. In T. Field (Ed.), High Risk Infants and Children: Adult and Peer Interactions. New York: Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert H. Bradley
    • 1
    • 2
  • Patrick M. Casey
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Child Development and EducationUniversity of ArkansasUSA
  2. 2.Department of PediatricsUniversity of ArkansasUSA

Personalised recommendations