IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v24y1987i3p285-288.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do health professionals agree on the parenting potential of pregnant women?

Author

Listed:
  • Sommerfeld, D.P.
  • Hughes, J.R.

Abstract

Although retrospective studies have suggested that the signs of potential parenting problems are present well before the child is born, successful prenatal screening is infrequent or absent in most clinical settings. For the most part, this lack of screening reflects the inherent difficulties in developing and using practical and reliable tools of assessment. Problems of reliability suggest that professionals from related disciplines often differ in their evaluations of clinical samples. This pilot study was designed to determine whether 12 professionals, four from each of three health disciplines concerned with child-abuse detection (nursing, medicine and social work), could agree on parenting risk status of 15 pregnant women. Assessment protocols were comprised of the most frequently cited predictive signs of poor parenting. Each rater evaluated the transcript of 15 prenatal interviews. The results indicate inconsistencies in rating both among and within the professional groups. These inconsistencies extended not only to the individual criteria from which the final scores were derived, but also to the total risk status. Even though specific instructions were given for the use of risk criteria, the raters often violated the instructions for coding in favor of their own idiosyncratic judgements.

Suggested Citation

  • Sommerfeld, D.P. & Hughes, J.R., 1987. "Do health professionals agree on the parenting potential of pregnant women?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 285-288, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:24:y:1987:i:3:p:285-288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(87)90055-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:24:y:1987:i:3:p:285-288. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.