National Academies Press: OpenBook

Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study (1982)

Chapter: Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables

« Previous: Appendix C: Freestanding Birth Centers
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables." Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 1982. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18297.
×
Page 148

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX D Research on Childbirth Settings: The Assessment of Psychological Variables Camille B. Wortman in consultation with Miriam C. F. Kelty At present there is a great deal of interest in conventional and nonconventional birth settings. The incidence of home delivery is believed to be increasing (Mehl et al., 1977), and alternative birth settings such as nonhospital childbearing centers, are becoming in- creasingly prevalent (Faison et al., 1979J Pragmatics, Inc., 1978). Although opponents of alternative birth settings stress the medical risks involved, advocates emphasize the psychological advantages of nonhospital environments and the freedom they provide from excessive medical intervention. Unfortunately, there is little objective evi- dence to support any of these claims (see Appendix A). A recent review of research on home and hospital birth settings emphasized that •this lack of data has been a major factor preventing effective and reasoned dialogue among health professionals and lay people, especially those holding widely divergent views• (Adamson and Gare, 1980). In coming years, more research should be directed toward studying both hospital and nonhospital birth settings. TO date, the limited research on this topic has focused on aedical outcomes such as fetal and neonatal death rates. This paper discusses the assessment of psychological variables in research on birth settings. The boundaries of this field have yet to be established, and the terrain remains virtually unmapped. The research findings suggest that aany oppor- tunities exist for productively using existing psychological concepts, constructs, and theories. Thus, explorations of the psychological aspects of childbirth settings might reward those who can overcame the substantive and methodological obstacles to conducting research in this field. After a review of the evidence regarding the importance of psycho- logical variables in the birth process, this paper discusses same methodological issues concerning the assessment of psychological vari- ables. These include: (1) the tt.ing of assessment, (2) the need to assess background and setting variables that may influence psychologi- cal variables, (3) the importance of longitudinal research (studying research participants over several points in time) and long-term follow- up (assessing the effects of a treatment or procedure at one or more points in time), (4) the importance of assessing psychological variables through multiple modes (e.g., objective observation and self-report), and (5) the need for multivariate approaches to psychological variables. 102

103 This discussion is followed by tables listing specific psychological variables likely to influence the birth process. For ease of pre- sentation they have been organized by the target of assessment (e.g., mother, father, infant, mother-father, mother-infant) and by the time of assessment (e.g., during pregnancy, during labor or delivery, just after birth). The tables also provide information regarding whether these variables have been assessed in prior research on the birth process, and if so, how this assessment was made. Instruments that are currently available for assessing these variables are described and evaluated, and areas where new scale development is necessary are discussed. RATIONALE FOR INCLUDING PSYCHOSOCIAL VARIABLES IN RESEARCH ON BIRTH SETTINGS In the past, most studies evaluating birth settings have focused on mortality and morbidity data (Adamson and Gare, 1980). Because ma- ternal mortality has become such a rare event, fetal and neonatal death rates are the common indicators used in such research. In some studies, investigators have taken into account the medical procedures used in a particular setting--such as the use of analgesia, oxytocin, low- or mid-forceps delivery, or episiotomies. Others have assessed the rate of such intrapartum and postpartum complications as meconium stain, hemorrhaging, or cesarean delivery (Barton et al., 19801 Goodlin, 19801 Mehl et al., 1977J Shy et al., 1980). Indicators of the infant's health status, such as birth weight and one- and five-minute Apgar scores, have also been recorded in a few studies (e.g., Chalmers et al., 1976a, 1976b, 1976C1 Faison et al., 1979J Mehl et al., 1977). However, the assessment of such psychological variables as parents• anxiety and emotional distress or parents' bonding to the infant has been notably absent in these studies. Advocates of home birth settings have emphasized the psychological advantages that they believe are conferred on the parents and the newborn infant. Some home birth advocates have argued that the woman's psychological well-being is jeopardized in hospital settings, where physicians are often perceived as authoritarian and impersonal (Arms, 1975). Others have maintained that the bonding between the baby and its parents is facilitated when labor takes place in a familiar, relaxed environment with supportive attendants (Stewart and Stewart, 1977). Still others have stressed the advantages for the other sib- lings and the positive effects on relationships in the family (e.g., Kitzinger and Davis, 1978). Many of these proponents believe that although risk factors can never be foreseen and eliminated in all cases, the positive aspects of home births outweigh the risks involved. For these reasons, research on home birth settings that does not include psychological variables may be dismissed as irrelevant by those sympa- thetic to the home birth movement. Although advocates of nonconventional birth settings have firm beliefs regarding the psychological superiority of these settings, virtually all of the evidence in support of their position is anecdotal

104 (see, e.g., Kitzinger and Davis, 1978). Because home birth is con- sidered unsafe and there are few rigorous empirical data supporting the purported psychological benefits, many physicians have not been recep- tive to the arguments. The lack of sound empirical data also makes it difficult for potential parents or consumers to make a reasoned judgment regarding the birth setting that would be best for thea. Well-designed, methodologically sophisticated studies that include measurement of relevant psychological variables could be effective in stimulating a dialogue among advocates of different settings. Evidence that psychological factors can influence birth outcomes provides a second reason for including these variables in research on birth settings. For example, the results of numerous studies have suggested that psychological events or conditions during pregnancy can affect the progress of labor and delivery. It also appears that the psychological climate during labor and delivery can influence the course of labor and fetal outcome. Same preliminary research even suggests that the psychological environment during delivery can influence mater- nal and infant behavior for years to ca.e. Evidence for these asser- tions is discussed below in more detail. Evidence Relating Psychological Factors to Labor Outcome In several prospective studies, investigators have noted a relationship between the woman's psychological state in pregnancy and outco.e in labor and delivery. Zuckerman et al. (1963) reported that anxiety, as assessed by an adjective checklist given during pregnancy, was directly related to the amount of analgesic required during labor and delivery. Davids et al. (1961) found that ca.pared to woaen who experienced a •normal• delivery, wcaen who experienced aa.plications in the delivery room or who gave birth to children with abnoraalities scored signifi- cantly higher on a scale measuring anxiety that had been adainistered during pregnancy. Although the evidence is not entirely consistent (Becket al., 1980J Burnstein et al., 1974), nu.erous studies have suggested that maternal anxiety in pregnancy can affect both aaternal and fetal outcomes (Crandon, 1979a, 1979bJ Erickson, 1976J Gorsuch and Key, 1974J Pilowsky, 1971). ror exa.ple, Brickson (1976) found that women who experienced uterine inertia, a prolonged first stage of labor, rotation of the infant's head, low forceps delivery, or whose infant's Apgar score was less than five, had previously scored significantly higher on a scale measuring •fear for self• than waaen who did not experience these ca.plications. WOmen with any one of the first four of these complications also scored higher on a •fears for bab7• inven- tory than women who did not experience complications. These ca.plica- tions were highly correlated with one another. lOr exaaple, prolonged first stage of labor was associated with an increased risk of uterine inertia. On the basis of these data, the investigator concluded that •psychological stresses during pregnancy may initiate a sequence of complications which directly affect both the .other and the infant• (Erikson, 1976).

105 Several significant associations were found in a prospective study conducted to determine the relationship between several psychological variables in pregnancy and progress in labor (Lederman at al., 1979). During the second stage of labor, both acceptance of pregnancy and identification with the motherhood role were associated with epineph- rine (a hormone that stimulates the sympathetic nervous system), Montevideo units, and length of labor. Each of these psychological variables was also related to the length of labor during stage three, and to the type of delivery (e.g., whether the delivery was forceps- assisted). In fact these investigators also found significant negative correlations between the infant's Apgar score at five minutes and two variables assessed during pregnancy--conflict in accepting pregnancy and fear of loss of self-esteem during labor (Lederman et al., 198la). In a larger prospective study conducted with 8,000 gravidas, Laukaran and van den Berg (1980) examined the relationship between maternal attitude and pregnancy outcome. The proportion of women with postpartum complications (infections or hemorrhage) was larger in the negative attitude group than in the group of women holding favorable, moderate, or ambivalent attitudes. Even more striking was the finding that the pregnancies of women with negative attitudes resulted in a prenatal death or a live-born infant with a severe congenital anomaly more often than the pregnancies of women with the other types of attitudes. Studies in Animals Numerous studies, including those using infrahuman species, have suggested that anxiety and disturbance during labor can result in protracted labor and poor fetal outcome (for reviews, see Myers and Myers, 1979r Newton, 1977). An advantage of such research is the ability to assign the animals randomly to different labor disturb- ance groups. In one study (Newton et al., 1966a) mice were gently cupped in the experimenter's hands for one minute at various times during labor. In these mice there was a 65 to 72 percent slowing of labor in comparison to the undisturbed controls. In another experiment on the effect of environment on labor, mice randomly assigned to an unfaailiar environment for the duration of their labor delivered their first pup significantly later. Also, they delivered approximately 54 percent more dead pups than did mice placed in a familiar environment or rotated between a familiar and an unfaailiar environment (Newton et al., 1966b). More recently, a number of investigators have examined the impact of maternal distress during labor on various physiological indices of the mother and the fetus. For exa.ple, causing stress in maternal monkeys ~ shining a bright light in their faces resulted in a decrease in fetal oxygenation and an increase in acidosis in the fetus (Mori- shima, 1978). Similarly, the presence of strangers standing in front of the cage of pregnant monkeys resulted in a drop in fetal heart rate, blood pressure, pH (acidity/alkalinity), and oxygen levels, and a rise in carbon dioxide levels. In some cases the investigators observed fetal asphyxia approaching fetal deaise (Myers and Myers, 1979). ....

106 Studies in Human Beings In a number of studies, investigators have found a relationship between maternal anxiety during labor and subse- quent outcome. In one study, maternal-state anxiety (a temporary epi- sode, rather than an underlying •trait• of anxiety) on admission to the labor room was predictive of labor length (Becket al., 1980). In another study, anxiety assessed during the beginning of second stage labor was related to type of delivery, e.g., forceps-assisted or not (Lederman et al., 1979). The physiological basis for such findings baa been explored in studies relating maternal anxiety and various physio- logical indices (Lederman et al., 1978, 198la). For example, anxiety reported by the patient at the onset of second stage labor was signifi- cantly associated with endogenous plasma epinephrine (Lederman et al., 1978). Higher epinephrine levels were found to be significantly cor- related with decreased uterine contractile activity and longer second stage labor. In a subsequent study (Lederman et al., 198lb) patients' self-reports of anxiety during labor were significantly correlated with plasma epinephrine levels. Both anxiety and high levels of epinephrine were associated with changes in the fetal heart rate in the third stage of labor. The fetal heart rate pattern was also correlated with Apgar scores at one and five minutes. The association between aaternal anxiety and plasma epinephrine is especially interesting in light of the evidence that catecholamine& (a group of compounds that affect the sympathetic nervous system) may decrease the blood supply to the placenta and prolong the first stage of labor (see Levinson and Shnider, 1979, for a review). There is also evidence that characteristics of the labor setting, which would presumably influence maternal anxiety, can affect the labor process. FOr example, in a study of 49 women in a childbirth education group, women whose husbands were unable to attend the sessions reported higher levels of pain during labor (Renneborn and COgan, 1975). In this study the direction of causality is difficult to ascertain: Husbands may have been leas likely to attend the birth if they expected their wives to experience a great deal of pain. Therefore, it is notable, as will be described below, that investigators who ~ave experimentally manipulated various aspects of the birth environments have produced similar findings. In one such study, healthy Guatemalan women were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions (Soaa et al., 1980). The women in the •experimental• group were accompanied during labor and delivery by a previously unencountered but supportive lay woman. They were compared to women in the second group who labored and delivered as usual, without a support companion. There was a highly significant difference in the number of subsequent perinatal problems in the two groups (e.g., meconium staining, stillbirths, cesarean sections, oxy- tocin augmentation, and forceps delivery). In fact it was necessary to admit 103 mothers to the control group, but only 33 mothers to the ex- perimental group, to obtain 20 in each group with uncomplicated deliv- eries. Only 12 women (37 percent) in the experimental group experi- enced complications as compared to 79 women (75 percent) in the control group. Even when mothers with complications were excluded, the length of time from admission to delivery was significantly shorter for mothers

107 in the experimental group than for those in the control group (8.8 versus 19.3 hours). In the past, psychological variables have often been considered less important than indicators of physical well-being. The studies described above show that psychological variables play a central role in the birth process by exerting a strong influence on the progress of delivery and on the well-being of the mother and infant. Moreover, because these variables have been shown to influence such factors as the length of labor and likelihood of complications, they may also influence costs of health care. The effects of the woman's psychological state during labor may not be limited to the course of labor itself. Dysfunctional labor may have an adverse effect on the infant's subsequent development. Although the data are not entirely consistent (Broman et al., 1975), there is some indication that protracted labor and instrument-assisted delivery are associated with abnormalities in the child's speech, language, and hear- ing at three years of age and a lower IQ at four years (Friedman et al., 1977). Moreover, the events that occur during labor may influence the infant's development indirectly. For example, some psychological fac- tors such as anxiety or the presence of the woman's husband may influ- ence the use of anesthesia and other drugs that can be transferred to the fetus and thereby influence the newborn's behavior. Borgstedt and Rosen (1968) have shown that sedative or narcotic drugs administered to the mother during labor can cause at least transient central nervous system depression in the newborn. Also, parents may show less interest or different patterns of care for an infant who is depressed, limp, or unresponsive at birth (Klaus and Kennell, 1976). There is also some evidence that the psychological climate in which the birth takes place can directly influence subsequent parental behav- ior toward the offspring. Women randomly assigned to a group with a companion present during labor and delivery were more awake after de- livery, and they also stroked, smiled at, and talked to their babies more than the control mothers did (Sosa et al., 1980). Similarly, women who were randomly assigned to groups receiving 16 hours of extra contact with their infants shortly after birth behaved differently toward these infants at a follow-up visit one year later (Kennell et al., 1974). Extra-contact mothers were more preoccupied with their infants, more likely to soothe the child when it cried, and more likely to kiss the baby. In a follow-up of this group of mothers and infants after two years, significant differences were found in the speech patterns of mothers previously assigned to extra contact. While addressing their two-year-olds during informal play, those mothers given extra contact asked significantly more questions and used more adjectives and words per preposition, but fewer commands, than did control mothers (Ringler et al., 1975). These studies are very relevant to the study of birth settings because the variables found to be important (e.g., presence of a supportive companion and immediate postpartum contact with infant) are likely to differ as a function of birth setting. Given the profound effects shown to result from psychological fac- tors, it may be important to assess such variables not only in studies on birth location but also in research on other aspects of the process

108 as well. For exaaple, several randcaized studies have recently been conducted to exuine the impact of electronic fetal aonitoring. Most of these have shown an increased rate of cesarean section for the aon- itored group (Sosa et al., 1980). However, it is very likely that the control group of patients received aore ti•, more eJDOtional support, and aore physical contact from the nursing staff. T.bus, control pa- tients may have felt less anxious than the monitored group and there- fore aay have had a lower rate of cesarean section. In future studies of labor interventions, every effort should be made to ensure that the groups are equated on the relevant psychological variables. Including psychological variables in research on birth settings should also be helpful in uncovering the underlying biobehavioral pro- ceases that influence labor and delivery outccaea. For exaJIPle, what process can account for the superior outcomes among the waaen who had a supportive companion present? If Sosa et al. (1980) had noted the anxiety and plaa.. epinephrine levels in the waaen, we could begin to speculate about the underlying process involved. MB'l'BODOLOGIES IN 'l'BE ASSESSMBN'l' OF PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES To assess psychological vari·ables in studies on alternative birth set- tings the investigator must consider nuaerous aethodological issues. For example, when should such asaessaents be made and what types of experimental designs should be used? Unless psychological variables are assessed with considerable aethodological sophistication, the results are unlikely to advance our knowledge about the birth process. Scae of the most coa.on concerns are explored below. T.be Timing of Assessment It is important to assess psychological variables as early as possible so that antecedents and consequences can be clearly distinguished. Some investigators have exuined such variables during labor or in the postpartua period. However, there are many advantages in assessing psychological variables at earlier stages of pregnancy. As suggested in the literature reviewed above, the woman's psychological reactions during pregnancy can have an independent influence on labor and delivery outccae. WOmen who have negative attitudes toward their pregnancy or who do not accept the mothering role have been shown to have aore com- plications than women with aore positive attitudes. Investigators who are interested in exaaining the effect of the birth setting on these same outccae variables will be able to conduct more sensitive analyses if the effects of earlier attitudes or anxiety patterns can be statis- tically partialled out or held constant. Assessing psychological variables before labor and delivery would be particularly important in nonrandcaized clinical trials comparing different birth settings. Wcaen who choose nonconventional birth set- tings are likely to differ with respect to important psychological vari- ables, and these alone may influence outccaes. For example, waaen who

109 decide on home births may, as a group, be leas anxious than those who decide on hospital deliveries. In a study ca.paring women who selected different birth alternatives, Cohen (1981) found that there were widely different attitudes toward desired involvement in the birth, toward pain, and toward hospital personnel. Even .,re importantly, wo.en who opted for nonboapital care were likely to be involved in supportive social relationships (Cohen, 1981). In contrast, approximately one- third of the hospital patients in this study could n... no genuinely supportive person. In several of the reaaining instances the woman opting for a hospital birth regarded her aate as ambivalent or unin- volved in the childbirth experience. If the a~M)Unt of social support available to the .,ther were not assessed prior to delivery, a number of aistaken inferences aight be drawn. Differences in social support, rather than the birth setting per ae, could result in improved outco.ea for the .,thers who have nonhoapital births. A second reason for early assessment of psychological variables is their possible interaction with birth setting variables to influence birth outcomes. Clearly, no one type of birth setting is ideal for everyone. SOme .,there want to be actively involved in the birth, whereas others want to be taken care of and are willing to •accept what may sometimes be impersonal, discontinuous, and routinized care while they relax and prepare themselves for the vicissitudes of the first weeks and .,nths at home• (Cohen, 1981, p. 11). However, •extra contact• may be a disaster for mothers with an unwanted pregnancy (de Chateau, 1977). In fact, some of these .,thers have refused extra contact with their infanta when it was offered. Investigators studying the effect of electronic fetal .,nitoring have also found divergent reactions dependent on the woman's personality characteristics and past experiences with pregnancy. Although a011e WOII8n judged the electronic fetal monitor to be reassuring, others found it upsetting (Starkaan, 1976). In abort, because women's reactions to a particular birth set- ting aay be dependent on psychological variables such as attitudes toward the pregnancy or personality disposition, it is important to assess such variables. Assessing Background and Setting Variables A wa.an•a attitudes toward pregnancy or feelings of anxiety during pregnancy may be influenced by such -.dical background factors as whether the pregnancy was planned or whether the mother had co-plica- tiona during a previous childbirth experience. Stailarly, a voaan•s feelings of anxiety during labor and delivery are likely to be affected by characteristics of the setting, e.g., the behavior of -.dical per- sonnel, the familiarity of the location, and the specific .edical proce- dures used. These studies have iaplications for the design of research to assess various birth settings. Hot only are there substantial differences in the attitudes of, and social support available to, women who select dif- ferent settings, but the settings theaaelves are likely to differ in aany ways (Cohen, 1981). The voaan•a position during labor, the aedical •

110 procedures performed, the supportiveness of attendants, the familiarity of the surroundings, and the amount of subsequent postnatal contact with the infant are just a few of the variables among birth settings. For this reason, investigators who compare the various settings and simply report differences in outcomes for mother and infant will shed little light on the birth process. Given the many differences among the settings, it will be difficult to ascertain which variables are responsible for any differences in outcome. By including careful assessments of background and setting variables in studies of alternative birth settings and by examining a large num- ber of such studies, it may be possible to make some preliminary judg- ments about the background and setting variables that are most impor- tant. Ideally, research in which various settings are compared should be paralleled by studies in which just one setting variable is manipu- lated while others are held constant. It is much easier to examine the effects of individual characteristics of the setting than the effects of the birth environment as a whole because discrete parameters of the setting (e.g., personnel, practices, clients, place) lend themselves more readily to randomized experimental designs. One might be skeptical about the use of randomized clinical trials in research on the birth process. However, there are a large number of studies that have effectively employed such sophisticated designs. In previous studies, randomized clinical trials have been conducted to examine the effect of such variables as the position of the mother dur- ing delivery (Humphrey et al., 1973)J the presence of a supportive lay person during delivery (Sosa et al., 1980)J whether electronic fetal monitoring was used (Kelso et al., 1978J Renou et al., 1976)J whether the Leboyer approach was used (Nelson et al., 1980)J whether the mother received extra contact with the infant (Kennell et al., 1974J Ringler et al., 1975) or was allowed •rooming in,• a situation in which the baby stays with the mother the entire time (Greenberg et al., 1973)J whether initial contact occurred immediately postpartum or was delayed 12 hours (Hales et al., 1977)J and whether the initial contact was made with a wrapped infant or skin-to-skin (Curry, 1979). The underlying processes are more likely to be elucidated by knowledge regarding the impact of specific variables on birth outcomes than by comparisons of birth settings. Moreover, such knowledge may be extremely useful in modifying birth environments to improve outcomes for the mother, child, and family. Prospective, Longitudinal Research Prospective, longitudinal studies are highly desirable in research on the birth process. If psychological variables are assessed only once and then found to be associated with outcome variables, the direction of causality is impossible to determine. For example, how should a positive association between maternal anxiety and labor difficulties be interpreted? Just as maternal anxiety may result in protracted labor, labor difficulties may enchance maternal anxiety. By assessing anxiety prior to labor, it is possible to draw inferences about the direction of casuality among the variables.

111 ~ny relationships among variables could be illuminated by using relatively short-term time lags between assessments (Walters and Walters, 1980). During labor, for example, women who do not receive support may be more likely to experience pain and express their discom- fort. Alternatively, those women who express pain and discomfort may receive different treatment from medical personnel than women who appear to be coping well. Assessments of women's emotional reactions and the supportive behaviors of health care providers at several points during labor should make it possible to determine the causal relationships among these variables. Long-Term Follow-Up Many advocates of home or other nonconventional birth settings have maintained that settings can influence such long-term outcomes as the child's emotional development or the relationship of the child to sib- lings. However, the evidence for these assertions consists almost exclusively of anecdotal evidence and case-study reports. As Cohen (1981) has noted, •There are indeed few, if any, long-range studies that support any claims at all. The time bas come for behavioral scientists [to explore the] childbirth experience as [it] relates to the development of the child.• Long-term assessment of psychological variables can determine whether outcomes initially appearing desirable prove to be detrimental in the long run. FOr example, mothers randomly assigned to a •rooming in• condition judged themselves as more competent in the infant's care and were also less likely to think they would need help with child care at home than mothers who were not provided a rooming-in option (Green- berg et al., 1973). Although the authors concluded that the impact of rooming in was positive, it would be interesting to know bow these mothers reacted to the full-time demands of child care once they re- turned home. Rooming-in mothers may have been less likely to arrange for help during the postpartum period and may subsequently have become more fatigued or experienced more strain in adopting the maternal role. Similarly, mothers who were given a few hours of extra contact with their child during the postpartum period were more likely to stand near their child during a physical examination or soothe the child if be or she cried (Kennell et al., 1974). These mothers also seemed much more preoccupied with their babies than were the mothers in the regular- contact condition. Extra-contact mothers were more likely to indicate that they thought constantly about the baby when they went out than mothers in the regular-contact condition. In fact, of those who had returned to school or work, five of the six extra-contact mothers (as compared to one of six control mothers) reported that they worried about or greatly missed their baby while away. Although the effects of extra contact appear to be beneficial in the short run, extended contact may intensify role conflict or distress over a longer sum period, especially among women who return to work. Given the considerable expense involved in long-term follow-up studies, one might ask whether the benefits of such research are likely

112 to justify the costs. Extended follow-up studies are rare. sa.e have provided data indicating that significant effects fro. birth-associated variables were still apparent years after the birth (Kennell et al., 1974). Several investigators have found differences in aaternal behav- ior toward their child two years later as a result of extra contact at birth (Ringler et al., 1975). Similarly, protracted labor, which aay be more likely to occur in some birth settings tban in others, is asso- ciated with differences in speech, language, and I.Q. as long as four years after the birth (Friedman et al., 1977). One study showed a sig- nificant relationship between a mother's attitude toward her baby at one month (a variable that could presumably be influenced by the type of birth experience) and the child's behavior more than four years later (Broussard and Hartner, 1971). In this study babies judged by their mothers as worse than average at one month of age were significantly more likely to require •therapeutic intervention• as deterained by an independent clinical assessment at age 4.5. Although it will be diffi- cult and expensive to conduct saae of these long-tera studies, their inforaation will be critical to uncovering psychosocial differences due to aspects of different birth settings. Multiple Methods of Assess..nt In assessing psychological variables such as the mother's emotional state during childbirth or the social support available to her, it is extremely important to use multiple aethods of assessment. As other investigators have noted, any one means of assessing a construct is necessarily i~rfect (campbell and Piske, 1959). Por ex..ple, if nurses or doctors are asked to assess a wo.an•s .-otional state during labor, their role as providers aay aake it objectively difficult for them (Standley and Nicholson, 1980). Similarly, data taken fraa aedical records uy be incaaplete and inaccurate. By . .aauring a given con- struct in several different ways, however, an investigator can increase the likelihood of demonstrating its validity. In assessing reactions to pain, for ex.-ple, the investigator aay get a more caaplete picture by exaaining a caabination of self-report measures (e.g., subjective distress or anxiety), attendants• observations of the client's behavior, (e.g., observers• judgaents of the wo.an•s distress), and physiological indicators (e.g., frontalis auscle tension and breathing irregular- ities). Multivariate Data Analysis When assessing a large nuaber of variables, a aultivariate approach should be considered. In a recent study on the effects of extended contact, 35 different mother-infant interactions were recorded 36 hours after birth (de Chateau, 1976). At a 6-.onth follow-up, 61 behaviors were scored during a mother-infant play session. Three statistically significant effects were found at 36 hours and 4 at the 6-.onth assess- ment. Given the large nuaber of analyses conducted, it is iiiPOrtant

113 not to overinterpret the findings. If the investigator had used a multivariate approach to the data analysis, it would have been possible to .ake a jud~nt regarding the overall significance of the results. MEASURING PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES I~rtant Variables and Available Instruments Once a decision has been made to exaaine psychological variables in studies assessing characteristics of birth settings, the investigator is faced with the following questionsa Which variables should be mea- sured? What scales or measuring instruments are available to assess the variables? Are there some variables for which scales or aeasure- ment instruments have not been developed or refined? ~ provide some preliminary answers to these questions, we have attempted to delineate the major important variables and to summarize infor.ation regarding the best way to assess them. This information is presented and swa- aarized in the tables at the end of this paper. 1be list of variables delineated in the tables was drawn from the literature on the birth process. The tables include both psychological variables (e.g., emotional reactions during labor and postpartum adjust- ment), and background and setting variables that are likely to influence psychological reactions (e.g., obstetrical history, previous childbirth experiences, and characteristics of the birth setting). Some of these variables, such as maternal anxiety and attitudes toward pregnancy, were added because they have been shown to influence birth outcome. Other variables, such as the woman's judgments concerning labor room person- nel, have not yet been systematically examined. 'l'hey were added because the literature contains evidence suggesting that they may be important. Por ease of presentation, the variables are organized according to the target of assessment. Targets include the mother, .other-infant, .other-father, father, father-infant, and infant. Variables are also grouped according to tiae of assessmenta (1) antecedent variables that presumably influenced the mother and/or father before pregnancy (e.g., background factors such as age and socioeconomic levelr personality characteristics such as self-esteem, sex role orientation, or trait anxiety), (2) variables that occur during pregnancy (e.g., maternal attitudes and feelings during pregnancyr preparation for labor or for birth), (3) variables that are relevant during labor and delivery (e.g., reactions to painr judgments about labor room personnel), (4) variables relevant to the peripartum period (e.g., maternal behavior toward the infantr satisfaction with the infant's appearance), and (5) variables that are relevant in the subsequent period (e.g., caretaking skillsr postpartum adjustment). Information regarding both the target and the timing of the assess- ment is provided in the titles of each table. Each target is considered for each time period that is appropriate. Por mothers, fathers, and mother-father interactions, this includes all assessment periods. Of course, variables focusing on the infant are only considered for assess- ment periods after birth, as are variables focusing on mother-infant and father-infant interactions. I ,-

114 Each page of each table is divided into seven columns. The first column lists the psychological variable. The second column indicates alternative times when the variable might be assessed. For example, the woman's emotional reactions to the birth experience might be assessed during the birth itself, or just after the birth. If assess- ment of the variable has been discussed in a report on the birth process, the reference is provided in the third column. The fourth column lists the name of the assessment tool, if any. The fifth column indicates the type of tcol (e.g., self-report or observer rating). A brief description of the assessment tool is included in the sixth column. The last column contains information about the instrument's reliability (consistency of test results) and validity (the capacity of a measure to predict what it was designed to predict). Although this list of variables and assessment tools is not exhaus- tive, it provides a reasonably comprehensive list of the types of vari- ables that might be included and the assessment tools that are avail- able. The variables occuring prior to and during pregnancy can be regarded as independent variables. As noted earlier, these variables should be assessed because they are likely to exert an independent influence on birth outcomes or interact with birth setting variables to determine birth outcomes. The variables occurring during labor and delivery or after the birth might be thought of as dependent or outcome variables because they are likely to differ as a function of birth setting. Specific variables, such as the behavior of attendants or the father's involvement in the birth, may be important in their own right, but they may also mediate other outcomes such as subsequent maternal feelings or father-infant interaction. Gaps in the Literature on Assessment of Variables The Target of Assessment Organizing the literature on assessment of psychological variables by target and time of assessment shows which areas have been most thoroughly studied (see tables). Most studies on the target of assessment have been focused on the mother. The second highest number of studies have been devoted to describing instruments for assessing infant behavior. There are relatively few instruments for examining the father's psychological reaction to the birth, although there has been growing interest in the father in recent years. There have been no studies to assess psychological variables among siblings or extended family members. This is unfortunate because one of the advantages claimed for home birth is a beneficial effect on the sib- lings. At this point, no instruments have been used on birth practices to examine such factors as the siblings' attitudes toward the newborn or the quality of their subsequent relationships. There also have been few studies of the birth process that have described tools for the assessment of the marital relationship. Advo- cates of nonconventional birth settings have maintained that such births can exert a positive influence on the subsequent relationship of the husband and wife. Yet no research instruments have been developed in this literature with the exception of a few that assess the marital

115 relationship from the woman's point of view. However, these instruments have not been validated and are likely to provide a one-sided view of the marital relationship. Although they have not typically been used in research on the birth process, several scales have been developed to assess the quality of marital relationships (Spanier and Lewis, 1980). Such scales could easily be used in studies on alternative birth settings. One such instrument is the Dyadic Adjustment Scale developed by Spanier (1976, 1979). This 32-item, self-report instrument can be used with either married or unmarried cohabitating couples. The scale not only provides an overall measure of dyadic adjustment, but also contains separate sub- scales to assess dyadic satisfaction, consensus (i.e., agreement con- cerning various issues that arise in the relationship), and expression of affect. Moreover, this scale has been carefully validated. In one step of the validation process, for example, Spanier (1976) administered the instrument to both divorced and married samples and found that for each of the 32 items, the two samples differed significantly at the p < .001 level. These processes have been discussed in detail by Spainer (1976, 1979). This scale could be profitably used to examine changes in the quality of the marital relationship as a function of the birth setting. Some studies of the birth process have described procedures for assessing interaction patterns among the family as a whole. For example, assessment tools have been developed to quantify various aspects of the mother-infant relationship, and one or two studies have discussed how father-infant interaction might be measured (Clarke- Stewart, 1973r McDonald, 1978r Standley and Nicholson, 1980). Clarke-Stewart (1978) has stressed that studies that focus only on mother-infant or father-infant interactions are likely to be misleading. Research has demonstrated that mothers behave differently toward a young child if the father is present (Clark-Stewart, 1978r Parke and O'Leary, 1975). Techniques should be used to categorize the behavior of all the relevant family members, especially because home birth advocates have maintained that a home birth experience can tmprove and strengthen faaily relationships. Appropriate techniques have been developed and used in research on other topics (Conger and MCLeod, 1977). A review of observation methods or assessment tools that consider the family as a whole and a discussion of bow such tools might be applied to research on alternative birth settings would be very useful. The Timing of Assessment The tables show that most assessment tools have been designed only to record maternal reactions during pregnancy. Several different instruments can be used to assess maternal feelings, adjustments, and behaviors during pregnancy. In contrast, far less attention has been focused on the assessment of psychological variables at other time periods. Although the features of the birth setting and a woman's reactions to them are most likely to differentiate the hospital from the home birth experience, almost no attention bas been paid to the assessment of relevant variables during labor and delivery. One notable exception

116 is the development of an observational system that enables an investi- gator to record observable features of a waBan's physical state as well as her interactions with others in the labor room (Standley and Nichol- son, 1980). On the basis of recorded observations, ratings can be given to important components of the labor and delivery experience such as the physical intimacy of the mother-father relationship and the effective- ness of nursing and physician care. The authors have also developed an instructional videotape to describe their coding of scoring procedures and to increase validity through informal observers. Despite the availability of this assessment tool, there are still several important aspects of the labor/delivery experience that have received little attention. Foremost among them is the mother's sub- jective reactions to the experience. What emotional reactions, both positive and negative, are experienced? What are the woman's judgments regarding the various medical personnel and procedures to which she is exposed? To what extent are these procedures expected or unexpected? To what extent does the woman believe that she can influence or control the events that are occurring? What coping strategies does she use to deal with the pain that is experienced or with complications that arise? Because variables such as these are regarded as very i~rtant in re- search on alternative birth settings, an effort has been aade to pro- vide a full list of them in Table 1, which focuses on the mother during labor and delivery. The few studies that have assessed the infant's development or the relationships between various faaily members have been designed for use within a relatively short time after the infant's birth. Longer-term measures would be very important in the assessment of psychological variablesr thus, it would be highly useful for researchers to have a review of the assessment tools used by developmental psychologists and a discussion of their potential applicability to research on birth settings. Adamson, G. D., and D. J. Gare. 1980. Rome or hospital births? Journal of the American Medical Association 243:1732-1736. Araa, s. 1975. Immaculate Deception. Boston: Boughton Mifflin. Barton, J. J., s. Rovner, K. Pula, and P. Read. 1980. Alternative birthing center: Experience in a teaching obstetric service. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 137:377-384. Bayley, N. 1969. Bayley Scales of Infant Development. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Beck, N. c., L. J. Siegel, N. P. Davidson, s. Kormeier, A. Breitenstein, and D. G. Ball. 1980. The prediction of pregnancy outcoaae: Maternal preparation, anxiety, and attitudinal sets. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 24:343-351. Blau, A., J. Welkowitz, and J. Cohen. 1964. Maternal attitude to pregnancy instrument. Archives of General Psychiatry 10:324-331. ---

117 Blehar, M. c. 1979. Preparation for childbirth and parenting. 1A Faailies Today, Vol. I. DBBW Publication No. (ADM) 79-815. Washington, D.C.s o.s. Governaent Printing Office. Borgstedt, A. D., and M. G. Rosen. 1968. Medication during labor correlated with behavior and BEG of the newborn. Aaerican Journal of Disabled Children 115s21-24. Brantley, B. T., and B. Clifford. 1980. When my child was born: Maternal reactions to the birth of a child. Journal of Personality Asses...nt 44s620-623. Brazelton, T. B. 1973. Neonatal Behavioral Aases...nt Scale. Philadelphias J.B. Lippincott. Brazelton, T. B. 1976. The parent-infant attachment. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 19:373-389. Brazelton, T. B., B. Koslowski, and M. Main. 1974. The origins of reciprocitys The early 110ther-infant interaction. 1A The Effect of the Infant on its Caretaker, 11. Lewis and L. A. Rosenblwa, eds. New Yorks Wiley Interscience. Brazelton, T. B. 1978. Introduction • .!!!, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 43(5, 6)sl-13. Bra.an, s. B., P. L. Nichols, and w. A. Kennedy. 1975. Preschool IQ: Prenatal and Early Development Correlates. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. BrlbaWil Associates. Broussard, B. R., and M. s. s. Hartner. 1971. Further considerations regarding aaternal perception of the first born. 1A Bxpectional Infant, Vol. 2s Studies in Abnormality, J. Bell.auth, ed. New Yorks Brunner Magel. Burstein, I., R. A. B. Kinch, and L. Stern. 1974. Anxiety, pregnancy, labor, and the neonate. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 118sl95-199. Ca.pbell, D. J., and D. w. Fiske. 1959. Convergent and discriainant validation by the aultitrait-aultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56s81-105. Carey, w. B. 1970. A si.plified method for measuring infant teJaperament. Journal of Pediatrics 77sl88-194. Chal.Mrs, I., J. G. Lawson, and A. c. Turnbull. 1976a. Evaluation of different approaches to obstetric cares Part I. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 83s921-929. Cbal.Mrs, I., J. G. Lawson, and A. c. Turnbull. 1976b. Evaluation of different approaches to obstetric cares Part II. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 83, 930-933. Chal.Mrs, I., J. B. Zposnik, K. A. Johns, and B. Campbell. 1976c. Obstetric practice and outcome of pregnancy in Cardiff residents, 1965-73. British Medical Journal ls735-738. Cb.aberlain, R. B. 1976. Soae personality differences between breast and bottle feeding mothers. Birth and the Faaily Journal 3s31-34. Clarke-Stewart, K. A. 1978. And daddy ..kes threes The father's i.pact on mother and young child. Child Development 49:466-478. Clarke-Stewart, K. A. 1973. Interactions between 110tbers and their young childrena Characteristics and consequences. Monograpbs of the Society for Research in Child Development Serial No. 153, 38a(6, 7).

118 Cohen, R. L. 1981. Factors influencing maternal choice of childbirth alternatives. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 20sl-15. Conger, R. D., and D. McLeod. 1977. Describing behavior in saall groups with the Datamyte event recorder. Behavior, Research Methods and Instrumentation 9s418-424. Crandon, A. J. 1979a. Maternal anxiety and noenatal well-being. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 23:113-115. Crandon, A. J. 1979b. Maternal anxiety and obstetric coaplications. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 23sl09-lll. Curry, M. A. B. 1979. Contact during the first hour with the wrapped or naked newborn: Effect on maternal attachment behaviors at 36 hours and three months. Birth and the Family Journal 6:227-235. Darbes, A., and D. Michael. 1970. Child behavior Q sort. Unpublished manuscript, University of Akron. Davenport-Slack, B., and c. B. Boylan. 1974. Psychological correlates of childbirth pain. Psychosomatic Medicine 36:215-223. Davids, A., s. DeVault, and M. Talmadge. 1961. Anxiety, pregnancy, and childbirth abnormalities. Journal of Consulting Psychology 25s74-77. de Chateau, P. 1976. The influence of early contact on maternal and infant behaviour in primiparae. Birth and the Family Journal 3:149-155. de Chateau, P. 1977. The importance of the neonatal period for the development of synchrony in the mother-infant dyad--a review. Birth and the Faaily Journal 4:10-23. Doering, s. G., and D. R. Entwisle. 1975. Preparation during pregnancy and ability to cope with labor and delivery. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 45:825-837. Erickson, M. T. 1976. The relationship between psychological variables and specific complications of pregnancy, labor, and delivery. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 20:207-210. Faison, J. B., B. J. Pisani, R. G. Douglas, G. s. Cranch, and R. w. Lubic. 1979. The Childbearing Center: An alternative birth setting. Obstetrics and Gynecology 54:527-532. Friedman, E. A., M. R. Sachtleben, and P. A. Bresky. 1977. Dysfunctional labor XII. Long-term effects on infant. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 127s779-783. Goodlin, R. 1980. Low-risk obstetric care for low-risk mothers. Lancet 1:1017-1019. Gorsuch, R. L., and M. K. Key. 1974. Abnormalities of pregnancy as a function of anxiety and life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine 36s352-362. Graham, F. K., R. G. Matarazzo, and B. M. caldwell. 1956. Behavioral differences between normal and traumatized newborns II: Standardization, reliability, and validity. Psychological Monographs 70(21, Whole No. 428). Greenberg, M., I. Rosenberg, and J. Lind. 1973. First mothers rooming-in with their newbornss Its impact upon the mother. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 43:783-788. Grimm, E. R., and w. R. Venet. 1966. The relationships of emotional adjustment and attitudes to the course and outcome of pregnancy. Psychosomatic Medicine 28:34-39.

119 Bales, D. J., B. Lozoff, R. Sosa, and J. B. Kennell. 1977. Defining the lt.its of tbe aaternal sensitive period. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 19a454-461. Benneborn, w. J., and R. Cogan. 1975. 'l"he effect of husband participa- tion on reported pain and probability of medication during labor and birth. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 19a215-222. Robbs, D. R., Jr. 1965. Parenthood as crisisa A third study. Journal of Marriage and the Pamily 27a367-372. Robbs, D. R., Jr. 1968. Transition to parenthooda A replication and an extension. Journal of Marriage and the Pamily 301413-417. Horowitz, P. D., J. w. Sullivan, and P. Linn. 1978. Stability and instability in the newborn infanta The quest for elusive threads. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 43(5, 6)a29-45. Bu..nick, s. s., and L. A. Bugen. 1981. Mastery1 '1"he key to childbirth satisfaction? A study. Birth and the Paaily Journal 8a84-90. Humphrey, M., D. Bounslow, and s. Morgan. 1973. 'l"he influence of maternal posture at birth on the fetus. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the British eo..onwealth 80al075-1080. Buttel, P. A., I. Mitchell, w. M. Fischer, and A. B. Meyer. 1972. A quantitative evaluation of psychoprophylaxis in childbirth. Journal of Psychosaaatic Research 16181-92. Kelso, I. M., R. J. Parsons, G. P. Lawrence, s. s. Arora, D. K. Bda>nds, and I. D. Cooke. 1978. An assessMnt of continuous fetal heart rate monitoring in labora A randoaized trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 13la526-532. Kennell, J. B., R. Jerauld, B. Wolfe, D. Chesler, N. c. Kreger, w. McAlpine, M. Steffa, and M. B. Klaus. 1974. Maternal behavior one year after early and extended post-partu. contact. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 161172-179. Kitzinger, s., and J. A. Davis, eds. 1978. 'l"he Place of Birth. OXford, Bngland1 University Press. Klaus, M. B., R. Jerauld, N. c. Kreger, w. McAlpine, M. Steffa, and J. B. Kennell. 1972. Maternal attac~nt1 I~rtance of the first poatpartua days. New England Journal of Medicine 186a460-463. Klaus, M. B., and J. B. Kennell. 1976. Bu.an and maternal parental behavior • .!!l Maternal-Infant Bonding, Marshall B. Klaus and John B. Kennell, eds. St. Louis: c.v. Mosby. Klaus, M. B., J. B. Kennell, N. Plumb, and s. Zuehlke. 1970. Ruman maternal behavior at the first contact with her young. Pediatrics 46al87-192. Kontos, D. 1978. A study of the effects of extended mother-infant contact on maternal behavior at one and three months. Birth and the P..ily Journal 5al33-140. Kron, R. B., M. Stein, and K. E. Goddard. 1966. Newborn sucking behavior affected by obstetric sedation. Pediatrics 37al012-1016. Laukaran, v. B., and B. J. van den Berg. 1980. The relationship of maternal attitude to pregnancy outcoaes and obstetric co.plicationsa A cohort study of unwanted pregnancies. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 136:374-379.

120 Lederman, E., R. P. Lederman, B. A. WOrk, and D. s. McCann. 198la. Maternal psychological and physiologic correlates of fetal-newborn health status. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 139:956-958. Lederman, R. P., E. Lederaan, B. A. WOrk, Jr., and D. s. McCann. 1978. The Relationship of maternal anxiety, plasma catecholamine&, and plasma cortisol to progress in labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 132s495-500. Lederman, R. P., and E. Lederman. 1979. The development of a prenatal self-evaluation questionnaire for the ..aaurement of seven psychological dimensions. Paper presented at the Council of Nurse Researchers, San Antonio, Texas, December 1979. Lederman, R. P., E. Lederaan, B. A. Work, and D. s. McCann. 1979. Relationship of psychological factors in pregnancy to progress in labor. Nursing Research 28:94-97. Lederman, R. P., c. Weingarten, and E. Lederaan. 198lb. The postpartua self-evaluation questionnaire: Measurement of aaternal postpartum adaptation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan. Leiderman, P. B., A. D. Leifer, M. J. Seashore, c. R. Barnett, and R. Grobstein. 1973. Mother-infant interactions Effects of early deprivation, prior experience and sex on infant early development. New Yorks Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease. Research Publication 51:154-175. Levinson, G., and s. M. Shnider. 1979. Catecholamine&: The effects of maternal fear and its treatment on uterine function and circulation. Birth and the Family Journal 6:167-174. Levy, J. M., and R. K. McGee. 1975. Childbirth as crisiss A test of Janis's theory of communication and stress resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31:171-179. Manion, J. 1977. A study of fathers and infant caretaking. Birth and the Faaily Journal 4:1974-1979. McDonald, D. L. 1978. Paternal behavior at first contact with the newborn in a birth environment without intrusions. Birth and the Family Journal 5:123-132. Mehl, L. E., G. B. Peterson, M. Whitt, and w. E. Hawes. 1977. OUtccaes of elective home birthss A aeries of 1,146 cases. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 19:281-290. Myers, R. E., and s. B. Myers. 1979. Use of sedative, analgesic, and anesthetic drugs during labor and deliverys Bane or boon? American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 133:83-104. Morishima, B. o., B. Pederson, and F. Mieczyalaw. 1978. The influence of maternal psychological stress on the fetus. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 13lsl86-290. Nelson, N. M., M. w. Enkin, s. Saigal, K. J. Bennett, R. Milner, and D. L. Sackett. 1980. A randomized clinical trial of the Leboyer approach to childbirth. The New England Journal of Medicine 302s655-660. Newton, N. 1977. The effect of fear and disturbance on labor. Jn Twenty-First Century Obstetrics Now: Vol. 1, L. Stewart and D. Stewart, eds. Chapel Bill, N.C.s NAPSAC.

121 Newton, R., D. Poahee, and M. Rewton. 1966a. Bxperi.Mntal inhibition of labor through environmental disturbance. Obstetrics and Gynecology 27&371-377. Newton, R., D. Poahee, and M. Rewton. 1966b. Parturient mice a Bffect of environment on labor. Science 15lal560-1561. Parke, R. D., and s. O'Leary. 1975. Father-mother-infant interaction in the newborn perioda Sale findings, aoae observations, and some unresolved iaauea. 1n the Developing Individual in a Changing Morld, vol. 2. Social and environmental iaauea, K.P. Riegel and J .A. Meachan, eda. Chicagoa Aldine. Peterson, G. B., L. B. Mehl, and P. B. Leiderman. 1979. The role of some birth-related variables in father attachment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 49a330-338. Pilowaky, I. 1972. Psychological aspects of complications of childbirtha A prospective study of primiparae and their husbands. 1n Paychoaaaatic Medicine in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Third International Congress, London, Borman Morr ia, ed. Rew York a Karger. Pragaatica, Inc, 1978. Alternative in obstetrics services for Indiana. Indianapolis a Pragmatics. Renou, P.,. A. Chang, I. Anderson, and c. WOod. 1976. Controlled trial of fetal intensive care. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 126&470-476. Richardson, P. 1979. Approach and avoidance behaviors by woaen in labor toward others. Maternal-child Ruraing Journal 8al-21. Ringler, R. M., J. B. Kennell, R. Jarvella, B. J. Ravojoaky, and M. B. Klaus. 1975. Mother-to-child speech at 2 years--effects of early postnatal contact. Journal of Pediatrics 86al41-144. Roaenblith, J. In preaa. The Grahu/Roaenblith Behavioral Bxaaination for Rewbornaa Prognostic value and procedural iaauea. !n Handbook of Infant Develos-ent, J. Oaofaky, ed. Rev Yorka Wiley. Roeenblith, J. P. 1961. The IIOdified Graham Behavior Teat for Reonateaa Teat-retest reliability, normative data, and hypotheses for future work. Biologia Reonatorua 3al74-192. Russell, c. s. 1974. Transition to parenthood& Probl... and gratifica- tions. Journal of Marriage and the Family 36a294-302. S...roff, A. J., ed. 1978. Organization and stability of newborn behaviora A coaaentary on the Brazelton neonatal behavioral aaaea...nt scale. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Devel~nt 43 (5, 6). Schaefer, B. s., and B. Manhei.. r. 1960. Di.Mnaiona of perinatal adjuat.ent. Paper presented at Baatern Psychological Association, Raw York City, April. Shy, K. K., P. Prost, and J. Ulloa. 1980. Out-of-hospital delivery in Washington State, 1975 to 1977. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 137a547-552. Soaa, R., J. Kennell, M. Klaus, s. Robertson, and J. Urrutia. 1980. The effect of a supportive companion on perinatal probl... , length of labor, and IIOther-infant interaction. The Raw England Journal of Medicine 303a597-600.

122 Spanier, G. B. 1976. Measuring dyadic adjust.enta Raw scalae for asaesaing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Pamily 38al5-28. Spanier, G. B. 1979. The ..asure..nt of marital quality. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 5a288-300. Spanier, G. B., and R. A. Lewis. 1980. Marital quality a A review of the seventies. Journal of Marriage and the Pamily 42a825-839. Standley, K., and J. Nicholson. 1980. Observing the childbirth environ- ..nta A research model. Birth and the Paaily Journal 7al5-20. Standley, K., A. B. Soule, s. A. Oopans, and R. P. Klein. 1978. Multi- dt.ensional sources of infant ta.pera..nt. Genetic Psychology Monographs 98a203-231. Stark.an, M. R. 1976. Psychological responses to the use of the fetal ~~oni tor during labor. Psychos011atlc lledicine 38a269-27i. Stewart, D., and L. Stewart, eds. 1977. Twenty-Pirst Century Obstetrics Row: Chapel Bill, R.C.a RAPSAC. Sullivan, J. w. 1977. Kansas suppl...nts to the Reonatal Behavioral Aasess..nt Scalea A first look. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas, Lawrence. Walters, J., and L. B. Walters. 1980. Parent-child relationshipaa A review, 1970-1979. Journal of Marriage and the Paaily 42:807-822. Wapner, J. 1976. The attitudes, feelings, and behaviors of expectant fathers attending Laaaze classes. Birth and the Paaily Journal 3:5-13. Westbrook, M. T. 1979. Socioecon011ic differences in coping with childbearing. American Journal of ea.-unity Psychology 7a397-412. Zeskind, P. s., and B. M. Lester. 1978. Acoustic features and auditory perceptions of the cries of newborns with prenatal and perinatal complications. Child Develo~nt 49:580-589. Zuckerman, M., J. I. Nurnberger, s. B. Gardiner, J. M. Vandiveer, B. B. Barnett, and A. den Breeijen. 1963. Psychological correlates of sa.atic complaints in pregnancy and difficulties in childbirth. Journal of Consulting Psychology 27a324-329.

TABLE 1 Psychological Research on the Mother Otller: PoNible . .fer:ence !bat . . . of lnfonution on Aa•a-nt Dbcu-• 'ftlb Aa••-nt ~ of .. liability and COnceptual Vadable Pecioda Vadable 'l'Ool (if any) Inatr:-nt Cbar:.cter:iatic~Deecr:iption Validity PRIOR TO PIIBGIIAIICY Backgr:ound char:acter:iatica ~· Parity Menatrual hiatory Obatetrical hiatory, including contraceptive uaa, aiacarriagea, etc. Other riak factor• (e.g., hiatory of genetic abnoraalitiea) Socioeconoaic atatua Cultural background Social aupport Marital clo.. neaa Streaaful life eventa, paat or pre ..nt Evaluation of prior ..... ..., childbirth experience• w Paychiatric hiatory Paraonality charactariatica Self-eat••• Sex role orientation .. aponae to pain (pain tolerance) Locua of control Health locua of control Deaire for control Trait anxiety Depraaaion Paychiatric ayaptoaa or probleaa COping atyla Repreaaion-..naitiaation DURING PIIBGIIAIICY Waa pregnancy planned? Did woaan'a atteapt to conceive proceed aa planned or wra tber:e diaruptiona (e.g. difficultiea in conceiving, conception delayed longer than anticipated)? Perceived choice/control/ reaponaibility for conceiving ....,~&..

TABLE 1 Continued Otbe1r Po..tble Refe~rence '!'hat .... of Infonutlon on AaMa-nt DlacuaMa 'l'bla MM-nt 'l'ype of ReUablUty and Conceptu.l Vulable Pedoda Vadable 'l'Ool ( U any) Inat~r-nt Cha~racte~rlatlc.tDeac~rlption Validity Did - n bave a~iocenteaia, ult~raaound? Paychologioal facto~ra in Ledenun and P~renatalSelf- Self-~repoll:'t. Scalea includes PIE'81Jnancy Ledenun, 1979 IIYalu.Uon Object he • conce~rn about tbe wll- Intedte• Queatlonnai~re ~ratlftlll aoale beiftlll of aelf and baby reUabUitiea with 79 atate- • d81JII:'H of acceptance of ll:'aftllla froa .75 •nta, deai9ned tbe plr81Jnancy to .92 to •••u~re 7 • extent of identification vadablea. with .otherhood ~role 'l'akea 20 • p~reparation foil:' labOIE', •inutea to or extent to which COIIPlete - n feela p~repared foil:' labOII:' feu of pain, helpleae- neaa, and loaa of cont~rol • quality of -n•a rele- Attitudea towa~rd Plr81Jnancy and ohUdbi~rtb Belaon at al., 1980 A revised ve r- aion of the Self-lrepoll:'t tionabip with her .ethel:' • quality of voaan'a ~rela­ tionahip with hall' huabend P~rovidea aoorea on auch aoalea aa Pea~ra fo~r Self, WORe p~rovided .. .... .., Dilaenaiona of Pea~ra foil:' Baby, Ir~ritability Perinatal Ad- and 'l'enaion, Dep~reaaion and juataent inven- Witbd~rawal, and Lack of tory originally Bealth du1ri119 P1r81JR811CY• developed by Inat~ru.ent availabl• fro• Schaeffer and MAPS (Doc-nt t03588), Manbai•~r in Mio~rofiohe Publlcationa, P.O. 1960 Box 3513, Gund Canuel Station, ••w Yo~rk, WY 10017 Attltudea and feeliftllla du1ri119 Pilow8ky, 1972 'l'be BIP Plr89- Self-lrepolrt 'l'be teat provide• aoo~rea on wone p~rovidad plr81Jnancy nancy QUaation- 7 aoalea includiftlll neu~rotl­ naill:'e, o1ri9in- oi•, conce~rn ove~r labO~r and ally pubUahed delive~ry, deai~re foil:' p1re9- by GII:'U. and nancy, wony about the baby, Venat, 1966 aatiafaotion with huaband o~r life in 9enera1, dependent/ independent atti tudea, ex- tent of aaaatio ~toaa Attitudea towa~rd plr81Jnancy Blau at al., Mate~rnal Atti- Self-ll:'epoll:'t in- IU.a w~re aubjected to a.Uabf.Uty 196. tude• •rowud ventoey witb faoto~r analyala, and foul:' ooeffiolenta of PII:'81Jancy t5 i t - faotou -11:'9ed1 feeURIJa of eepa~rate facto~ra Inatr-t vell-beiftlll duriftlll plr81Jnancy II:'Aftllla f~roa .51 to (IIMI) and aooeptanoe of Plr89811CY ,78 wltbout fea~r, p~ride in pr . . a.ncy and poeJ.t:.lwe . .t..E'n.l. e . . 1J.nga. • deaJ.E'e \ L

for actl- pal'tlclpatlon ln delivery, and poaltl- atti- tude• to the baby and lacll of undue _ . r n revardinv ita HX and norulcy wc.an'a ta.9• of and fMli"'J toward·tbe fetua Preference for girl or boy Prior to preg- be by nancy Bopea and expectation• for Durinv labor/ tbe baby dellveryJ juat after birtbJ aubHquent poat- partUII period Contact with otbera who Prior to preg- bave bad co.plicated or nancy difficult prevnanciea Bxpectationa re9ardinv Levy and McGee, Anticipated Self-report, Subjecta were aalled to cbecll Ilona reported labor and delivery 1975 Bvaluatlon of - n t l c dif- a point on a 6-point acale Labor and ferential for tbe followinv attribute•• Delivery acale good-bad, pleaaant- unpleaaant, happy-unhappy, coafortable-uncoafortable, and bealtby-aicll. Subjecta co.pleted tbeaa i t - for tbe concept, "1rbat .y labor and delivery will be lilla• Reali• of expectation• Juat after about tbe iapact of a baby birtb on one'a life Motber'a prenatal H-nicll and Prenatal Atti- Self-report. I t - focua on aucb tbinga aa Inter it. . correlation ..... ..., attitude toward child- Bugen, 1!181 tude 'l'Oward Conalata of deaire to be in charge of of .84 Ul birth participation Cblldbirtb 10 atate- planninv care durinv child- Participation . .nta to be birth, vaaan'a belief in bar Scale rated by tbe ability to control pain -non Lillert-type acalea Bxpectationa of control revarding labor/delivery (e.g., extent to wbicb - n expecta to llnov in advance wbat h done to bar, or have a aay in what procedure• abe baa) Deaire for control (e.g., extent to wbicb vaaan ~ to llnov in advance wbat ia done to bar, or have a aay in what pr~ cedurea abe baa) Preparation Preparation for labor/delivery Bxtent to which waaan baa played an active role in in- vaatigating alter- I

TABLE 1 Continued Otbar PoAibla Reference '!bat .._ of Inforaation on AaHa-nt DiacuaHa 'lbia AaHa-nt ~of .. liability and Conceptual Variable Perioda Variable 'fool (if any) Inatr-nt Cbaractariatic.tDaacription Validity native doctora, prenatal claaHa, labor/daliYery aattinga Bxtant to vhich voaan baa aougbt infor.. tion about prenatal care, prAII!nancy, labor , delivery Type of claaHa attended, if any. If ao, vhethar axarciaaa are parfor-.4 rA~~~ularly Preparation for arrival of infant 1e.9., aelactad n_, read booka or took claaHa on parenting, bou9ht thinga for the .., .... 0\ baby, prepared a roo. for the baby) DURI IIG LAIIOJl AIID DBLIVBU Quality of ralationahip vith health care provider• Satiafaction vith huaband'a attitude toward and involva- Mnt in the prAII!nancy. Tiaing of labor/delivery 1•·9·• extant to vhich labor occura early va. later extant to vhicb aother baa bean able to plan for auch tbi119• aa tbe care of aibli119•1 extant to vhich aotbar f .. la prepared for tba labor/ dalivaryr extant to vbicb tiai119 baa iaplicationa for auch thi119a aa vhetbar the voaan'a buaband or doctor ia praHnt, and vhatbar the voaan feel• plaaaed or upaat rA~~~arding tba tiai119) Woaan•a babavior duri119 Standley and ObHrvar rating Obaarvabla feature• of tba Batter than to• a9r- labor Bicholaon, 1980 voaan'• pbyaical atata, •nt baa bean identity and interaction• of obtained paraon• in the labor rooa, aa41cal 1ntarvant1ona, and

verbal bthavlou art Uae- euplecl every 30 aeconcta. In eddiUon, obaervera COIIPlete ratiR9 ecalea judrJingc the phyaical intt.acy of the eotbar-fatber relatlonabip • the quality of tbia relaUonabip • ita effectiveneaa in ca.torUDg the eother the effectiveneaa of nuraiDg care • the effectiveneaa of phyaiclan care • atte.pta by voaan to cope vitb labor • the ability by voaan to cope aucceaafully vitb labor A videotape appropriate for trainift9 ia available froa tbe autbor ~boriftgvoaan'• behavior• Riobardaon, 1979 Obaerver raUDg Obeerftra note four typea Interrater agree- directed toward other people of interectlon !lOde•• ..nt vaa 86t for viaual (gaaiDg, glancift9, viaual bebaviora, ignor ift91 , !!!!!!! Cre- queatiR9 aaaiatance, lOOt for verbal behavior•, 67t for .... abari119 infor8ation, op- poatural bebaviora, .... N podft9 actlvltH, or ver- and SOt for tactual bally reaiatift9 another bebaviora (one of peraon' s actions), I!2!=. the obaervera vaa tyral (accepting care, en- occaaionally blocked during care, or resisting froa ... ift9 the care) , and tactual (woman's -n•a band) band movements1 holding on, reach ing for, or repelling) Mother'• aubjec:Uve j~nu Dud119 labor/ •-nick and Childbirth Ex- Self-report. Ob- The t hree scales include: about childbirth experience delivery, Bugen, 1981 perience jective raU119a eubeequent ReU119a COIIPleted by ~r/Delivery evalu- Interit. . reliability• poatpert- the eother . ation acale (lG-it.. . 91 period Conalau of ....ntic differential three aeperate acalel ecalea • ~bor Agency Scale Interit. . reliability• caaeeaeea-n•a perception of ecU ve ••• participation in labor-9 iteaal • • Delivery Agency Scale Interit.. reliability• (a...a...nt of active .at participation duriftg delivery--10 iteaa).

TABLB 1 Continued Otber Poaaible Raference 'l'bat .... of Inforution on AaM-nt DiacuaMa 'lbia AaMa-nt ~ of Reliability and Conceptual Vadable Pedoda Vadabla 'fool (if any) Inatc·-nt CbaracteriaticaiDeacription Validity FHUnga about labor and Juat after Davenport-Black Childbirth Self-report 15-.ord adjective checkliat, deUftr:y birth, and IIOylan, lt74 deacdption COIIPdaing auch vorda aa aubaequent "fantaatic,• Mlf-confident,• poatpartu. "wonderful," and •terrified," padod each rated on a 5-point acale 'l'endancy to focua on pain1 dependent ••· independent feaUnga Daftnport-Black and IIOylan, lt74 Cbildbirth teatt.ony or-·· ObMrftr rating teatt.onial account WO..n'a ftrbati• account• of birth experience vera r., corded and acored by expar i~ Mnten for ratio of pain- related to goal-related vorda and dependent to independent .... N word a Q) hrceptiona of and reaction• Juat after to varioua attandanta (e,g., birth pbyaiciana, nurMa, •idwifta, and otbec health care pr~ feaa1onala in attendanca) OVerall aatiafaction Juat after with each attendant birth J~nt of each Juat after attendant aa capable, birth ca.petant, and reapon- aive to pbyaical needa hrceptiona of care provided by each at- tendant aa aafe and aecure hrception of aach Juat after attandant aa aupportive1 birth perception of each at- tendant aa raaponai,. to e.otional needa1 jlldgMnta that each attendant baa reacted appropriately to tile .otber'a pain or dia- treaa JlldgMnta about Juat after wbether aach attendant birth engage• in or uMa apacif- ic typaa of eocial aupport, auch aa pbyaical cont.ct 1•·9•, holdinv

tbt .....,.,, lludl, pro- wldlng tangl~ aid C••t•• tl•lftl btr •r• plllowt or bard caadltl to tuck 011) , prowidlll!l enaour...- -nt it•), C•·•·,•You can do p~iding re- a..ur.ace ca.g., •You're doing una•) , and the - n • a judg8ent about tbeH aUategiaa aa balpful or Ullbalpful Judg8enta of aacb at- Juat after tandallt'a aa babaYior birth anticipated or •lll*'tad in tba Htting, faali119 tbat aacb attendant ia babaYing aa anticipated or •lll*'ted JuclgMnta tbat eacb Juat aftar attendant ia prOYiding birtb aufficiant infor.ation about apacific lladical procaduraa, aufficiant infor.ation about bow labor la prograaai119 1 and aufficlant faad-back about tbe IIOtbar' • parfor- . . _ , judg8ent of infor- Mtion or adYlca prOYidad br attendanta aa oonala- ... N tant ••· conflicting \0 Judg8enta about aacb Juat aftar attendant tbat are rale- blrtb Yaftt to tba ~·· fHl- illl!la of Matary, control, and lJWOl-t in bar own blrtb' for aaa.pla1 • hrcaptiona tbat - b attendant waa Hlacted br tba -II • hrcaptiona tbat par- ticular attandanta wra -aaary • hrcaption of aacb attendant aa re- aponaift to bar auggaationa or de- airaa • Perception of certain attendant• aa teo intrualft • . . rcaption of par- ticular attandanta aa ~•aarlly raatrictllll!l tba ~·• babaYlor or fraadcaof- MIIt

TABLE 1 Continued Other Possible Reference '!bat .... of Infoc..tion on AeMa-nt DhcuaMa 'ftlia AeMa-nt Type of Reliability and Conceptual Variable Periods Variable Tool (if any) Inatr ...nt Chacactaciatic.tDeecciption Validity Perceptions of and caactiona Just after to various eleMnta of the bict.h physical aetting (e.g., judg- •enta of the setting aa safe and aecuce1 jucSg.ent of the sounds and •-11• aa f-lliac/ unf-iliac, pleaaant/un- plea.. nt, diaquieting/ca.- foctingl vbethec setting ia perceived as controllable oc uncontrollable--foe ex.-pla, can the vaaan elect to listen to •uaic during early atagaa of labor?) wo.an•a reactions to specific •edical procedure (e.g., act- •iniatcation of drugs, ..... w shaving, ene.. , oc requests to ra.. in in a particular 0 position, such as a supine position with feet in stirrups) a Extent to which vaaan anticipates oc ax- pacta procedure to occur Extant to which vaaan judges the infoc .. tion acco.panying the pro- cedures aa adequate Extent to which pro- cedure is regarded as chosen Extent to which pro- cedure ia perceived as neceaaacy • Extent to which par- for-nee of 1a judged to be co.petent Alertness or coneciouaneaa at each stage of labor and at the ao.ent of birth Judg..nt of satisfac- tion rag•rding •lert- ness Pain experienced during labor/deU-rya

• PIIJObclpbyeiolotical in- dice• of pain o~ pain reduation l••t• , hon- talla au.cle teaalon, end b~eatlling iUI!IIII- ladtiee) • Self-reported pain in- teneity in each •tate of labor Self-reported judpent of dietre•• fraa tbe pain during each •tete of labor • Requeete for pain aedi- cation Perception• of pain a• controllable • Perceptione of pain ·a a anticipated, nor. .l, or neceeeary • axteat to wbich coping atratetiee are ueed to reduce or control pain • Perception& r1111arding own role in controllift9 pain • Satiafaction or f .. liD9• of . . .tery r1111ardiD9 own pain tolerance and/or ability to control pain Bxtent to wbich dietorted .... w perception• and/or ball~t­ cinatione are experienced .... dudft9 labor. Saaatic ey.ptaaa experienced Juet after (e.,., nau..a, back pain, birth dryneee of JM~Utll) and peycbo- logical re.ction to ~taaa (e.g., j~nte of particular ~taae ae expected, norul, or indicative of a probl-) a.otional re.ction•• Feare, aaxietiee, and J11et after feaUnge of atre•• birth (e.g., fear concerning the baby'. UfeJ fear tbat -tiling will 90 wrong, fear of dyingJ fear of particular ele- aente in the eituation, aucb ae fear of anee- theeia, fear tbat labor 1e takift9 too long, or anxiety tbat one will be unable to con- trol pain effectively)

TABLE 1 Continued Other Pouibla a.farance t'hat . _ of Info11111tion on A8M8-nt DiiiCU8M8 fti8 A8M8-nt '!'ypa of Reliability and Conaaptual Variable Period• Variable 'fool (if any I In•tr-nt Charactari8tlc-tDaacription Validity . ADger Juat aftar . Dapr. .alon birth Ju•t aftar . Balple•ana••lpowar- birth Ju•t aftar . launa•• Joy birth Ju•t after . Bappina•• birth Ju•t after . Contantaant birth Ju•t after . Pulfillaant birth Juat after birth Relief Ju8t after birtb r . .ling• of fati9ua or anar9Y Ju8t after birth .... w N Parcaptiona of effort naadad to caaplata labor/ delivery Pealing• of Mlf-a•t. . . Ju•t aftar birtb Pealing• of affective- Ju•t after n••• and ca.patance birth Behavioral reaction• during Buttal at al., ObMrwr rating " - " ' • behavior obaerved Ilona reported labor and delivery 1172 of CCIIIPlainta and tban aoored on a 5- and tan•ion point acala for caaplaint• and another for tendon c:c.pucation• • Por aacb caaplication that occurred, the - · • _,tional reaction to the Cllr' plication C•·9·• a1111iaty) • lfbatbar any coping •trategie• ware uaad to deal witb tba co.- plication or any ~ional reaponaa that it engendered Attribution• of cauulity and/ or bl... for tba caaplication C•·9•, extant to wbicb -tbar bl..-4 barMlf, bar doctor, ate., for a particular oo.pli- catlonl

r.ngtb of a.ab neva of la!IM and daliftl')'. PaycbolOOJical ra.ation to length and aubj.atift jud9aant of langtb JOB'I' Aftllll Blllft Poatpal'tWI fHlinga SubHquant Buttal at al., Obearvar rating• AaH•-nta of wiab for Intarratar avr....nt poatpartu. 1172 fro. - n ' • furtbar cbildran, ~. raft9ad fro. .52 to varbata -r• to t wbetbar tbe birth we• aa- pariancad pa••ivaly or ••• qua•tion• ••tared actively, intara•t in tba obild, buaband'• in- tara8t, and willingne•• to PHling8 about labor and SubHquant Doering and Attitude 'l'oward Obearver rating• nur•• w-n were ••ked bow tbay le8pGIIH8 IICOrad by delival')' poatpartu. llntwiala 1 lt75 Cbildbirtb fro. - n • • felt about tba fir•t con- ind.pandant eaten verbatu. ra- aciou• - n t after birth, witb reliability co- aponH8 to bow tbay felt about tbair efficient• of .83 to qua•tion• cbildbirtb experience in vanaral, wbatbar tbay want ••• anotbar baby, and wbatbar tbay - l d cbooae tba .... . .tbod of cbildbirtb -.otionel reaction• (IOtaa tba .... ..otionel ra.ation• li•tad earlier in tbia tabla can be a•H•aad bare, but the .... w -th•r'• •pacific faan and w anxiatie• are likely to be •livbtly different. At tbi• •tat•• it - l d be Ulportant to ••..•• tba .otbar'• fear• revarding tba infant--i.e., wbatbar tba infant 1a nor.al and baaltby) reeling• of pride During labor/ dalivery1 8Ub- aaquant poat- partu• PHling• of Nti•faction Dul'ing labor/ ravarding one'• own par- daliftl')'l •ub- for.anca during labor/ aaquent poat- delivery partu. Jud9aanta about wbatbar tba Du&'ing labor I birth went according to plan dallftrYI 8ub- aaquant poat- partu• Body-illllCJal fHllng• of •utUation Dra... or nivbt.ar•• about Dul'lng prav- labor/dallftry nancy, 8ubaa- quant poatpar- tu.

Table 1 Continued Otber Po.. ibla Reference !'bat • - of Infor.ation on A8Ha-nt Di8CUaHa ftia AaHa-nt of 'l'ype Reliability and Conceptual Variable Parioda Variable 'I'Ool (if any) Inatr-nt Cbaractariatica/Deacription Validity Perception• or !Hlinga of control a • Ability to control .-unt of tiM apent with infant lfhathar .ather perceive• harHlf aa raaponaibla for infant'• care • Whatber -ther ancountara difficultiaa if aba . .kaa .. requeata tbat aha baliaYea are appropriate for her and her baby .... w Opportunity to alHP without interruption i f daairad SUBUQUBIIT TO 'I'D POS'l'PAimlK PUIOO Poatpartua adaptation Ledar.an The Poat-Partua Self-report in- &calaa focua ona Intal'it• COI'- at al., ltllb Balf-llnluation ventory with 8 ralationa range Quaationnaira i t - . Takaa Quality of ralationahip fl'aa .62 to .to approxS...taly with huaband 20 •inutaa to • Mothar•a perception COIIPlata of tba fatber'a parti- cipation in chil4cara • Mother'• 9ratification fraa her labor and daliYerY experience • Mother'• ..tiafaction with bar life aituation and circuaatancaa • Mother'• confidence in bar ability to cope • Mother'• ..tiafaation with -tharhood and infant cal' a • Support fol' the .. tarnal role of pal'anta • Support for the ..tal'nal ~ole by rrlenda and o~her r .. 11y . ..cere

aetroepective aaternal Juat after Brantley and •When 11y Child Self-report in- raotor analaia re¥aalact Teat-reteat relia- reaction• and perceived birth Clifford, 1180 lfaa Born• atr-ntl 32 3 factor•• .. ternal bility waa .83 paternal reaction• to birth i t - with poaltlve affect, paternal of child 11Ultlple-cboice poeitive affect, and foraat parental anxiety Adjuat.ent of waaan during Schaefer and Poatnatal Self-report Contain• 25 it•• on -ther'a poetp.rt• period Manbet..er, U60 ReHarcb In- health aince delivery, 60 ventory it•• on baby'a health, and 91 it•• on attitude• and f ..linga. Di..naiona of at- tltudea and f ..Unga include• bappineaa, irritability, poaitive perception• of othera, fear or concern for baby, acceptance of role, intrapunitiveneaa, tendency to i9nore diatreaaing aapecta of role, nea4 for abarin9 experience, protectivenaaa, extra- punativeneaa, reaponaiveneas to infant neada, denial, need for conaultation, feara for aelf, confidence, n..d for reaaaurance, and depreaaion Retroapective eveluation Depending on lleatbrook, 1971 Interview, but Both negative and poaitlve None reported of negative and poaitive pbraalng, could be eaaily aapects were derived fro. aapecta of childbearing queatlona adapted to .ultidi..naional acaling. could be ..kad durin9 pregnancy, aelf-report Reapondenta were aaked to indicate the degree of atreaa experienced (on a ... w U'l during labor/ 3-point acale) for each delivery, or negative aapect. a.gative juat after aapecta included rejection, birth probl- in labor, feara of Hlf, pbyaical probl_, probl•• concerning .. rriave, upHttln9 enviro...nts, dh- turbad way of life, worriea, and probl•• concerning care of the baby. Poaitive aapecta included f ..Unga of well- being, satiafaction fro. the baby, wider f ..Uy aatiafac- tiona, value aatiafactiona, aatiafactions to the ..rriage,

TABLE 1 Continued Ot!ler PoHible . .ference !bat .._of lnfol'IMtion on AaMa-nt D i - a i'llia AaM-t '!'ype of Reliability and Conceptual Var !able Period& Variable 'J'ool ( u ••, lnatr-nt Cbaracter iatic8/Deacr iption Validity futu~re Mtiafactiona, t~radi­ tional ~role Mtiafactiona, and growtb o~r ..tu~rity Coping atrate9iea uaed . .atbrooll, lt7t lnte~r•i-, but w-n ve~re abown 4eacdp- lloae ceported tbrougbout cbildbirtb ex- could be tiona of 6 different coping perienae adapted to at~rate9iea, and wre con- aelf-~r~n fronted witb t ne9ati.. fol'IMt aapacta of oiiUdbeadng. They were aaked to indicate the coping strategy tbey vould uae to dea l witb tbe problea. Coping atrate9iea, which were derived froa aultidiaenaional acaling, includet • Confrontation (e.g., take poai u .. action) • AYOidanae (e.g., beaoae inYOl...S in otbe~r aoti- •itiea to k..p aind off .... w tbe pcObl•l G\ • Optiai• (e.g., r-.ber tbat tbinga uaually work out wll) • ...k interpeca-.1 help (e.g., aak aoaeone to belp o~r talk witb friend) • PaUli• (e.g., accept tbat auob of life ia difficult) • Control (e.g., control your f ..Unga, - proaiM) Gratification froa tbe parent Juat aftec -...u, 1174 Gcatiflo.tion A 12-itea Mlf- Parente are aaked to obeok lnte~rit. . ~relia­ role birtb cbeokliat ~r~rt inat~r~ •not at all," •aoaewbat,• abUity ia .u •nt o~r • . .~ry - b · to indicate tbe eatent to wllicb tbey ba•e expe~rienoed 12 diffe~r­ ent gratifio.tiona, auob ae •pr ide in ay baby • a d...los-ent• and "ina~reaMd contact witb neigbbo~ra• De9r .. of criaia •• a reault Bobba, lt65, lttlr lelf-c~n Containa auob it... •• of pa~rentbood au-11, lt74 inat~r-nt •worry about ay pe~ra-.1 appea~renoe ainoe tbe baby," "pbyeicel ti~redneee and I fativ-.• "baby inc~rea-d 8Dftel' p~obl.-.· -~. ~ \

TABLE 2 Paychological Reaearch on the Mother and Infant Otber Poaalble a.fer._ !bat .... of Inforaatlon on MH-Dt D l - • !tala AaHa-nt 'JYpe of JallablUty and Conceptual Vadable Perloda Vadable 'fool ( 1f ·~) Inatr-nt Cbaracterlatlc-tDeacrlptlon validity JUft AnSa 81112'11 Maternal bebavlor Subaequent ltlaua et al., PbotQ9rapba were !tie follow1119 actlvltlea wre lit of interobae&'ftl' pcatpe&'tla 1170 taken eftry recorded fr- tba fll•• in- reliability ooeffl- aecond of tbe fant'• .oYeaant, aother'a clenta were 9reater Uut 10 fl119ert1p or pala contact tban .to, tlt wre aloutea of vltb infant, - t of •U- 9reater than .10 -tba&''. peat- 1119, - t of tiM eocor natal contact paM109 or pbyalcally vlth he&' you119 aupport109 infant (contact oc- cuned 0.5 to 13.5 boura after deliftey) Maternal bebaYlor soaa et al., Obaerftra Varlablea .....aed include Jallability ooeffi- ltiO vatcbact aotheu - t of tiM talkl119 to clenta• .11 to .91 through a one- or •11109 at tbeil' infanta, vay airror - t of tlae apent "en .... w dudft9 fi&'at face, • ln body-to-body con- __, 22.5 alnutea tact, looklft9 at baby, and of contact. nuraln9 Motbara wre vatcbed and rated for 15 aeconda at U-aecond interval a Maternal bebavlor Balea et al., Obaerftra Obaer..ra noted the location Ilene reported 1971 vatcbed aotheu and atata of bOtb the infant through a vln- and -tbar, and recorded dov 31 bouu affectional behavior (lookin9 after bl&'th. at baby, talking to baby, • en Obaervatlona face,• fondling, kiaaing and wre ...Se for sailing at baby), proximity the Uut 15 aaintaining behavior HOOnda of (holding infant, location eftey alnute close to infant), and care- for 15 alnutea taking behavior (diapering, burping, or covering) Synchrony of interaction Could be e4apUcS fr- video- tape MtbodolOIJy d...lcpecl by Braselton, et al., 1971. Motbeu wre videotaped vbile interact1D9 vltb tbair infanta1 certain dyadic pbaHa wre identified

TABLE 2 Continued Otbac POMible RefacaDCa ~at .._ of Infoc..tion on AaM-nt DiecuaMa 'ftlia A8Ma-nt ~ of leUabiUty and COnceptual Variable Parloda Vadabla 'I'Ool 'u a~) Inatc-nt Cbaractariatic.VDaecciption Validity llhetbac 110tbar baa Dud~ labor/ opportunity for caapariaon daUva~, with otbar 110tbara and aubaaquant babiaa, and vbatbar aucb poatpart• cc.parlaona are !Mda Batiafaction with infant'• Bubaaquent Doari~ and •aeaction to Motbara vaca aaka4 what the Reliability not appearance poatpartua Bntwiale, lt75 tba baby• baby looked like and r~ reported aponMa 1••9•• •u9ly, with hair aticki~ up all over•) -vera acored by intarvievera. ('l'ba quaation uaa4 in the pilot study, •how did you fHl about tba baby• tan4ed .... w to produce only aocially 01) deairable ceponMa) Avaranaaa of diatiDCtiva Bubaaquant feature• of the newborn postpartum Plaaaura or enj~nt Subsequent of contact witb tba infant postpartum latiafaction witb MX Subsequent of infant postpartum Reaction to infant'• Subsequent c~i~ postpartwa Willi~naaa to let otbara Subsequent care for tba infant postpartua 8UUIIQUDI'l' TO !'U POI'!PAJmJIC Plla.IOD Maternal babavioc ltannall at al., Obaarvar 'ftle nu.bar of behaviors 70' of interobMrvac lilt rati~a, uai~ rated waa not indicated. rati~a vera 9reatar a cbackliat, Such babaviora aa raactiona than .85r 91' vaca of 110tbar'a to infant'• behavior vaca 9caatac than .eo location an4 racocda4. babavioc avery 15 MOOn4a durin9 pbyaical axaa of infant 1 year aftac birth an4 durin9 fra~play period follov- lft9 the exa•

Maternal behavior Klaua at al., 1172 Salt-reported as apeoific aotivltiaa vera Rapor~ rallabllity c- Curry, 1111, reaction to in- racorcled, auob as care- ooafficianta ara or Kontoe, 1178, fant's cryi119. taking skills, fondling, bi9bar than .ao for aiailu 8alf-r~rted ancl cudcllin9 obaervation raaponaa to . . .auras) 90i119 out ainoa tha infant's birth, Obser- vation of aothar durin9 axaaination of infant1 obsarftr rati119 ...Sa on 3-point acala. Observer rat1119• of tiae- lapsad Ulaa of aothara feeding tbeir infants (15 ainutaa wara Ulaad, and aaob f r - of tha first 600 wara rated) Maternal acceptance Cbaabarlain, 1976 'ftla Dubee- Q-sort s• 'ftla o-sort consists of Mona raportacl Miohaal Child atat...nta about child's Behavior Q-Sort1 babavior. Motbar sorts tba• Darbeaand into 11 pilaa aooorcli119 to Micbaal, 1170 tha way sba psrcaivea bar .... w cbilcl to behave, ancl bow \C aha voulcl ideally lika bar child to babava, A corre- lation batwean tha t - ia tben oalculatacl Motbar-to-intant apeecb Just after Ri119lar at al., Obsarven 'ftla saquanoa of uttaranoaa Mona raportacl birth 1975 analysad taped obtained in aach apaacb conversations aaapla vas claaaifiacl of aothar and aocorclin9 to a nuabar of child duri119 a atanclarcl linguistic criteria •fraa play• C•·9·• rata1 la119th1 variety aituation. of uttaranoaa1 vr....tical Tranaoriptiona structural for• claaa1 and vera divided type of aantanca, such •• into 3-ainuta question or ~nd) intervals which wra further divided into sequential units of aothar and cbilcl apaec:b c.

TABLE 2 Continued Otberr PoAible ---·-lit . .ferreDae '!bat Diacu...a ftia ..__lit .._of 'l'ype of Infomation on leliability ancl Coaoeptual Vuiable Perrioda Varriable 'l'aol (if any) Inatrr-nt Cbarr.cterriatic.tDaacrription ValicJity c-it.ent to the infant Juat aftarr birrtb ConficJence in ability to Juat aftarr Leicleman et al., Self-rreporrt IIOtbarr aakecl to COIIiperre !lone .otberr tbe infant birrth 1173 herrMlf with 5 otherr carre- takerra (e.g,, fatherr, grrancJ- -therr, expedencecl ~herr, pecliatrrio IIIIJrM, ancJ clootOl') on e.ch of 6 carretaking taaka (e.g., calaill9 orr feecling tbe baby), Perroent- -v• of inata-• in llbich . ... 0 abe Uata herrMlf aa - • t able carretakerr ia notacJ Carretaking akill J.aat afterr bil'tb llbetberr the infant 1a Juat afterr prrowiclecJ witb ati•lation bil'tb Prreocoupation with infant Juat afterr (e.g,, extant to which birrth tboughta ancJ -.rrna arre clcainatacl by infantr willing- neaa to go out an laave tbe infant) j l I

141 ~ ... ... .sJ11 !....e :I ... .... ,.... .. ... .::• . ::r .. Jl c • . .. ."l . !• . ! I I .s !. i a ... J .., :: .. i '8 • ... . . 1:: 0 - J I i i . . ! 0 -;: J .., 1: c: !'. 0 )5 .g • ... • ..! I = 1"4 • ~ u • ! .8 ~ j.. • : I

TABLE 4 Psychological Research on the Father Otbar Po••ible Reference 'l'bat • - of Infor-tion on A8H8-nt Diec:u•H• 'l'hi• AaH•-nt 'l'ypa of Reliability and Conceptual Variable Period• Variable 'I'Ool ( if any) In•tr-nt Characteri•tic•/Daec:ription Validity PJIIOR 'lO PRBGIWICY !i: N Background and panonality variable• (it. .i•ed in 'fable 1) DURING PRIIGIIAIICY Pather'• attitude•, Ju•t after Wapner, lt76 Self-report 'l'he it. .a were divided No interit. . relia- fHling•, and behavior• birthr inventory with into Hparats ec:ale•• bility coefficients •ubaequent 63 it.... . . _ reported for the poatpartu• it. .a (e.g., • Pear• and attitude• Hparate ec:ale• tho•• on about fatherhood husband'• • PHling8 and attituda8 physical about tba pregnancy IIJIII)tc.s and • PHUng• and attitudes participation about the . .rital rela- in childbirth tionshipC•• influenced ClaSH8) by the preg~) • PHlings and attitudes about saxual/phy•ical aapacta of the Mrital relationship C•• in- fluenced by the prer nancy) • Behavioral inwl-nt in the pregnancy, • Incidence of husband' • physical ey.ptc.a ra- latacl to pravnancy

143 ..... .!.. .... H ... ... ?I' ... ... .a .... •t >o ....I!:'I! ... .... ... • ... .. • . 8 .. 1 ·J!-.. j:1 .... .... ... . ... . ... .... ~s 11 .. ~1 .. t 1,:: ...... . c . co :"' ·-• r::: ... >• .: .... ~ 0 •I • ... ec ! ....... j .. ;~ao: 0 ... """' ....... !- ... . . ! ... .a·~ . . . Cl. • c ....... .. , .. ' !i -r 1'"' ... 1 J'i! 11§::: • .I ......... 'J·ej::J II ..: ... ·~ • . ,t. II ... .. ,a .:• 5"' ~- .... ... ...... ~: o.o 0 ... • .. 1 :i. , .:: •.:.e•-o-8 • .: ::,., a ... "rc•o.o ~.::~ ... :: ... ..a. ...r .....r ·t• ....e. ~ . =...... ~ . ....... ~ ;.~:=:n:Eal : .. """ ...... .... ...l::i.S.a ~i! 2 i .I .I • ~- ~~ r ... 0 f!i-; ..• .:. ... II: .. ~ ..·~ g!. . ..... • I . . .... .... .... , !~j i! ..... 1!" ..... ••a ; .... icc 8 ... 8. .... J. ::.:.; ....:: .c ...... .. t-1::: .. e .... J :::51 tB:: .a .. I 1 . ! ... .... ...... o ... J • .. ~!1!· .. Ba•-e. II ~J J:: f! ~" ...... il .. ! . •g ,... Q ::o.aa... - ... ..... ,.,. ... ! . . !r ..; .• ... ... • .I .... 1.. ... ... - ... a Is! •• : ji~ ~~] !a.- .. ; ... • ..• ..• •! ...=: o:l.a • 0 :t - ";;-'"5 ... "::' ... 5 ... ::I - 11! 1 J ~.:: a B J ~.:: a B .. ......... 8:.• ~ :.. I.... .. .. .. .at .. ·=.af !=! ~-=·· i!~! i ....:: ..:.a . •. ... : ow .a ... ... ~8·3 • .a .. •1! ... .a .... 8~ .s •c• .. -" D 0 D i c"'i" ... 0 ... .~~i ... " 1:J: .. g I .. :1 ";;- ~ ~g 1 .. u-e .. . 41 • ... I::!!'..... • • ... 0 . J ..... :::::5:: ...... •I~J .. 0 ....... i •• 8 ... ... ' ... ... ! ~s:: j' t ..... J !:if.t:~ 5 ~'i!" ~~i • . a .. •• 8 ... ... . •a ... 1 ..... "• :a•-:: 1 • .... 2 ~~ . • s ... R~r • 0 il 8~ J=l~ ' "'!' ... 0 ..g.• .. . 1: .. H"' ~~.. I , ...... •1 ::.!:.:~uJ1 ••se .... iJ .... ... o .. "0!: ;:: ••• II "8 .......... I f ...... o,, .... ~ .. -~ ... .II . • eUI . :: ... ...... ... . •" .,.CI !I. Q •• . "'::f! >of u j i.B i

TABLE 5 Psychological Research on the Father and Infant Otbe~ Pouible lef•~•- 2bat .... of Inforution on Aaaae-nt Diecua"• ftie Aaaae-nt type of leUabiUty and Co~tual Vuiabla ••doda Vadable \'ool (if any) Inet~-nt Cba~ecta~ietice/Daec~iption Validity JUn AftBil 81111'11 Patba~ 0 8 babaYiO~ towa~d 8ubeaquant llaDonald, 1978 Di~act obaar- 211• followinv baba•ion we~• Obae~. .n obtained infant poatpart- ntion of eoo~ad• bo'ladnv, p~oJ.onvad high agree..nt in Yidaotapae of 9aaing, •ieual contact, identifying theae be- ~ fatba~'• ba- baYio~ towa~d pointinv, fece-t~fece oon- tact, finga~tip oontact, and haviors (198), and moderately high agre e- • • infant. aa..n pawinv oontact ment in scoring each patunal ba- paternal behavior baYio~• we~• during each 3-aecond obae~Yad dudnv interval (9 of 21 tb~•• 3-.J.nute lendal w •aluee intanale in tbe ~P9ad f~011 .51 to Unt t poat- .84J t otba~• ~angad pa~t- •inutae f~OII • 71 to 1.0) Contact witb infant 8ubeaquant poetpa~t- Pla..ura in o~ enjo,.ant 8ubeaquant of CXIIItact witb infant poatparta 8atiefection with ... of 8ubeaquant infant poetpa~t­ 8atiefection witb in- SubMquant fant'• appea~­ poetpa~t­ a.a~anaee of dietincti.. SubMquant featu~•• of newbo~n poatpart- C•·9•, appauanca, cey) Patba~'• •nv~oe-nt witb Juetaft•~ aleba~, lt7t 'l'wo Mlf-~apo~t Pa thera were asked wbat wae tba infant bi~tb itau the "niceat thi nv• about tbe daya their wivee we~• in tba hoapital, and t he •nioeet thing about the fi~et few daya at hoae.• ftey we~• alao aaked why tbei~ ..~~i­ age ia happy. ttl• n.-e~ wbo epon~ely Mntioaad tbe baby in eMb ceae we~• noted

Patber'• inwol....nt in llallion, 1977 ...bi' • • 'l'ypical 8elf-report Contain• queationa on tba Autbor noted tbat faaa infant caretaklnv Day• fatber'a participatica in and oontant validity oaratakinv actlvltiaa durinv bad been eatabliabad an arbitrarily cboaan tt.a in a pilot atudy, but (e.g,, bow aany tt.aa in no dataila are given tba pravioua - k ba bad batbed, diapered, rocked, and fad tba babi' I Patber'a at~nt to Peter- at al., Obeener ratinva ObMrvera nota extant to Intarobaarver agrae- infant 1979 baaed on ob- wbicb father inter.ctad and Mnta of .85 ware ob- aervatlon of cared for infant, fatbar'a tained fatber'a be- oonfidence in oadnv for baYlor and baby, father'• fnUnva of reaponaea to cloaanaaa to tba babi', and interview fatbar'a tendency to inter- queatiODa .ct witb babi' in a . .y tbat ia plaaaurabla for botb(a,g., oauainv botb to laugb) . .... Ul

TABLE 6 P.ychological Reaearch on the Infant Otbell: Pouible . .f • r - ftat .... of Info~Uon on aaa.-nt Di-aftb Aaae-nt of 'l'ype . .liability and Conceptual Vadable Pedoda vuiable 'l'Ool ( U any) Inatr-nt Cbaracter1atic.toeacr1pt1on Validity JVft AftU llllft lleonatal bebaYiOII: lra•elton et al., lleonatal .... "-ata niUII:~ . .ba,ioul it_, t110 global All UHaii:Cbell:a and 19741 lra..lton, baYioul Ar logic adequacy 418ena1ona (attractinneaa cliniciana wbo plan to 1!176, 19781 - - n t aoalea vitb 20 uflex and need for atgglatlon) u.. tbe acale are a-roff, 1978 ara..lton, •aauree an4 ue 4edYe4 fr- an4 are urged to 1rielt one of 1973 bebaYioral rated on 4-point KAl... thll:.. training centere re~H• to 'ftle ind1Y14ual' • interaction for a 2-day reli- lnYir-ntal repertoire 1• tben aaHaaed ability Haalon. atggU. 'l'akea on 27 apeciflc beba1rioral lra•elton (1978) 20 ainutea to it. .• tbet are belieYed to report• tbat tbia pufom, 10 reflect 4 bebaYioral ayatea produce • ainutea to df.8ena1onaa (l) interact1Ye acceptable and blgb - u reliabi- capacltiea (ability to reliability, vbicb lity. Deaigne4 attend to and proce•• en- can be Mintained for infanta in •111:-ntal ennta) 1 (2) - for 2 year• vitb- .... tbe Urat aontb aftu bill:tb1 inappropriate toric capacitiea (e.g., ability to control -tor bebaYior, aucb aa bdnging out ~:.....1nat1on Although interrater reliability is high , • 0\ for pr-t.are banda to -tb) 1 (3) 011:9an1- teet-retest reli- i11fanta less •ational cepacitiea vitb ability scores are tban 37-ka reapect to atate control moderate to low (se e 9eatat1on. (bow vall infant -illtai11a Saaerotf, 1978, for loOII:II tbe in- a cala, alut state 4eap1te further discussion) . fant•a •beat• incraaaed atgglation)l an4 Also, the scale perforMncl 011 141 011:9ani•ational capaci- appean to lack tbe df.8enaion tiea--pbyaiological reaponae pre41ct1YI Yalidity in queation to atr••• le•9•• bow aucb vitb reapect to infant ia able to 111b1b1t denlos-ental out- atartlea) - ( H I s-roff, 1978, for further diacu. .lon) lleonatal bebaYior llor-it•, et al,, lleonatal .... '1'0 enDCIIIIPil8• fte other four new acalea ..llabllitiea 011 19781 8ull1Yan, baYioul Ae- - o f tbe area all ecalea are 1977 H - n t Scale vitb biiNI obeenationa aany testers . Quality of infant'• bi9bu tban .90 llo41Ucationa (DU-It) exaa, but which generally go . make durinq the alert re~•1•1ty &xaalner'• peraietence 1•·9•• bow bard ea- unrecorded, ulnar baa to -rk to Sullivan de- elicit alertneaa froa veloped S new ~~eales. One of . illfant) General Irritability these, Orienta- t1011 tO lnani- . of i11fant . .l11for~nt •alue of Mtl Vbual infant (t.v., bOw aYir- and Aullitory ai" or rewarcUnv it ia lti.aU, ia dt- to interact vitb infant) \

ai9ned to par- allel tbe IIMI acalt on orien- tation to ani- •t•otbtr tbe att.I!Ur -1•• are oo~ pletaly - · Sullivan ..Sa - ainor aod i- fioationa to tbe ori9inal -1•• and in •tbod • for acol'in9 tbta aa . .11 Baby'• beba9lor atata . .leon at al., Obtel'ftr . .unga of bebaviou ranging Mean interobHrver during tbe firat bour of life 1110 ratinga froa deep al. .p tbrQU9b a9r-nt wu .18 quiet alert activity to irritable cryift9. Available tbrQU9b RAPS (Docuatnt 103588), P.O. Boll 3513, Grand Central Station, . . . York, •Y 10017 Baby'• aucking behavior Kl'on at al., IOttle waa attached to in- 1166 atr-nta tbat ....ure tbt rate of feedift9, preaaure of aucking, and - t • Qualitiea of infant'• lub8equent leakind and Deacl'ibea bow 0D tbe Hlf-report inatl'u- Pearaon oouela- cry po11tputua Leatar, 1171 erie• can be oate90r bed atnt, cdea can bt rated eooording to bow 9rating, tiona aaong ratift98 of tbe ei9bt different .... ~ eooording to objective "aick," ur9ent, diatreaaift9, piercift9, diacoaforting, cry qualitiea ranted froa .73. to .91 .... j~nta of avenive, and arouain9 they pitch, latency, are. A factor anelyaia of etc., a• ..11 tbeae rat1n9• r.,.aled two at factor• •jor dt.tnaionaa a tbat elicit tbe "diacoafort" factor and a cry and per- MOOne! factor oonveyin9 tbe cantata of tt.t "aick" nature of tbe cry apent cryin9. Alae deacdbea a Hlf-report inatr-nt for uHaaing aub- jactive re- action• to tbe cry lleelnatal bebavioral Grabaa, et al., !'be GrabuV Obtel'ftr !'be ecale oontaina Hveral Moat intaraoore reli- deficit 1956, IIGHnblitb IIGHnblitb ~ ratingaof aubecalea, aucb aa-auacle ability cotfficitnta 1961J IIGHnblitb bavioral Bxui- infant'• be- tenaion, viaion, and are bi9btr than .ao et al., in pr••• nation for wew- havior •turation borna

TABLE 6 Continued Otber Po .. ible Reference That 11a. . of Infor.. tion on AaHa-nt Dillcu..ea 'l'llia AaHa-nt of '1'ype Reliability and Conceptual Variable Perioda Variable Tool (if any) Inatru.ent Characteriatica/Deacription Validity SUBSIIQUBIIT TO TIIB POS'l'PAR'l'UM PERIOD Infant t.-per...nt Juat after carey, 1970 Self-report in- Iteas caapriae 9 acalea, in- Several aothera were birth ventory de- cluding activity, rhytha- interviewed and coa- aigned for icity, adaptability, pleted queation- babiaa 4-8 approach, threahold, inten- nairea, the author 110ntha old can aity, IIOod, diatractibility report• the reaulta be cc.pleted by and peraiatence. Queationa were in agreeaent. the 110ther in focua on apecific behavior• Author reported approociaately of infant (e.g., when high teat-reteat 20 ainutea and already full, hov doea reliability (ape- acored in leaa infant reapond to feeding cific coefficient tban 10. The atteapta not provided) Infant developaant Bayley, 1969 Bayley Scalea inventory haa 70 atat-nta, each with 3 choice a Deaigned for The ecale contain• 3 partaa (1) Split-half reli- . ... CD of Infant 2-30 aonth (1) a Mental scale, ability coefficient• Developaant childrenr deaigned to aaHaa Hnaory- ranged froa .81 to tha teat ia perceptual acuitiea and .93 Teat-reteat reli- adainiatered diecriainationa, aeaory, ability waa 76.4, by an e:uainer learning, and problea- interobaerver agrea- and takea aolving abilityr vocaliza- waa 89.4. approxi..tely tionar early evidence of (2) Split-half reli- 45 ainutea to ability to fora generali- ability coefficient• to cc.plete aationar (2) A Motor Scale, ranged froa .68 to daaigned to aeaaure degree .92. Teat-reteat of control of the body and reliability 75.3, coordinationr and (3) An inter-obHrver agree- Infant Behavioral Reco~ .. nt waa 93.4 focuaing on the child'• (3) Not reported aocial and objective orientation• toward hia/her environaent aa expreaaed in intereata, .-otiona, energy activity, and tendenciea to approach or withdraw froa atiaulation Failure to thrive

Next: Appendix E: Review of Obstetrical Risk Assessment Methods »
Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings: Report of a Study Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) collaborated in this study with the Board on Maternal, Child, and Family Health Research of the Commission on Life Sciences of the National Research Council (NRC) to determine methodologies needed to evaluate current childbirth settings in the United States. Although the proportion of non-hospital births runs as high as 4.4 percent annually in Oregon, insufficient data exist to permit complete evaluation of the various birth settings. The application of good research methods should lead to scientific findings that provide the basis for informed, rational decision making about alternative settings for childbirth.

A committee of 11 experts was appointed to review current knowledge, provide background knowledge, and identify the kinds of research designs useful for assessing such matters as the safety, quality of maternity care, costs, psychological factors, and family satisfaction of different birth settings. The committee was also charged with preparing a report that could be used to solicit, evaluate, and fund proposals for studies on childbirth settings. The committee did not design specific studies to be carried out, but rather attempted to point out issues that should be considered by researchers because it believed that the best proposals would arise from investigator-initiated research. Gaps in research could be filled by requests for proposals developed by agency staff and the agency peer review committee. In addition, IOM staff members and several consultants provided background papers for the committee's consideration. The research that results from this report will be useful to policymakers and to consumers searching for information to aid in making decisions about birth settings. Research Issues in the Assessment of Birth Settings summarizes the study.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!