Introduction
The conceptual role of the mother-child relationship in the DC:0-3/DC:0-3R
The multi-axial scheme of the DC:0-3/DC:0-3R
The PIR-GAS
Original and revised version
Quality of relationship | Original (DC:0–3) Score | Revised (DC:0-3R) Score | Classification according to clinical severity |
---|---|---|---|
Well adapted | 90 | 91–100 | Adapted relationship |
Adapted | 80 | 81–90 | |
Perturbed | 70 | 71–80 | Disturbed relationship |
Significantly perturbed | 60 | 61–70 | |
Distressed | 50 | 51–60 | |
Disturbed | 40 | 41–50 | |
Disordered | 30 | 31–40 | Disordered relationship |
Severely disordered | 20 | 21–30 | |
Grossly impaired | 10 | 11–20 | |
Documented maltreatment* | – | 1–10 |
Degree of standardization of the PIR-GAS
Manual excerpt[2] | Comment by the authors |
---|---|
#1 “A skilled clinician [who conducts a diagnostic evaluation and formulates an intervention plan] can use the concepts and measures in Axis II to formulate and focus interventions.” (p. 41f) | The qualification of raters does not focus on explicit skills, e.g., specific training, or years of professional experience with children. It remains unclear whether any member of a multi-professional team (including several professional disciplines, such as child and adolescent psychiatrists, nurses, and pedagogical staff) with various levels of clinical experience can provide an equivalent rating quality. Additionally, there is a scientific demand for independent diagnostic information, e.g., by third-party raters. |
#2 “In assessing the parent-infant relationship, the clinician should consider multiple aspects of the family dynamic (overall functioning level, level of distress and adaptive flexibility in both the child and the parent; level of conflict and resolution between the child and the parent; effect of quality of the relationship on the child’s developmental progress.” (p. 41f) | The manual describes several global issues, or potential psychometric subdimensions of the PIR-GAS, such as functioning or distress, that are related to family dynamics. It appears that these subdimensions play different roles across the range of relationship quality. The manual does not name distinct observable criteria for these potentially different aspects and does not specify how to document them. Individual child and parental distress, for example, should be separated from the stress that arises from relationship problems. Furthermore, there is no guideline regarding how to weigh and integrate contradictory information. |
#3 “The clinician typically completes the scale after multiple clinical evaluations for a referred problem.” (p. 42) | To reliably apply the PIR-GAS, the user needs to know how long, how often, in how many and in what type of situations (alone or with the mother, siblings, or others) the child and primary caregiver should be observed. What is an acceptable minimum to yield reliable ratings? It would be interesting to know whether and how a typical PIR-GAS-observation-situation could be defined. |
#4 “Diagnoses of relationship disturbances or disorders are made not only on the basis of observed behavior but also on the basis of the parent’s subjective experience of the child as expressed during a clinical interview and the subjective experience of the child, as expressed in a play interview, for example.” (p. 42) | The authors recommend a clinical integration of data from different sources and an assessment using different methods, including observations performed by a clinician, the usage of retrospective and current information about the mother-child interaction reported by the mother during a clinical interview, and observation of the child by a skilled clinician in a play interview. Again, documentation and weighting of single observations and their integration are not described. Furthermore, the inclusion of all available information into a final PIR-GAS rating, as recommended in the manual, renders the validation of a PIR-GAS rating difficult, as there are no external criteria left. |
Empirical results on the inter-rater reliability of the PIR-GAS
Reference | Rater qualification | Sample | Material and setting | Procedure | Inter-rater reliability |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
[9] | A trained child psychiatrist and a clinical psychologist. | 15 clinically referred children who were younger than 36 months. | The material and setting used for the PIR-GAS ratings were not further described. | Inter-rater-agreement of 92% for relationships diagnoses. | |
[14] | Trained experts with postgraduate certification in child and adolescent psychiatry, clinical experience. | 18 children of a normal population (approximately 18 months old). Fifty percent of these children were at-risk. Among these 18 children, there were two cases with a relationship disorder. | The PIR-GAS rating was based on reviewing the case material, which included a ten-minute videotaped interaction situation. | Examination of the test-retest reliability of the PIR-GAS within a time span of 3 to 12 months. Binary outcomes (PIR-GAS <40 and >40) were compared. | The inter-rater agreement was 100% (kappa = 1), and a test-retest reliability of kappa = 1 was reported. |
[19] | Two independent and blinded raters. Not further defined. | 53 children (29 boys, 24 girls), 20 months old; mothers with low socio-economic status. | 10-minute videotaped interactions between the mother and infant that contained a free play session in a laboratory playroom with a standard set of toys. | Ratings included the following dimensions: ‘behavioral quality of the interaction’, ‘affective tone’, ‘psychological involvement’. | Inter-rater reliability was r = .83 (statistic not further defined). Mean score differences between the raters were not reported. |
A therapist and an independent psychologist. | 75 children who were younger than 18 months and whose mothers were worried about them. | Ratings were based on the interaction between the child and the mother during the interview (from which a ten-minute videotape excerpt was used), as well as on the basis of information provided by the mother. | The first rater uses the interview and information by the mother. The second rater rated 20 pre- and post-treatment interviews (10-minute- videotapes). | Intraclass correlations were r = .90 at admission and r = .86 at discharge. Outcome analyses used rater means. |
Aims of the present study
Method
Procedure
Sample selection
Sociodemographic description
Material
Measures
PIR-GAS Coders
PIR-GAS full-information ratings
Child psychopathology
Maternal psychopathology
Statistical analysis
Results
Agreement between video ratings
Video | Full-Info | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coder 1
|
Coder 2
|
Coder 1,2
|
Clinical consensus rating
| ||||
Mean (SD) | Admission | 46.04a (15.40) | 41.67a (19.92) | 44.58 c (16.27) | 36.29 c (13.71) | ||
Mean (SD) | Discharge | 48.89 b (13.69) | 50.28 b (19.20) | 49.58 d (14.00) | 47.22 d (14.33) | ||
Interrater | Corr (p) | Admission | .570 (0.001) | ||||
reliability | Corr (p) | Discharge |
Coder 2
| .509 (0.001) | |||
Corr (p) | Admission | .057 (n. s.) | |||||
Corr (p) | Discharge |
Coder 1,2
| .050 (n. s.) | ||||
Corr (p) | Admission | .155 (n. s.) | -.056, (n. s.) | ||||
Corr (p) | Discharge |
CBCL Tot
| .484 (0.001) | -.077 (n. s.) | |||
Validity | |||||||
Corr (p) | Admission | -.098 (n. s.) | .183 (n. s.) | ||||
Corr (p) | Discharge |
SCL GSI
| -.119 (n. s.) | -.187 (n. s.) |