Skip to main content
Log in

Mothers’ Experiences of Parent-Reported and Video-Recorded Observational Assessments

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Child and Family Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rigorous evaluation of early childhood interventions requires accurate and efficient measurement. Researchers commonly use parent-reported surveys or direct observations; both of which have inherent strengths and limitations. Existing attempts to understand the correspondence between these methods have been primarily quantitative in design. Little is known about parents’ unique, subjective experiences of parent-reported surveys and direct parent-child observations. In this paper, we describe the experiences of ten mothers of children aged 24 months, recruited from a randomised controlled trial of a nurse home visiting program for mothers at risk of experiencing social adversity. After completing both a survey and video-recorded parent-child observation, mothers participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews which were analysed thematically. Mothers voiced concerns about how researchers may view their parenting skills, and their child’s behaviour and development. Contrary to previous quantitative evidence, mothers reported parent and child behavioural change, which they attributed to the researcher’s presence. Mothers described how the structured requirements of the observation contributed to forced and unnatural interactions. The survey was viewed as a welcome opportunity to reflect on parenting skills, the parent-child relationship and the child’s development. Mothers identified practical strategies for minimising parent-child discomfort during video-recorded observations, such as the researcher averting their gaze or stepping out of the room. We highlight opportunities for enhanced data validity in research and clinical settings, strengthened participant engagement, and minimisation of participant discomfort. Given the exploratory nature of this study, we do not claim that results are necessarily generalisable to other parent or general populations. Further research is warranted to build the evidence regarding parent participation in early childhood research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ablewhite, J., Kendrick, D., Watson, M., & Shaw, I. (2015). The other side of the story – maternal perceptions of safety advice and information: A qualitative approach. Child: Care, Health and Development, 41(6), 1106–1113. doi:10.1111/cch.12224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antal, H., Hossain, M. J., Hassink, S., Henry, S., Fuzzell, L., Taylor, A., & Wysocki, T. (2015). Audio-video recording of health care encounters for pediatric chronic conditions: Observational reactivity and its correlates. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 40(1), 144–153. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsu046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aspland, H., & Gardner, F. (2003). Observational measures of parent-child interaction: An introductory review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 8(3), 136–143. doi:10.1111/1475-3588.00061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). Socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA). http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/2033.0.55.001. Accessed 5 May 2016.

  • Australian Early Development Census (2016). 2015 AEDC national report. https://www.aedc.gov.au/. Accessed 16 February 2017.

  • Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e72.

  • Axford, N., Lehtonen, M., Kaoukji, D., Tobin, K., & Berry, V. (2012). Engaging parents in parenting programs: Lessons from research and practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(10), 2061–2071. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.06.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, C. G., Forehand, R., & Zegiob, L. E. (1979). A review of observer reactivity in adult-child interactions. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 1(2), 167–178. doi:10.1007/bf01322022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belletier, C., Davranche, K., Tellier, I. S., Dumas, F., Vidal, F., Hasbroucq, T., & Huguet, P. (2015). Choking under monitoring pressure: Being watched by the experimenter reduces executive attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1410–1416. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0804-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennetts, S. K., Mensah, F. K., Westrupp, E. M., Hackworth, N. J., & Reilly, S. (2016). The agreement between parent-reported and directly measured child language and parenting behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1710). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01710.

  • Bernal, M., Gibson, D., William, D., & Pesses, D. (1971). A device for automatic audio tape recording. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 151–156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bland, M., & Altman, D. (1999). Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8(2), 135–160. doi:10.1177/096228029900800204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. J., Mensah, F. K., Kit, J. A., Stuart-Butler, D., Glover, K., & Leane, C., et al. (2016). Use of cannabis during pregnancy and birth outcomes in an Aboriginal birth cohort: A cross-sectional, population-based study. BMJ Open, 6(2), e010286.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Conty, L., Gimmig, D., Belletier, C., George, N., & Huguet, P. (2010). The cost of being watched: Stroop interference increases under concomitant eye contact. Cognition, 115(1), 133–139. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.12.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, J., Willis, K., Small, R., Green, J., Welch, N., Kealy, M., & Hughes, E. (2007). A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 43–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeCaro, M. S., Thomas, R. D., Albert, N. B., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Choking under pressure: Multiple routes to skill failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(3), 390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyregrov, K. (2004). Bereaved parents’ experience of research participation. Social Science & Medicine, 58(2), 391–400. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00205-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyregrov, K., Dyregrov, A., & Raundalen, M. (2000). Refugee families’ experience of research participation. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13(3), 413–426. doi:10.1023/A:1007777006605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feeley, N., Cossette, S., Côté, J., Héon, M., Stremler, R., Martorella, G., & Purden, M. (2009). The importance of piloting an RCT intervention. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 41(2), 84–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, H., Dollaghan, C., Campbell, T., Kurs-Lasky, M., Janosky, J., & Paradise, J. (2000). Measurement properties of the MacArthur communicative development inventories at ages one and two years. Child Development, 71(2), 310–322. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fenson, L., Pethick, S., Renda, C., Cox, J. L., Dale, P. S., & Reznick, S. J. (2000). Short-form versions of the MacArthur communicative development inventories. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(01), 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, F. (1997). Observational methods for recording parent-child interaction: How generalisable are the findings? Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2(2), 70–74. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.1997.tb00049.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, F. (2000). Methodological issues in the direct observation of parent–child interaction: Do observational findings reflect the natural behavior of participants? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(3), 185–198. doi:10.1023/A:1009503409699.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gimmig, D., Huguet, P., Caverni, J., & Cury, F. (2006). Choking under pressure and working memory capacity: When performance pressure reduces fluid intelligence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(6), 1005–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfeld, S., Price, A., Bryson, H., Bruce, T., Mensah, F., Orsini, F., et al. (2017). “right@home”: A randomised controlled trial of sustained nurse home visiting from pregnancy to child age 2 years, versus usual care, to improve parent care, parent responsivity and the home learning environment at 2 years. BMJ Open, 7(3), e013307.

  • Green, J., Willis, K., Hughes, E., Small, R., Welch, N., Gibbs, L., & Daly, J. (2007). Generating best evidence from qualitative research: The role of data analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31(6), 545–550. doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00141.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, N. (2012). Assessment: When does it help and when does it hinder? Parents’ experiences of the assessment process. Child & Family Social Work, 17(2), 180–191. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00836.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawes, D., & Dadds, M. (2006). Assessing parenting practices through parent-report and direct observation during parent-training. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(5), 554–567. doi:10.1007/s10826-006-9029-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayden, E., Durbin, E., Klein, D., & Olino, T. (2010). Maternal personality influences the relationship between maternal reports and laboratory measures of child temperament. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 586–593. doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.513308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, T., Tennenbaum, D., Seilhamer, R. A., Bargiel, K., & Sharon, T. (1994). Reactivity effects during naturalistic observation of distressed and nondistressed families. Journal of Family Psychology, 8(3), 354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, C. (2012). An introduction to using video for research. NCRM Working Paper. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2259/4/NCRM_workingpaper_0312.pdf.

  • Johnson, S., & Bolstad, O. (1975). Reactivity to home observation: A comparison of audio recorded behavior with observers present or absent. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 181–185.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J., & Roy, P. (2008). Parental report of infant language skills: A review of the development and application of the communicative development inventories. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 13(4), 198–206. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2008.00503.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matata, B. M., Hinder, S., Steele, S., Gibbons, E., & Jackson, M. (2013). Patients’ attitudes and perceptions of two health-related quality-of-life questionnaires used to collect patient-reported outcome measures in the english national health service: A qualitative study of patients undergoing cardiac interventions. SAGE Open Medicine, 1. doi:10.1177/2050312113503956.

  • Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1539–1550. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, J. M., Cann, W., Matthews, J., Berthelsen, D., Ukoumunne, O. C., & Trajanovska, M., et al. (2016). Enhancing the early home learning environment through a brief group parenting intervention: Study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Pediatrics, 16(1), 1–15. doi:10.1186/s12887-016-0610-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544.

  • Popay, J., & Williams, G. (1996). Public health research and lay knowledge. Social Science & Medicine, 42(5), 759–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reese, E., & Read, S. (2000). Predictive validity of the New Zealand MacArthur communicative development inventory: Words and sentences. Journal of Child Language, 27(02), 255–266.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rhule, D. M., McMahon, R. J., & Vando, J. (2009). The acceptability and representativeness of standardized parent-child interaction tasks. Behavior Therapy, 40(4), 393–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, A., Russell, G., & Midwinter, D. (1992). Observer influences on mothers and fathers: Self-reported influence during a home observation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 38(2), 263–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semeniuk, Y. Y., & Riesch, S. K. (2011). Analysis of participant reactivity in dyads performing a videotaped conflict-management task. ISRN Nursing, 2011, 1–6. doi:10.5402/2011/596820.

  • Thornberry, T. J. (2013). “Why don’t you act like this at home?!” Parent and child reactivity during in-home dyadic parent-child interaction coding system (DPICS) coded observations. Auburn, AL: Auburn University. (PhD).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133(5), 859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Uziel, L. (2010). Look at me, I’m happy and creative: The effect of impression management on behavior in social presence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1591–1602. doi:10.1177/0146167210386239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Uziel, L. (2015). Life seems different with you around: Differential shifts in cognitive appraisal in the mere presence of others for neuroticism and impression management. Personality and Individual Differences, 73, 39–43. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warr, D. J. (2004). Stories in the flesh and voices in the head: Reflections on the context and impact of research with disadvantaged populations. Qualitative Health Research, 14(4), 578–587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The “right@home” sustained nurse home visiting trial is a research collaboration between the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY); the Translational Research and Social Innovation (TReSI) Group at Western Sydney University; and the Centre for Community Child Health (CCCH), which is a department of The Royal Children’s Hospital and a research group of Murdoch Childrens Research Institute. We thank all families, the research assistants, and nurses and social care practitioners working on the right@home trial, the antenatal clinic staff at participating hospitals who helped facilitate the research, and the Expert Reference Group for their guidance in designing the trial. This work is supported by the Victorian Department of Education and Training, the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services, the Ian Potter Foundation, Sabemo Trust, Sidney Myer fund, the Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation, and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 1079418). The MCRI administered the research grant for the study and provided infrastructural support to its staff but played no role in the conduct or analysis of the trial. Research at the MCRI is supported by the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program. The funding bodies had no role in relation to the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Authors’ Contributions

S.B.: conducted interviews, led the analysis and wrote the paper; F.M.: assisted with the design, analysis, and reviewed the paper; J.G.: provided expert qualitative guidance on the research design, data collection, and analysis; N.H.: assisted with the design, analysis, and reviewed the paper; E.W.: assisted with the design, analysis, and reviewed the paper; S.R.: assisted with the design, analysis, and reviewed the paper.

Funding

Ms Shannon Bennetts and Dr Elizabeth Westrupp are supported by the NHMRC-funded Centre of Research Excellence in Child Language (#1023493), Dr Fiona Mensah is supported by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (#1037449) and Career Development Fellowship (#1111160), Associate Professor Julie Green is supported by the Australian government-funded project, raisingchildren.net.au, Professor Sheena Reilly is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (#1041892) and Dr Westrupp and Dr Hackworth are supported by the Australian Communities Foundation through the Roberta Holmes Transition to Contemporary Parenthood Program (Coronella sub-fund) at La Trobe University. This study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, #1023493).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shannon K. Bennetts.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bennetts, S.K., Mensah, F.K., Green, J. et al. Mothers’ Experiences of Parent-Reported and Video-Recorded Observational Assessments. J Child Fam Stud 26, 3312–3326 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0826-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0826-1

Keywords

Navigation