The New Fathers and Mothers Study: Wellbeing, Parenting and Children’s Self-Regulation.

Creators/Copyright Holders:Claire Hughes, University of Cambridge, UK.

Rory T. Devine, University of Birmingham, UK.Judi Mesman, Leiden University, Netherlands.

Clancy Blair, New York University, USA.

Contributors (in alphabetical order):Lenneke Alink, Marjolein Branger, Wendy Browne, Rosanneke Emmen, Sarah Foley, Lara

Kyriakou, Anja Lindberg, Gabrielle McHarg, Andrew Ribner, Mi-Lan Woudstra.

Abstract (Description of Data Collection)This multi-method study sought to investigate the relations between parental wellbeing, parenting behaviour and children’s self-regulation in the first two years of life. First-time expectant parents in the East of England, New York State and the Netherlands completed an online questionnaire and in-person interview during the final month of their pregnancy (estimated as 1-month before the due date). The families were then contacted to participate in a 4-month follow-up questionnaire and home visit. The home visit consisted of observations of parent-child interactions, parental interviews and a task designed to measure infant attention. Ten months later the families participated in a 14-month questionnaire and home visit. The home visit consisted of a set of parent-child observations, parental interviews and cognitive tests, and a battery of tasks to measure the target child’s executive function. Finally, 20 months later the families participated in a 24-month questionnaire and home visit. This final home visit consisted of a set of parent-child observations, parental interviews and a battery of tasks designed to measure the target child’s executive function.

MethodologySampleTo be eligible participants had to: (1) be first-time parents, (2) expecting delivery of a healthy singleton baby, (3) planning to speak English (or Dutch) as a primary language with their child, and (4) have no history of severe mental illness (e.g., psychosis) or substance misuse. 484 expectant couples attending antenatal clinics, ultrasound scans, and parenting fairs in the East of England, New York State and the Netherlands were initially recruited. Ten families were not eligible for follow-up when the infants were 4 months old due to birth complications or having left the country. Of the remaining 474 families, 23 families withdrew and 445 (93.8%) agreed to a home visit when their infants (224 boys, 221 girls) were 4 months old, MAge = 4.26 months, SD = 0.46 months, range: 2.97 – 6.23 months.

At the next time point, 13 of the 451 remaining families became ineligible for follow-up due to having left the country. Six families withdrew from the study and 6 families who missed appointments at 4-months took part. Thus, 422 out of 438 eligible families (96.3%) took part when their infants (214 boys, 208 girls) were 14 months old, MAge = 14.42 months, SD = 0.57 months, range: 9.47 – 18.40 months. At the final time point, 12 of the remaining 438 families became ineligible for follow-up due to having left the country. Sixteen families declined to take part in the home visit and 10 families returned to the study having missed their previous appointment. Thus, 404 out of 426 eligible families (94.8%) took part when

1

their children (209 boys, 195 girls) were 24 months old, MAge = 24.47 months, SD = 0.78 months, range: 19.43 – 26.97 months. At the birth of their child mothers were, on average 32.24 years old, SD = 3.92, range: 21.16 – 43.76 years, and fathers were 34.07 years old, SD = 4.73, range: 23.10 – 55.95 years. Both mothers and fathers had high levels of educational attainment: 84.3% of mothers and 76.3% of fathers had an undergraduate degree or higher.

MethodsData for this study were collected using multiple methods: structured parental interviews, standardized self-report questionnaires, structured observations, standardized assessments.

Data Sourcing, Processing and PreparationThe study did not use any existing data sources. All data were collected specifically for this study by the project team. All data have been anonymized and personally identifying information has been removed (e.g., date of birth, postcode). All data were checked by the study team at the time of data entry. To reduce the number of variables in the dataset all standardized questionnaire responses are reported as scale scores (and not the original item-level data) based on the scoring procedure for that questionnaire. Where appropriate the reliability of these subscales is reported. For reasons of confidentiality, we have not included the results of observational ratings of parent-child interactions.

2

The New Fathers and Mothers Study: Wellbeing, Parenting and Children’s Self-Regulation.

Creators/Copyright Holders:Claire Hughes, University of Cambridge, UK.

Rory T. Devine, University of Birmingham, UK.Judi Mesman, Leiden University, Netherlands.

Clancy Blair, New York University, USA.

Parent DataKeyThe file NewFAMS_Parents_International.sav contains data from the parent questionnaires across all four time points of the study. It also contains data on parent-child interaction from T2 and T3. The file NewFAMS_Children_International.sav contains data based on each study child. In total 438 families are included (i.e., all eligible families who participated in the prenatal and at least one follow-up phase). Each row in the dataset represents a family. Missing data are recorded as -99. The timepoint (T1 = prenatal, T2 = 4-month visit, T3 = 14-month visit, T4 = 24-month visit) is indicated in each variable name and label. The respondent is indicated in the variable name and label (M = Mum, D = Dad).

Demographic InformationName Label ValuesID NewFAMS Family ID Anonymous family IDCountry New FAMS Country 1 = UK

2 = Netherlands3 = USA

T1_Part T1 Participation (Prenatal) 1 = Participated2 = Declined3 = Ineligible (Illness, left country)

T2_Ret T2 Participation at 4 MonthsT3_Ret T3 Participation at 14 MonthsT4_Ret T4 Particiation at 24 MonthsM_ETH Mum Ethnicity 1= White

2 = Black3 = Asian4 = Other

D_ETH Dad Ethnicity

M_EDU Mum Prenatal: Highest Level of Education 0 = Early Childhood1 = Primary2 = Lower Secondary3 = Upper Secondary4 = Post-Secondary (not tertiary)5 = Short-cycle Tertiary6 = Bachelors7 = Masters8 = Doctoral

D_EDU Dad Prenatal: Highest Level of Education

M_EMP Mum Prenatal: Employment Status 1 = Full Time Employment2 = Part Time Employment3 = Home Maker4 = Student

D_EMP Dad Prenatal: Employment Status

3

5 = Seeking EmploymentMAGEB Mum Age at Birth of First Child (Years) DecimalDAGEB Dad Age at Birth of First Child (Years) DecimalMumLAD Mum Ladder of Social Standing

[Cronbach’s Alpha = .854]Mean Rating on Ladder of Subjective Social Standing from T2 to T4. Range 1 to 10. 1 = Lowest level of social standing. 10 = Highest level of social standing.

DadLAD Dad Ladder of Social Standing[Cronbach’s Alpha = .843]

CGEN Child Gender 1 = Male2 = Female

Measures of Parental WellbeingName Label ValuesMHXD Mum History of Depression/Anxiety Prior

to Pregnancy0=No reported history.1=Reported history.

DHXD Dad History of Depression/Anxiety Prior to Pregnancy

T1MCESD T1 Mum CESD Summed Score [Alpha = .814]

20-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CESD20) (Radloff, 1977). Total summed scores with possible range of 0 - 60. Higher scores indicate more symptoms of depression.

T1DCESD T1 Dad CESD Summed Score [Alpha = .841]

T2MCESD T2 Mum CESD Summed Score [Alpha = .865]

T2DCESD T2 Dad CESD Summed Score [Alpha = .887]

T3MCESD T3 Mum CESD Summed Score [Alpha = .881]

T3DCESD T3 Dad CESD Summed Score [Alpha = .885]

T4MCESD T4 Mum CESD Summed Score [Alpha = .905]

T4DCESD T4 Dad CESD Summed Score [Alpha = .879]

T1MGHQ T1 Mum GHQ12 Summed [Alpha = .760] 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12) (Goldberg, Gater, Ustun, Piccinelli, Gureje & Rutter, 1997). Total summed scores with possible range of 0 to 12. Higher scores indicate more depression symptoms.

T1DGHQ T1 Dad GHQ12 Summed [Alpha = .812]T2MGHQ T2 Mum GHQ12 Summed [Alpha = .789]T2DGHQ T2 Dad GHQ12 Summed [Alpha = .854]T3MGHQ T3 Mum GHQ12 Summed [Alpha = .832]T3DGHQ T3 Dad GHQ12 Summed [Alpha = .868]T4MGHQ T4 Mum GHQ12 Summed [Alpha = .859]T4DGHQ T4 Dad GHQ12 Summed [Alpha = .863]T1MSTAI T1 Mum STAI Summed [Alpha = .762] 6-item State Scale of the

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI6) (Speilberger et al., 1983).

T1DSTAI T1 Dad STAI Summed [Alpha = .706]T2MSTAI T2 Mum STAI Summed [Alpha = .781]T2DSTAI T2 Dad STAI Summed [Alpha = .809]

4

Total summed scores with possible range of 6 to 24. Higher scores indicate greater levels of anxiety.

T3MSTAI T3 Mum STAI Summed [Alpha = .804]T3DSTAI T3 Dad STAI Summed [Alpha = .814]T4MSTAI T4 Mum STAI Summed [Alpha = .813]T4DSTAI T4 Dad STAI Summed [Alpha= .827]

Measures of Perceived Social SupportName Label ValuesT1MFAM T1 Mum MDSS Support from Family

(Summed) [Alpha = .940]Perceived availability of support from friends, family and a special person rated on the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet & Farley, 1988). Higher scores indicate greater levels of perceived support. Total possible scores on each scale range from 4 to 28.

T1MFRI T1 Mum MDSS Support from Friends (Summed) [Alpha = .943]

T1MSPE T1 Mum MDSS Support from Special Person (Summed) [Alpha = .956]

T1DFAM T1 Dad MDSS Support from Family (Summed) [Alpha = .914]

T1DFRI T1 Dad MDSS Support from Friends (Summed) [Alpha = .927]

T1DSPE T1 Dad MDSS Support from Special Person (Summed) [Alpha = .956]

T2MFAM T2 Mum MDSS Support from Family (Summed) [Alpha = .932]

T2MFRI T2 Mum MDSS Support from Friends (Summed) [Alpha = .939]

T2MSPE T2 Mum MDSS Support from Special Person (Summed) [Alpha = .942]

T2DFAM T2 Dad MDSS Support from Family (Summed) [Alpha = .911]

T2DFRI T2 Dad MDSS Support from Friends (Summed) [Alpha = .944]

T2DSPE T2 Dad MDSS Support from Special Person (Summed) [Alpha = .954]

T3MFAM T3 Mum MDSS Support from Family (Summed) [Alpha = .937]

T3MFRI T3 Mum MDSS Support from Friends (Summed) [Alpha = .944]

T3MSPE T3 Mum MDSS Support from Special Person (Summed) [Alpha = .951]

T3DFAM T3 Dad MDSS Support from Family (Summed) [Alpha = .910]

T3DFRI T3 Dad MDSS Support from Friends (Summed) [Alpha = .942]

T3DSPE T3 Dad MDSS Support from Special Person (Summed) [Alpha = .964]

T4MFAM T4 Mum MDSS Support from Family (Summed) [Alpha = .935]

T4MFRI T4 Mum MDSS Support from Friends

5

(Summed) [Alpha = .957]T4MSPE T4 Mum MDSS Support from Special

Person (Summed) [Alpha = .964]T4DFAM T4 Dad MDSS Support from Family

(Summed) [Alpha = .923]T4DFRI T4 Dad MDSS Support from Friends

(Summed) [Alpha = .946]T4DSPE T4 Dad MDSS Support from Special

Person (Summed) [Alpha = .964]

Measures of Couple Relationship QualityName Label ValuesT1MCSIT Mum T1 CSI-16 Total Summed Score

(Alpha =.93)Perceived couple satisfaction measured on the 16-item Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI-16) (Funk & Rogge, 2007). Items were summed together to create a total score for mothers and fathers. Possible scores range from 0 to 81. High scores indicate greater levels of relationship satisfaction.

T1DCSIT Dad T1 CSI-16 Total Summed Score (Alpha = .94)

T2MCSIT Mum T2 CSI-16 Total Summed Total (Alpha = .96)

T2DCSIT Dad T2 CSI-16 Total Summed Total (Alpha =.96)

T3MCSIT Mum T3 CSI-16 Total Summed Score (Alpha = .97)

T3DCSIT Dad T3 CSI-16 Total Summed Score (Alpha =.97)

T4MCSIT Mum T4 CSI-16 Total Summed Score (Alpha = .96)

T4DCSIT Dad T4 CSI-16 Total Summed Score (Alpha = .97)

T1MCTS Mum T1 Conflict Tactics Scale (Summed) (Alpha = .65)

Summed scores on the 6-item Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1996). Negative items were reverse-scored so that high scores reflected low levels of conflict behaviour. Possible scores range from 5 to 35.

T1DCTS Dad T1 Conflict Tactics Scale (Summed) (Alpha = .63)

T2MCTS Mum T2 Conflict Tactics Scale (Summed) (Alpha = .64)

T2DCTS Dad T2 Conflict Tactics Scale (Summed) (Alpha = .64)

T3MCTS Mum T3 Conflict Tactis Scale (Summed) (Alpha = .52)

T3DCTS Dad T3 Conflict Tactics Scale (Summed) (Alpha = .64)

T4MCTS Mum T4 Conflict Tactics Scale (Summed) (Alpha = .68)

T4DCTS Dad T4 Conflict Tactics Scale (Summed) (Alpha = .71)

Measures of Parenting

6

Name Label ValuesT1_M_MM T1 Mum Speech Sample Total Mind-

Related Comments (Frequency)Number of mind-minded and non-mental comments in the ‘Describe Your Child’ Interview. Coded using the offline ‘Mind-Mindedness’ coding scheme (Meins & Fernyhough, 2015). At both time points, inter-reliability based on 20% of the speech samples was excellent for mental (prenatal ICC = .81, 4 months ICC = .89) and non-mental attributes (prenatal ICC = .75, 4 month ICC = .75).

T1_M_NM T1 Mum Speech Sample Total Non-Mental Comments (Frequency)

T2_M_MM T2 Mum Speech Sample Total Mind-Related Comments (Frequency)

T2_M_NM T2 Mum Speech Sample Total Non-Mental Comments (Frequency)

T1_D_MM T1 Dad Speech Sample Total Mind-Related Comments (Frequency)

T1_D_NM T1 Dad Speech Sample Total Non-Mental Comments (Frequency)

T2_D_MM T2 Dad Speech Sample Total Mind-Related Comments (Frequency)

T2_D_NM T2 Dad Speech Sample Total Non-Mental Comments (Frequency)

T1MPSEF Mum T1 Parental Self-Efficacy [Mean] [Alpha = .87]

Maternal and paternal ratings on the 16-item Self Efficacy in the Nurturing Role Questionnaire (Pederson et al., 1989). Higher scores indicate greater parental self-efficacy. Possible scores range from 1 to 7.

T1DPSEF Dad T1 Parental Self-Efficacy [Mean] [Alpha = .88]

T2MPSEF Mum T2 Parental Self-Efficacy [Mean] [Alpha = .83]

T2DPSEF Dad T2 Parental Self-Efficacy [Mean] [Alpha = .86]

T2MWDW T2 Mum Who Does What [Mean] (alpha = .81)

Parent responses to the ‘Who Does What Questionnaire’ (Cowan & Cowan, 1988). Scores range from 1 (Mother Does it all), 5 (Equally), to 9 (Father Does it all).

T3MWDW T3 Mum Who Does What [Mean] (alpha = .75)

T4MWDW T4 Mum Who Does What [Mean] (alpha = .78)

T2DWDW T2 Dad Who Does What [Mean] (alpha = .73)

T3DWDW T3 Dad Who Does What [Mean] (alpha = .72)

T4DWDW T4 Dad Who Does What [Mean] (alpha = .74)

T2WDW T2 Who Does What (Mean WDW Mum & Dad Rating)

T3WDW T3 Who Does What (Mean WDW Mum & Dad Rating)

T4WDW T4 Who Does What (Mean WDW Mum & Dad Rating)

Child Data

7

Child Age and GenderName Label ValuesID New FAMS ID Anonymous Family ID

numberCountry New FAMS Country 1 = UK

2 = Netherlands3 = USA

T2CAGE Age of Child First Postnatal Visit Child age recorded in months.T3CAGE Age of Child Second Postnatal Visit

T4CAGE Age of Child Third Postnatal VisitCGEN Child Gender 1 = Male

2 = Female

Child Executive Function and AttentionName Label ValuesT2VAT1 4M Visit Attention Task Trial 1: Time On

(seconds)Visual attention task at first home visit. See attached protocol. Length of time looking at stimulus in seconds. Summary variables include: median, mean and peak (longest) looking times.

T2VAT2 4M Visit Attention Task Trial 2: Time On (seconds)

T2VAT3 4M Visit Attention Task Trial 3: Time On (seconds)

T2VAT4 4M Visit Attention Task Trial 4: Time On (seconds)

T2VAMD T2 Visual Attention Median Looking TimeT2VAMN T2 Visual Attention Mean Looking TimeT2VAPK T2 Visual Attention Peak Looking TimeT3MLS_2 14M Multilocation Searches to Find Car 2 Multi-location search task

with three boxes (see attached protocol). 0 = Did not find1 = 3 searches2 = 2 searches3 = 1 search

T3MLS_3 14M Multilocation Searches to Find Car 3

T3MLS_S 14M Multilocation: Strategy Score 0 = Starts in Middle1 = Starts at Edge 2 = Starts at Edge, Then Middle3 = Edge, Middle, Edge

T3MLS_C T3 Multilocation: Number of Cars Found Number of cars located ranging from 1 to 3.

T3PROH_LC T3 Prohibition Task Latency to Touch Toy Prohibition Task (see attached protocol)Time taken to touch toy. Scores range from 0 to 30 seconds.

T3PROH_W T3 Prohibition Task Wand Task Wait/No 0 = Touches Toy

8

Wait 1 = WaitsT3BRPR1 T3 Ball Run: Pre-Shift Trial 1 [Learning] Ball Run Task (See Protocol)

0 = Incorrect1 = Correct

T3BRPR2 T3 Ball Run: Pre-Shift Trial 2 [Learning]T3BRPR3 T3 Ball Run: Pre-Shift Trial 3 [Learning]T3BRPR4 T3 Ball Run: Pre-Shift Trial 4 [Learning]T3BRPR5 T3 Ball Run: Pre-Shift Trial 5 [Learning]T3BRPR6 T3 Ball Run: Pre-Shift Trial 6 [Learning]T3BRPS1 T3 Ball Run: Post-Shift Trial 1 [Reversal]T3BRPS2 T3 Ball Run: Post-Shift Trial 2 [Reversal]T3BRPS3 T3 Ball Run: Post-Shift Trial 3 [Reversal]T3BRPS4 T3 Ball Run: Post-Shift Trial 4 [Reversal]T3BRPS5 T3 Ball Run: Post-Shift Trial 5 [Reversal]T3BRPS6 T3 Ball Run: Post-Shift Trial 6 [Reversal]T4MLS_2 T4 Multilocation: Searches to Find Car 2 Multilocation search task

with five boxes (see Protocol). 0 = Did not find1 = 3 Searches2 = 2 Searches3 = 1 Search

T4MLS_3 T4 Multilocation: Searches to Find Car 3

T4MLS_4 T4 Multilocation: Searches to Find Car 4

T4MLS_5 T4 Multilocation: Searches to Find Car 5T4MLS_S T4 Multilocation: Strategy Score 0 = Starts in Middle

1 = Starts at Either Edge2 = Starts at Edge, then Middle.3 = Edge, Middle, Edge

T4MLS_C T4 Multilocation: Number of Cars Found Number of cars found ranging from 1 to 5.

T4BRPR1 T4 Ball Run Task Pre-Shift Trial 1 [Learning]

Ball Run Task (see Protocol).0 = Incorrect1 = Self-Correct2 = Correct

T4BRPR2 T4 Ball Run Task Pre-Shift Trial 2 [Learning]

T4BRPR3 T4 Ball Run Task Pre-Shift Trial 3 [Learning]

T4BRPR4 T4 Ball Run Task Pre-Shift Trial 4 [Learning]

T4BRPR5 T4 Ball Run Task Pre-Shift Trial 5 [Learning]

T4BRPR6 T4 Ball Run Task Pre-Shift Trial 6 [Learning]

T4BRPS1 T4 Ball Run Task Post-Shift Trial 1 [Reversal]

T4BRPS2 T4 Ball Run Task Post-Shift Trial 2 [Reversal]

T4BRPS3 T4 Ball Run Task Post-Shift Trial 3 [Reversal]

T4BRPS4 T4 Ball Run Task Post-Shift Trial 4

9

[Reversal]T4BRPS5 T4 Ball Run Task Post-Shift Trial 5

[Reversal]T4BRPS6 T4 Ball Run Task Post-Shift Trial 6

[Reversal]T4BST1 T4 Baby Stroop Identifies Mummy Spoon

[Comprehension]Baby Stroop Task (See Protocol). 0 = Fail1 = Pass

T4BST2 T4 Baby Stroop Identifies Baby Spoon [Comprehension]

T4BSSGT1 T4 Baby Stroop Silly Game Trial 1 0 = Incorrect1 = Self-Correct2 = Correct

T4BSSGT2 T4 Baby Stroop Silly Game Trial 2T4BSSGT3 T4 Baby Stroop Silly Game Trial 3T4BSSGT4 T4 Baby Stroop Silly Game Trial 4T4BSSGT5 T4 Baby Stroop Silly Game Trial 5T4BSSGT6 T4 Baby Stroop Silly Game Trial 6

Child TemperamentName Label ValuesT2DTL T2 IBQ Distress to Limitations (Mean)

[Alpha = .83]Mean maternal and paternal ratings on the Infant Behaviour Questionnaire (Putnam et al. 2014). Scores for each subscale have a possible range of 1 to 7.

T2DOR T2 IBQ Duration of Orienting (Mean) [Alpha = .75]

T2DTA T2 IBQ Distress to Approach (Mean) [Alpha = .77]

T3NEGAFF T3 ECBQ Negative Affect (Mean Rating) [Alpha = .58]

Mean maternal ratings on the Early Childhood Behaviour Questionnaire (Putnam, Garstein & Rothbart, 2006) at the second postnatal home visit. Scores for each subscale have a possible range of 1 to 7.

T3SURGE T3 ECBQ Surgency (Mean Rating) [Alpha = .62]

T3EFFCON T3 ECBQ Effortful Control (Mean Rating) [Alpha = .62]

Child Behavioural AdjustmentName Label ValuesT3BITSEA_T T3 BITSEA Total Score [Alpha= .75] Parent ratings on Brief

Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (BITSEA) (Briggs-Gowan et al., 2004) at the second postnatal home visit. Items were averaged across mothers and fathers and summed together to create

10

each scale. High scores indicate more behaviour problems. Possible scores range from 0 to 60.

T4SDQ_I T4 SDQ Internalizing (NL/UK = average mum/dad ratings; US = mum only ratings) [Alpha=.64]

Ratings on Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 2001) at third postnatal home visit. Fathers in the UK and Netherlands completed the SDQ. Where available, items were averaged across mothers and fathers and summed together to create an ‘internalizing’ score and an ‘externalising’ score with higher scores indicating more problems in that domain (Goodman, Lamping, & Ploubidis, 2010). Possible ranges for each scale are 0 to 20.

T4SDQ_E T4 SDQ Externalizing (NL/UK = average mum/dad ratings; US = mum only ratings) [Alpha =.70]

11

New Fathers and Mothers StudyAttention and Executive Function Task Battery

For questions regarding this test battery please email:

Dr Rory T. Devine: R.T.Devine@bham.ac.uk

Professor Claire Hughes: ch288@cam.ac.uk

Please cite the following manuscript:

Devine, R.T., Ribner, A., & Hughes, C. (in press). Measuring and Predicting Individual Differences in Executive Functions at 14 Months: A longitudinal study.

12

Visual Attention Protocol [First Post-Natal Home Visit]Based on Cuevas & Bell, 2014 – Modified for use at home.Set up:Infant sits on parent’s lap facing examiner. Ensure that the parent is not looking at the infant’s face and that the infant is facing you directly (face on). The other examiner should only be looking at the camera and any other adults present should be out of view of the infant. Parent should sit as still as possible and make no noise during task.Examiner sits 1.1m from the infant. Use tape measure.The camera is positioned behind the experimenter’s shoulder on the left or right (counterbalance). The second experimenter must ensure that the infant’s face can be seen clearly. Stimuli:‘Whoozit Baby’s Friend’ – Baby Tizoo

Procedure:1. Experimenter kneels in front of the infant. Keep the stimulus out of view of the

infant (behind experimenter’s back). Smile at the infant and ensure he/she is comfortable with your presence. If the infant is fussy or upset, wait until he/she has been calmed.

2. Say to parent: “We’d like to learn about how young babies see the world around them. I’m going to play a short little game with <infant name>. I’m going to show him/her a toy and record where <infant name> looks. During the game, I’d like you to not talk to <infant name> and to remain as still and quiet as possible.” “Do you have any questions before we start?” [Answer any queries the parent might have]

3. The experimenter adopts a pleasant neutral face and remains quiet for the duration of the task. Examiner should face forward only and not look towards the toy.

4. The experimenter rattles the stimulus three times to get the infant’s attention and then extends the stimulus forward so that it is slightly above the level of his/her head to the right/left (counterbalance across infants) of the infant so that the infant needs to make a clear eye movement to look from the puppet to the experimenter’s face. As the experimenter lifts the stimulus, he/she says ‘one’ (meaning the first look).

13

5. Hold the stimulus until the infant looks away for at least 3 seconds (to measure 3 seconds, the experimenter must count to him/herself ‘one one-thousand, two one-thousand, three one-thousand’).

6. When infant has looked away from the stimulus for 3 seconds, lower the stimulus and repeat the procedure starting with rattling the toy. The experimenter should say ‘two’ as he/she raises the stimulus.

7. The stimulus should stay extended until the infant has looked away for 3 seconds.8. Experimenter repeats Step 7 and says ‘three’ when he/she raises the stimulus.9. The stimulus should stay extended until the infant has looked away for 3 seconds.10. Experimenter repeats Step 7 and says ‘four’ when he/she raises the stimulus.11. The stimulus should stay extended until the infant has looked away for 3 seconds.

When infant looks away for 3 seconds, the task is over.

Note. If the infant looks away from the stimulus in any trial for less than 3 seconds and then looks back at the stimulus, this is still the same ‘look’.

14

General Notes for Testing at Second and Third Post-Natal Home Visit

To begin the session, say:

We’re going to play some games that we’ve specially designed with [child name] today. We’re interested in how children think and learn.

Sometimes, these tasks might seem a little strange. To make sure that we do the games with all the children in the same way, it would really help us if you could

- Remain quiet during testing and do not prompt by talking, gesturing or laughing with [child name]. You are free to talk to [child name] in between games. If [child name] moves away, please redirect him/her to the task.

- Hold onto [child name] keeping him/her still during the games until we say. - Please do not guide [child name’s] hands during any of the tasks.

The games are quite short. After each task, I’ll ask you if you need to take a break. If [child name] becomes uncomfortable or tired, we’ll take a break.

Room/Set Up:Find a quiet room to do the tests in. Ideally this room should have a table and chair so that the child can sit on his/her parent’s lap during testing. If the child prefers sitting in a booster/feeding chair, this can be place next to the table. Make sure that the television/radio are off during testing and that any excitable pets are kept in another room.

15

Prohibition Task [First Post-Natal Home Visit](Based on: Friedman et al., 2011)

Equipment: Mystic Glitter Wand (available from Amazon); Camera and Tripod.

Setup: Place camera on tripod facing the child. The child should be seated on his/her parent’s lap. The child’s hands should be gently restrained until the examiner has placed the object down.

Say: “Could you gently hug [child name] to keep him/her still while we show him/her the toy? You can let go of [child name] once I place the toy on the table.”“It would also be helpful if you remained still and quiet during the task”.

[The child should not be reaching up to grab the toy as it is placed down].

The child should be in reaching distance of the object and should have a clear view of the object. The second experimenter (controlling the camera) should avoid eye-contact with the child while filming the procedure.

Procedure:Examiner shows the child the glitter wand for up to 15 seconds drawing attention to the wand by saying ‘Oh Look (Child Name)’. Twist the wand upside down so that the glitter in the wand moves. Make eye contact with the child. If you do not attract the child’s attention after 15 seconds, discontinue.

Place it within arm’s reach of the child and say: “Look (child name). No, don’t touch”. [Ensure that you make eye-contact with the baby. Use your finger to emphasise ‘no’. Repeat if you think the child has not understood you or heard you.]

Examiner turns around for up to 30 seconds.

After 30 seconds, turn back to the child and remove the prohibition (if the child hasn’t picked up the toy) by saying: “It’s OK, you can touch it now”.

16

The Ball Run Task [First and Second Post-Natal Home Visit]

Equipment: Legler Hammer Ball Marble Run Preschool Learning Toy (specially adapted)Set up:The child should be seated on his/her parents lap with his/her shoulders above the top of the toy and a clear view of the three holes in the toy. The examiner sits facing the child and the camera is placed behind the child (facing the examiner) with a clear view of the toy. The toy should be out of the child’s reach for the demonstration phase.

Counter-balance whether you begin with the green or red hole. Infant hand preference will not matter as we will alternate whether we start on the left- or right-hand side of the toy.

Set Formation StagePlace the ball run toy out of arm’s reach from the child. Ensure the yellow and green1 holes are locked using the sliding mechanism.

DemonstrationEnsure that you catch the child’s attention and that he/she is looking at you. Take the red ball and say: “Oh [child name] look at this!”Place the red ball in the red hole. The ball will roll down and play a musical reward. If you are not certain that the child was looking at the start, repeat the demonstration.

Testing (6 trials)After the demonstration, retrieve the red ball. Hand the ball to the child. Maintain eye contact with the child and do not cue the child to placing the ball in either hole. To do this, offer the ball to the child centrally (over the yellow hole) and say: “Now you try”. [If the child is unwilling to touch or hold the ball, you can ask the child to point. Say: ‘where does it go?’]

If the child places the ball correctly in the red hole, this is marked as a correct placement. Say “Well done/Good job”. [Ensure that the child’s hands are not left on the toy between trials and slide the toy back toward yourself between each trial]

If the child places the ball in the yellow/green hole, it will not go through. Slide the toy back toward yourself, retrieve the ball from the child. Say: “Oh no, it didn’t work”. [It is important that you do not laugh or praise child here]

Maintain eye contact with the child and do not cue the child to placing the ball in either hole. To do this, off the ball to the child centrally (over the yellow hole) and say: “Now you try”.

ScoringComplete 6 trials. If the child scores 4 or more correct, proceed to the set shifting stage. If the child does not score 4 or more correct, discontinue testing.Set Shifting StagePlace the ball run toy out of arm’s reach from the child. Remove the red ball from the table and show the child that you are doing this. Now say ‘Oh look’, while you slide the yellow and red holes shut using the locking mechanism.Demonstration

1 Alternatively, the task can begin by locking the yellow/red holes using the sliding mechanism. In this situation, the child will be required to place the green ball in the green hole during the set formation stage and the red ball in the red hole during the set shifting stage.

17

Ensure that you catch the child’s attention and that he/she is looking at you. Take the green ball and say: “Oh [child name] look at this!”Place the green ball in the green hole. The ball will roll down and play a musical reward. If you are not certain that the child was looking at the start, repeat the demonstration.Testing (6 trials)After the demonstration, retrieve the green ball. Hand the ball to the child. Maintain eye contact with the child and do not cue the child to placing the ball in either hole. To do this, offer the ball to the child centrally (over the yellow hole) and say: “Now you try”.

If the child places the ball correctly in the green hole, this is marked as a correct placement. Say “Well done/Good job”. [Ensure that the child’s hands are not left on the toy between trials and slide the toy back toward yourself between each trial]

If the child places the ball in the yellow/red hole, it will not go through. Slide the toy back toward yourself, retrieve the ball from the child. Say: “Oh no, it didn’t work”. [Do not laugh or praise child here]

Maintain eye contact with the child and do not cue the child to placing the ball in either hole. To do this, off the ball to the child centrally (over the yellow hole) and say: “You try”.ScoringComplete 6 trials. To pass the set shifting stage the child must complete 4 or more correct placements.

Equipment Examiner’s View

Open to examiner to retrieve toy and slide locking mechanisms.

Child’s View

Covered with a Perspex sheet to prevent child reaching through.

View from Top

Locking mechanism can be used to open/close holes.

18

Multi-Location Search with Three Boxes Task [First Post-Natal Home Visit](Based on: Miller & Marcovitch, 2015)

Equipment: Camera and Tripod; Ambi Toys Lockup Garage (Available on Amazon)

Set UpThe child should be seated on his/her parent’s lap. During the hiding stage, the child’s hands should be restrained gently by the parent. Say: “Could you gently hug [child name] to keep him/her still while we show him/her the toy? You can let go once I ask [child name] to find the car.”

During the searching stage, the child’s hands should be free so that he/she can point to the doors. The parent should not speak to the child or the experimenter during the task. If the child tries to get the parent’s attention or show them something, the parent can respond with a short reply but not engage in further interaction (e.g., ‘I see’, ‘thank you’). The parent should not guide the child’s hands during the task. Say: “During the task I’d like you to remain as still and quiet as possible. If [child name] tries to get your attention or show you something, you can respond with a short reply but not engage in further interaction.”

Place the camera behind the child so that the three hiding locations are visible on camera.

ProcedurePlace the boxes in a row near the edge of the testing table just out of reach of the child. [If the child is fidgeting or reaching, the child’s hands should be restrained by his/her parent during this phase]. Bring out each of the toys, shake them and then place them in each of the boxes. Make driving noises to catch the infant’s attention as you hide the cars. Match each car with the correct garage (i.e., blue with blue; yellow with yellow; red with red). Close each of the doors at the same time. Twist the nobs on the doors to stop them opening accidentally.

Cover the boxes with a white board (large enough to block the infant’s view of the garages e.g., A4 size) for 5 seconds and count out loud while looking at the child. Engage the child’s eye contact.

First Trial: ‘Let’s get the toy!’ Or ‘Can you get the toy?’Keep the garage toy just out of reach so that the infant points at the door instead of asking the infant to retrieve the object. In the first trial the infant will always be correct. Praise the child (e.g., ‘Well done!’/’Good Job!’ ‘You got the car!’) and let the child play with the retrieved object briefly while the remaining boxes are out of reach with the chosen door is left open. If you think that the child will not be willing to return the car, you can play with the car briefly making some car noises. If the child has the car, say: “could you give me the car?”

If the child does not respond, wait 10 seconds before you repeat theinstruction. Give the instruction max. 3 times. If the

19

child does not respond after the third try, stop the task and try again at a different moment.

Place the retrieved toy aside before the next trial. Make sure that the child sees you remove the toy and place it in a bag beside the table. Say: “Look! Let’s put this one here.”

Make sure that the child is looking when you shut the open door. Say: “Look! Let’s close the door!”

Ensure that the child is not playing with the toy while you are counting. The purpose of the 5 second count with the card is to distract the infant from the three garages. If the infant looks away briefly during the counting phase this does not matter.

Subsequent Trials: Close the open door cover the boxes with a white board (large enough to block the infant’s view of the garages e.g., A4 size) for 5 seconds and count out loud while looking at the child. Say: ‘Let’s get the toy!’ Or ‘Can you get the toy?’ [Do not use the word ‘again’]Correct retrieval: Praise the child (e.g., ‘Well done!’) and let the child play with the retrieved object briefly while the remaining boxes are out of reach with the chosen box is left open.

Incorrect (i.e., searches an empty box):Show the child that the box is empty. Say: “It’s not there. Let’s have another go.” [Do not smile or laugh here] Close the box up and cover with the white board for 5 seconds and count out loud while looking at the child.

Discontinue the task if the child fails to find a toy for three consecutive trials or when the child retrieves all three cars.

Dependent Variables: Number of trials taken to locate all three toys; Number of repeated searches.

20

Baby Stroop Task (Hughes & Ensor, 2005) [Second Post-Natal Home Visit]MaterialsLittle Spoon / Large Spoon & Card to measure spoon distance.Show the child a big ‘mummy’ spoon and a little ‘baby’ spoon. Check the child understands which is which by asking them to point to the mummy spoon and then to the baby spoon.

Training:“Let’s play a game with these two spoons. This is the mummy spoon and this is the baby spoon.”[Place spoons in front of child lying flat on the table approximately 15cm apart; handle of spoon should face the child and the top of the spoon should face away from the child]“Which one is the mummy spoon?”[If child points to correct spoon: “Well done! That’s right”][If child points to wrong spoon: “No. Remember, this one is the mummy spoon.”] [Discontinue after 3 incorrect trials]“Which one is the baby spoon?”[If child points to correct spoon: “Well done! That’s right”][If child points to wrong spoon: “No. Remember, this one is the baby spoon.”][Discontinue after 3 incorrect trails]Task:“Now we are going to play a topsy-turvy/silly game. We’re going to swap the two spoons around. So now Mummy is going to use the baby spoon and Baby can use the mummy spoon!”For each trial bring say:“In this topsy-turvy game, which one is the baby/mummy spoon? You show me!”For each trial, provide feedback:If child points to correct spoon: “Well done! That’s right. In the topsy-turvy game, this is mummy’s/baby’s spoon!”If child points to wrong spoon: “No, remember, we’re playing a topsy-turvy game. This is mummy’s/baby’s spoon now!”Presentation Order:Mummy / Baby / Mummy / Baby / Baby / Mummy

21

Multi-Location Search with Five Boxes Task [Second Post-Natal Home Visit](Based on: Miller & Marcovitch, 2015)

Equipment: Camera and Tripod; Melissa and Doug Nesting and Sorting Garages and Cars (Use Boxes 1 to 5)Set UpThe child should be seated on his/her parent’s lap. During the hiding stage, the child’s hands should be restrained gently by the parent. Say: “Could you gently hug [child name] to keep him/her still while we show him/her the toy? You can let go once I ask [child name] to find the car.”

During the searching stage, the child’s hands should be free so that he/she can point to the doors. The parent should not speak to the child or the experimenter during the task. If the child tries to get the parent’s attention or show them something, the parent can respond with a short reply but not engage in further interaction (e.g., ‘I see’, ‘thank you’). The parent should not guide the child’s hands during the task. Say: “During the task I’d like you to remain as still and quiet as possible. If [child name] tries to get your attention or show you something, you can respond with a short reply but not engage in further interaction.”

Place the camera behind the child so that the three hiding locations are visible on camera.

ProcedurePlace the 5 boxes in a row near the edge of the testing table just out of reach of the child. The Door side of the box should face the child at the start. Ensure the boxes are not in ascending order and set them up as follows: (from the examiner’s left): 4,5,1,3,2

[If the child is fidgeting or reaching, the child’s hands should be restrained by his/her parent during this phase]. Bring out each of the toys, shake them and then place them in each of the boxes. Make driving noises to catch the infant’s attention as you hide the cars. Match each car with the correct garage (i.e., blue with blue; yellow with yellow; red with red). Turn each box around after you place the car in it so that the ‘window side’ faces the child.

Cover the boxes with a white board (large enough to block the infant’s view of the garages e.g., A4 size) for 5 seconds and count out loud while looking at the child. Engage the child’s eye contact.

First Trial: ‘Let’s get the car!’ Or ‘Can you get the car?’Keep the garage toy just out of reach so that the infant points at the door instead of asking the infant to retrieve the object. In the first trial the infant will always be correct. Praise the child (e.g., ‘Well done!’/’Good Job!’ ‘You got the car!’) and let the child play with the retrieved object briefly while the remaining boxes are out of reach with the chosen door is left open. If you think that the child will not be willing to return the car, you can play with the car briefly making some car noises. If the child has the car, say: “could you give me the car?”

22

If the child does not respond, wait 10 seconds before you repeat the instruction. Give the instruction max. 3 times. If the child does not respond after the third try, stop the task and try again at a different moment. Place the retrieved toy aside before the next trial. Make sure that the child sees you remove the toy and place it in a bag beside the table. Say: “Look! Let’s put this one here.”

Make sure that the child is looking when you turn the box around. Say: “Look! Let’s turn the box around!”

Ensure that the child is not playing with the toy while you are counting. The purpose of the 5 second count with the card is to distract the infant from the three garages. If the infant looks away briefly during the counting phase this does not matter.

Subsequent Trials: Close the open door cover the boxes with a white board (large enough to block the infant’s view of the garages e.g., A4 size) for 5 seconds and count out loud while looking at the child. Say: ‘Let’s get another car!’ Or ‘Can you get another car?’ [Do not use the word ‘again’]Correct retrieval: Praise the child (e.g., ‘Well done!’) and let the child play with the retrieved object briefly while the remaining boxes are out of reach with the chosen box is left open.

Incorrect (i.e., searches an empty box):Show the child that the box is empty. Say: “It’s not there. Let’s have another go.” [Do not smile or laugh here] Close the box up and cover with the white board for 5 seconds and count out loud while looking at the child.

Discontinue the task if the child fails to find a toy for three consecutive trials or when the child retrieves all six cars.

23

References

Briggs-Gowan, M.J., Carter, A.S., Irwin, J.R., Wachtel, K. & Cicchetti, D.V. (2004). The Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment: Screening for social-emotional problems and delays in competence. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29, 143 – 155.

Cowan, C.P. & Cowan, P.A. (1988). Who does what when partners become parents: Implications for men, women, and marriage. Marriage and Family Review, 12, 105-131.

Cuevas, K., & Bell, M. A. (2014). Infant attention and early childhood executive function. Child Development, 85, 397–404. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12126.

Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Robinson, J. L., & Hewitt, J. K. (2011). Developmental trajectories in toddlers’ self-restraint predict individual differences in executive functions 14 years later: A behavioral genetic analysis. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1410–1430.

Funk, J.L. & Rogge, R.D. (2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the Couples Satisfaction Index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 572 – 583. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

Goldberg, D., Gater, R., Sartorius, N., Ustun, T. B., Piccinelli, M., Gureje, O., & Rutter, C. (1997). The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychological Medicine, 27, 191-197. doi: 10.1017/S0033291796004242

Goodman, A., Lamping, D.L., & Ploubidis, G.B. (2010). When to use broader internalizing and externalizing subscales instead of the hypothesized five subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1179 – 1191.

Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337 – 1345.

Hughes, C. & Ensor, R. (2005). Executive function and theory of mind in 2 year olds: A family affair? Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 645 – 668. doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn2802_5

Meins, E. & Fernyhough, C. (2015). Mind-mindedness Coding Manual, Version 2.2. Unpublished manuscript. York, UK: University of York.

Miller, S. E., & Marcovitch, S. (2015). Examining executive function in the second year of life: Coherence, stability, and relations to joint attention and language. Developmental Psychology, 51, 101–114. doi: 10.1037/a0038359

Pedersen, F. A., Bryan, Y. E., Huffman, L., & Del Carmen, R. (1989). Construction of self and offspring in the pregnancy and early infancy periods. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO.

24

Putnam, S. P., Gartstein, M. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Measurement of fine-grained aspects of toddler temperament: The Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire. Infant Behavior and Development, 29, 386– 401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.01.004

Putnam, S. P., Helbig, A. L., Garstein, M. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Leerkes, E. (2014). Development and assessment of short and very short forms of the infant behavior questionnaire-revised. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 445–458.

Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401. doi: 10.1177/014662167700100306

Singh-Manoux, A., Adler, N., & Marmot, M. (2003). Subjective social status: its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1321 – 1333. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00131-4

Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R., Lushene, R., Vagg, P., & Jacobs, G. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Strauss, M.A., Hamby, S.L., Boney-McCoy, S. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scale: Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi: 10.1177/019251396017003001

Zimet, G., Dahlem, N., Zimet, S., & Farley, G. (1988). The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30-41. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

25