Abstract
Objective: This study introduces an instrument, the Interview of Mother’s Experiences (I-ME), focusing on how the mother’s past and present experiences relate to her psychological state and interaction with the baby. Background: Questionnaires and video-taped interactions are used for assessing dyadic relationship disturbances. Validated interviews are rarer and might yield additional information. Method: Analyses were made on 86 dyads from a randomised controlled trial comparing mother–infant psychoanalytic treatment with Swedish Child Health Centre care. Data were assembled from two interviews with a 6-month interval. Initial infant mean age was 5 months. Concurrent and predictive validity were assessed by comparisons with questionnaires and mother–baby interaction ratings. Results: The I-ME’s internal consistency and inter-rater reliability were high. Factor analyses indicated its incremental validity beyond questionnaires and interaction ratings. The hypothesis that I-ME scores would be closely related to the interaction ratings was refuted. Rather, they were associated with questionnaires on depression and infant functioning. The I-ME predicted the mothers’ interactive contributions six months later, whereas the questionnaire on maternal psychopathology predicted the infants’ contributions. Conclusions: The I-ME may help detecting dyads at risk for future difficulties with interactions and attachment, beyond other assessment methods such as mother-report questionnaires.
Acknowledgements and funding
We wish to thank all the participating mothers and infants. We also thank the raters, psychologists Iraj Danai and Anna Skagerberg, Dr Malin Kan, PhD student Ida Bertell and nurse Kajsa Gröndahl. The study was supported by grants from the Children’s Welfare Foundation Sweden and the Helge Ax:son Johnson, Olle Engkvist Byggmästare, Clas Groschinsky, Sven Jerring, Kempe-Carlgren, Mayflower Charity, Solstickan and Bertil Wennborg Foundations, as well as the Research Advisory Board of the International Psychoanalytical Association.
Notes
aSquires, Bricker, and Twombly (Citation2004); mean scores/item of ‘no-risk’ infants < 1 year.
bSeimyr, Edhborg, Lundh, and Sjögren (Citation2004).
cWickberg and Hwang (Citation1997).
dFridell, Cesarec, and Johansson (Citation2002).
eBörjesson et al. (Citation2005).
fÖstberg et al. (Citation1997).
gSkovgaard et al. (Citation2008)
aCorrelation significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
bCorrelation significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
cCorrelation significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).