IPCI
Indicator of Parent Child
Interaction
Kathleen M. Baggett, Ph.D. & Judith J. Carta, Ph.D.
Juniper Gardens Children’s Project
University of Kansas
Society for Research in Child Development
Boston, MA
March 2007
This research was supported by Federal Grant #90-FY0052-01; HHS; ACF
IPCI
A General Outcomes Measure:
For checking growth in parents’ responsiveness to
their child in ways that promote positive socialemotional behavior.
IPCI
EHS
Home
Visitors
Home Visiting
Nurses
Parent-Child
Interaction
Mental Health
Therapists
Part C
EI
Home
Visitors
Practitioners need practical tools that can:
Provide quick snapshots of parent-child
interaction that can be taken repeatedly to:
Help interventionists know when intervention is needed
Help interventionists see when they are making a difference
Help interventionists know when an intervention change is needed
Help supervisors facilitate intervention-planning
Help program directors understand when programs need improvement
While there are many measures of parent-child interaction, tools
designed specifically for practitioners to guide intervention decisionmaking have been lacking.
IPCI
Purpose:
•Monitor progress
•Identify risky interactions
•Guide intervention decisionmaking
Decision Making Model for Generating Options
Progress Monitoring for all children
If cautions are identified,
increase monitoring
If concerns are identified,
Begin intervention
3-Tiered Model for Individualizing Services
Based on Child & Family Needs
Children
for whom
concerns
are identified:
receive intervention
Children
for whom
cautions are identified:
receive increased frequency of
progress monitoring
All Children
receive routine progress monitoring
IPCI Administration
 Administered in family homes or other caregiving settings
(biological home, foster home, center-based care)
Children 3-42 months of age and a familiar caregiver
 Four semi-structured activities are observed for a total of 10
minutes
Free Play
Looking at Books
Distraction Task
Dressing
 14 items are rated on a 4-point scale following observation
 Videotaping is not required (but useful for intervention
purposes)
IPCI Activities
Free play
Looking at Books
Distraction
Dressing
IPCI Activities
Free play (4 minutes)
“Whatever it is that you and your child like to do
together- something your child loves”
Free play video clips
IPCI Activities
Looking at Books (2 minutes)
“Here are some books for you and your child to
look at together- however you and your child
would like to spend time with these books is
fine.”
Looking at Books video clips
IPCI Activities
Distraction Task (2 minutes)
“There are times when parents need to keep children
away from things- either because they may be
dangerous or just inappropriate”. Let’s see how your
child responds when there are materials that are off
limits. Please keep child on the blanket and away from
the recorder and keys”.
Distraction clip
IPCI Activities
Dressing (2 minutes)
“Whatever it’s like to get
dressed in the morning”
(shirt, socks, shoes)
Distraction clip
IPCI Domains and Behaviors


Caregiver Facilitators
 Conveys acceptance
and warmth
 Makes descriptive
comments
 Follows child’s lead
 Maintains and extends
 Uses stress reducing
strategies
Caregiver Interrupters
 Uses criticism, harsh
tone
 Uses intrusions and
restrictions
 Rejects child’s bid
 Child Engagement
 Positive feedback
 Sustained engagement
Follow-through

Child Distress
 Fuss, cry
 Tantrum
 Frozen, watchful,
withdrawn
The IPCI’s Home:
With other early childhood general outcomes
measures
Early Communication Indicator
Early Social Indicator
Early Problem Solving Indicator
Early Motor Indicator
Types of IPCI Reports
• Home Visitors and Supervisors
• Program Administrator
• Agency Administrator
Home Visitor and Supervisor Reports
For:
 Progress monitoring
 Sharing data with families
 Guiding intervention decision-making
 Reflective supervision
 Mental health consultation
IPCI Domain Reports
Caregiver Facilitators
Mean Caregiver Facilitators
Caution
Concern
100
% of Caregiver Facilitators
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
3
5
7
9
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
Engagement & Facilitators to be shown to parents
Placement on site is similar to WTC graph
Age (Months)
Child Engagement
Mean Child Engagement
Concern
100
% of Child Engagement
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
Graph to show parents
Placement is similar to WTC graph
Age (Months)
Key Element Reports- Cg Facilitators
Administrator Reports
For reporting:
 Program staff involvement in progress monitoring
 Frequency of performance monitoring for children and
families based on benchmarks
 Number of children whose interactions with caregivers
are at or above benchmark at the end of particular
interventions as compared to at the beginning
 Number of children whose interactions with caregivers
are at or above benchmark at the end of a program as
compared to at entry
Psychometric Studies
Early Head Start sample (Center on Challenging
Behavior; Department of Ed)
Early Head Start University Partnership in
Measurement (Developing Meaningful Outcome
Measures; ACF)
Study Sample
• Culturally diverse
– African-American; African Refugees; Latino;
• Very low to middle SES
• Multiple Risks
– Teen mothers
– Parent low education
– High potential for child maltreatment
– Maternal depression and anxiety
– Substance Abuse
– Domestic partner abuse
– Functional homelessness
Research Questions:
– How comparable is the IPCI to other measures of
parenting & child social-emotional functioning?
– How stable is the IPCI?
– Does the IPCI differentiate parents who are different
in the quality of their parenting styles (as determined
by other criterion measures)?
– Does the IPCI differentiate children who are different
in their levels of social-emotional competence (as
determined by another measure) ?
EHS Pilot Study Measures
Parent/Caregiver Measures
Child Measure
HOME
–
–
–
Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment
IT (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979)
Total
Responsivity
Acceptance
Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory
(AAPI-2; Bavolek & Keene, 1999)
– Expectations
– Empathy
– Corporal Punishment
– Role Reversal
– Power/Independence
CESD (Depression)
(BITSEA; Carter & McGowan, 2005)
Longitudinal, Cohort Design
•
3 age cohorts of children
• 1-11 Months
• 12-23 Months
• 24-42 Months
•
Received monthly IPCI assessments over a 6-month period
•
Pre- and post-assessment
• Demographic interview
• HOME
• AAPI-2
• BITSEA
• CESD (Maternal depression)
Pilot Study Participants
•
•
•
•
•
64 children and their parents in the Midwest
– 42 families in an inner-urban EHS program (KS)
– 12 families with typically developing children in a rural setting (IA)
Ethnicity
– 36.9%
African-American
– 26.2%
Latino
– 32.3%
Euro-American
– 4.6%
Other
Child Gender
– Female 52.3%
– Male 47.7%
Child Disability Status
– 24.1% Identified disability
– 75.9% Non disability status
Parent Education Level
– 33.8% Did not graduate from highschool
– 29.2% Highschool only
– 15.4% Some college
– 21.6% Graduated from college
Psychometric Summary
• Reliability
– Overall inter-observer agreement = 92% (R=86-100%)
– Mean parent behavior inter-observer agreement = 92% (R= 75-100%)
– Mean child behavior inter-observer agreement = 91% (R= 83-100%)
• IPCI child domain scores were correlated significantly with parent
domain scores in the expected direction
• Concurrent validity shown with the HOME & AAPI
–
(r = .47 - .63 for Parent Facilitators; r = .33-.67 in expected directions for Parent Interrupters;)
• IPCI child domain scores were differentiated by IPCI parent domain
scores
• IPCI parent domain scores were differentiated by HOME score
classification (top third v. bottom third for Home Total; Responsivity)
• IPCI child domain scores were differentiated by BITSEA Problem
Score Classifications (Concern v. No Concern)
Correlations Between IPCI Parent Support
& Other Parent Measures
IPCI
AAPI-2
HOME Total
CESD
Appropriate role
Parent/Cg
Support
.62***
.60***
Acceptance/
Warmth
.64***
.55***
Descript.
Language
.47***
.55***
Follows lead
.47***
.53***
Introduces
Extends
.47***
.42***
Responds
to Distress
.63***
.55***
N=55 ; ***p<.001
-.47***
-.57***
Relationships Between IPCI Parent
Behavior Scales & Child Behavior Scales
Child Positive
Engagement
Parent/Caregiver .73*
Support
Parent/Caregiver -.53*
Interruption
N=350 observations
*p<.001
Child Distress
-.33*
.46*
Correlations Between IPCI Parent Interrupting Behavior
& Other Parent Measures
IPCI
AAPI-2
parent nurturing
role
Parent/Cg
Interrupters
HOME
Total
CESD
-.67**
-.41**
-.64**
-.33*
.53**
Restrictions/
Intrusions
-.63**
-.34*
.36*
Rejects child’s
bid
-.58**
Criticize
.46**
Are IPCI Child Behaviors Differentiated by
Level of IPCI Parent Support Behavior?
100
90.99
80
60
40
65.82
Child Positive
Engagement
20
0
F=20.57; p<.001
Low Parent
Support
High Parent
Support
6
5
4
5.35
3
2
1.70
1
0
Low Parent
Support
High Parent
Support
Child
Reactivity/
Distress
F=14.28; p<.001
Are IPCI Child Behaviors Differentiated by Level
of IPCI Parent Interrupting Behavior?
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
84.69
62.25
Child Positive
Engagement
F=16.98; p<.001
Low Parent High Parent
Interrupting Interrupting
Differences in IPCI Parent Behavior
Based on HOME Classification Status
100
80
60
84.14
60.32
IPCI Parent
Supporting
40
F=2.57; p<.01
20
0
Low HOME
High HOME
25
20
15
20.18
12.92
10
F=2.49; p<.01
5
0
IPCI Parent
Interrupting
Low HOME
High HOME
Does the IPCI differentiate children who are identified
with a disability versus those who are not?
2.5
2
1.5
Child Positive
Feedback
1
0.5
0
F=4.77; p<.05
Disability
Status
Non
Disability
12
10
8
6
Child Reactivity
Distress
4
2
0
F=9.39; p<.01
Disability
Status
Non
Disability
Does the IPCI differentiate children who vary in levels of
social-emotional problem concerns
as measured by the BITSEA?
80
70
60
78.08
50
56.68
40
30
80
70
60
IPC Parent
Support
20
77.08
10
0
63.26
50
30
Concern
F=11.7; p<.001
IPC Child
Engagement
40
No Concern
20
30
10
0
No Concern
Concern
25
25.32
20
15
F=5.76; p<.05
IPC Parent
Interruption
10
5
0
10.19
No Concern
F=5.67; p<.05
Concern
Does the IPCI differentiate children who vary in levels of
social-emotional problem concerns
as measured by the BITSEA?
8
7
7.86
6
5
IPCI Child
Reactivty
4
3
2
1
0
2.32
No Concern
F=2.17; p<01
Concern
35
34.86
30
25
20
IPC Parent
Interruption
15
10
13.21
5
0
No Concern
F=2.08; p<.05
Concern
Psychometric Summary
• Average training time to achieve adequate inter-rater reliability
was 2 2-hour training sessions.
• Acceptable Inter-rater reliability and stability (test-retest) was
demonstrated.
• Support was shown for concurrent validity of IPCI parent
facilitating behavior through expected significant correlations
with the HOME and the AAPI-2.
• Support was shown for concurrent validity of the IPCI parent
interrupting items through expected significant correlations
with the HOME, AAPI-2, CESD
• The IPCI showed sensitivity to parents who differ in quality of
parent styles and children who differ in social-emotional
functioning
Contact Information
Kathleen Baggett:
kbaggett@ku.edu
Judith Carta
carta@ku.edu
IGDI website: http://www.igdi.ku.edu/