An Investigation of Maternal Stress After Neonatal Hearing Screening

¹ East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
² Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada and Chung-Shan Medical College, Taiwan

stuarta{at}mail.ecu.edu

An investigation was undertaken to determine whether mothers whose infants failed a newborn hearing screening (MWIF) had significantly more stress and were consequently at risk for dysfunctional attachment than those mothers whose infants passed a newborn hearing screening (MWIP). The Parenting Stress Index (PSI; Abidin, 1995), a screening and diagnostic assessment questionnaire designed to measure the relative magnitude of stress in a parent-child dyad, was used. Twenty MWIP and 20 MWIF participated. The PSI was administered through a telephone interview approximately 1 month after participants' discharge while their infants were between their fourth and fifth week of life. In the case of MWIF, the interview occurred before their infant's hearing retest. No significant differences in Total Stress, Life Stress, Child Domain, and Parent Domain subscale raw scores of the PSI were found between MWIP and MWIF (p > .05). An examination of the individual PSI profiles of all participants for "high" and "low" normative percentile scores (i.e., percentile scores 90th percentile and percentile scores 0 percentile for the former and latter, respectively) revealed that the incidence of high scale/subscale percentile scores was essentially equivalent between groups. MWIP, however, displayed lower scale/subscale percentile scores. The results of the study suggest that those mothers whose infants receive a refer outcome after a newborn hearing screening demonstrate equivalent stress levels as those mothers whose infants received a pass.

Key Words: maternal stress, newborn hearing screening, parenting stress index

Submitted on April 7, 2000
Accepted on September 19, 2000

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. R. Vohr, J. Jodoin-Krauzyk, R. Tucker, M. J. Johnson, D. Topol, and M. Ahlgren Results of Newborn Screening for Hearing Loss: Effects on the Family in the First 2 Years of Life Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, March 1, 2008; 162(3): 205 - 211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. MacNeil, C.-l. Liu, S. Stone, and J. Farrell Evaluating Families' Satisfaction With Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Services in Massachusetts Am J Audiol, June 1, 2007; 16(1): 29 - 56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. Danhauer, C. E. Johnson, D. Finnegan, K. Hansen, M. Lamb, I. P. Lopez, C. Meuel, A. Pecile, S. Resnick, and V. Williams A Case Study of an Emerging Community-Based Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Program: Part II. Team Building With Otolaryngologists and Pediatricians Using a Survey Approach. Am J Audiol, June 1, 2006; 15(1): 33 - 45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B O Olusanya, L M Luxon, and S L Wirz Infant hearing screening: route to informed choice Arch. Dis. Child., November 1, 2004; 89(11): 1039 - 1040. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C Kennedy and D McCann Universal neonatal hearing screening moving from evidence to practice Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed., September 1, 2004; 89(5): F378 - F383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Z Poulakis, M Barker, and M Wake Six month impact of false positives in an Australian infant hearing screening programme Arch. Dis. Child., January 1, 2003; 88(1): 20 - 24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]