| Abstract: | The Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale is the most widely used and accepted tool in the study of the behavior of the human newborn; yet there remains some controversy over the most appropriate way to score the results. The present research compares three a priori methods of scoring. The sample consisted of 43 infants: (a) 11 preterms, (b) 10 fullterms in intensive care, (c) 7 fullterms with sick mothers, and (d) 15 healthy fullterms. BNBAS exams administered to these four groups of infants were scored using the Als (1978), Lester, Als, and Brazelton (1982), and Jacobsen, Fein, Jacobsen, and Schwartz (1984) clusters. The data from these three methods were analyzed by means of one-way ANOVAs for group differences. In addition, a factor analysis on the BNBAS scores was also completed. These three approaches all detected differences between medically at-risk and healthy infants on those items assessing motor maturity and orientation. These results suggest that at this time no one scoring system can capture the richness of behavior of the newborn and address the question by researchers, clinicians, and parents. |
