It is objectively harder to get participation from fathers and other caregivers though, especially in a low SES context. Primary caregivers are also usually mothers in America still. Researchers should still work to study fathers and other caregivers, but there are some practical limitations (especially if you recruit during pregnancy). It’s also almost impossible to study foster children.
@chuckf For infancy research with longitudinal follow-up, this is massive. It is very, very hard to recruit babies, and even harder to keep their families for that long. (I'm a doctoral student in infancy research.)
@kutesagfire23 I am new to understanding these types of studies; in the papers I read for work, more information is usually needed to make a claim, so I was seeking clarity. Someone else helpfully explained that because it was a longitudinal study involving babies, the drop-out rate is high and the n is low, which puts it in context.
If I didn't understand, was there something I should have done other than pose the question for clarification?
@chuckf I knew what you were getting at, but if you want to avoid pushback maybe just phrase the actual question. For example, “does anyone here know if the sample size was sufficient to power that conclusion? It seems small to me.”
@chuckf The sample size is good for longitudinal work, but the variation is low. They have very unequal group sizes (only 27 moms in their group that showed a significant effect). They should have used affection as a scale variable, not a categorical variable.
@chuckf adding to what the others replied: also keep in mind that it is a within-subject design. So it has more power (as compared to between-subject designs).
