Content uploaded by Elaine Scharfe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elaine Scharfe on Dec 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Benets of Mother Goose: Inuence
of a Community-Based Program
on Parent-Child Attachment
Relationships in Typical Families
An estimated 50 to 60% of children from
typical families develop secure attachment
relationships with their parents (Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Van IJzendoorn & Kroonen -
berg, 1988); however, intervention research has focused pri-
marily on interventions for high-risk clinical samples (Berlin,
Zeanah, & Lieberman, 2008). In this project, the inuence of
a popular community-based parent-child program was assessed
in a non-clinical sample of families. Families participating in
a 10-week Parent-Child Mother Goose Program (n.d.) and
families on the waitlist for the program were asked to com-
plete questionnaires to assess parenting ecacy and satisfac-
tion as well as parents’ perception of their own and their child’s
attachment styles at the beginning of the program, the end of
the program, and six months later. Mothers in the program
group reported signicantly more positive change in their
reports of parenting ecacy over time and also reported sig-
nicantly more change in their children’s attachment category.
Specically, children in the program group were signicantly
more likely to be classied as secure over time (55% at T1 to
81% at T3) as compared to the waitlist participants (45% at
T1 to 62% at T2). In this popular 10-week, community-based
program, parents learned skills that continued to inuence
their relationship with their children six months after the
conclusion of the program.
Elaine Scharfe
Trent University
9
Child Welfare • Vol. 90, No. 5
Over the past 50 years, the importance of a secure parent-child
attachment relationship has been well documented. Consider -
able research has demonstrated that secure children are more socially
competent (e.g., Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001; Troy & Sroufe,
1987), are less likely to have emotional and behavioral problems
(e.g., DeVito & Hopkins, 2001; Fagot & Leve, 1998), are less likely
to have medical problems (e.g., Chatoor, Ganiban, Colin, Plummer,
& Harmon, 1998; Mrazek, Casey, & Anderson, 1987), and score
higher on tests of achievement (e.g., Jacobsen & Hofmann, 1997)
than insecure children do. In adulthood, researchers have also demon-
strated the positive association between secure attachment and adult
functioning (e.g., Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Carnelley, Pietromonaco,
& Jae, 1994; Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994; Kunce & Shaver, 1994;
Scharfe & Bartholomew, 1994). Despite the fact that only an esti-
mated 50–60% of children from typical families form secure attach-
ment relationships with their caregivers (Ainsworth etal., 1978; Van
IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988), intervention research has focused
on interventions in high-risk families with multiple problems (for a
review, see Berlin etal., 2008). In previous work, Scharfe (2003a)
reported that both women identied at risk for mood disorders after
childbirth and women who were not identied to be at-risk reported
that they preferred community-based interventions to professionally
facilitated interventions. Notwithstanding, the benets of commu-
nity-based programs for typical families have yet to be fully explored.
In this project, the inuence of a popular community-based program
(Parent-Child Mother Goose [PCMG]; n.d.) on changes in parent-
ing ecacy and satisfaction as well as parent and child attachment
styles in typical families were assessed.
Vol. 90, No. 5Child Welfare
10
Acknowledgments: e project was supported, in part, by a Trillium research grant to Kinark Family and
Children’s Services. I am grateful to Louise Bennett, Kate Jarrett, Nauni Parkinson, and Joanne Calderone for
their leadership, guidance, and support throughout the project. I am also grateful to Elyse Andrews, Ashley Barker,
Mina Choi, Carley Hamilton, Heather Johnston, Elizabeth Kirschner, Erika Lawton, Kyu Hwa Lim, Daphne
Ling, Anna Lvova-Kennedy, Jenani Srikanthan, Amy Wallwork, and Kelly Woodley for their help with data col-
lection and to the mothers and children who made this study possible. Correspondence should be addressed to
Dr. Elaine Scharfe, Trent University, Department of Psychology, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 7B8,
e-mail: escharfe@trentu.ca.
Importance of Attachment Relationships
Bowlby (1982) proposed that children’s experiences with caregivers
early in life exert a powerful inuence on the development of attach-
ment representations. Bowlby (1973) suggested that attachment
security resulted from responsive, appropriate, caregiving, and that,
because of this care, individuals developed a sense of the self as wor-
thy of care and a sense that others will be responsive and sensitive
when caring. Ideally, children should feel secure and contented when
safely in the presence of caregivers, and when threatened, they should
seek proximity to caregivers as a safe haven. Although the goal of
attachment (i.e., seeking a secure base) is similar for all children, their
mechanisms for seeking proximity dier depending on caregiving
experiences (Ainsworth etal., 1978). ese individual dierences in
attachment are internalized and guide reactions to social situations
throughout life (Bowlby, 1973).
Considerable research has demonstrated that mother-infant
attachment categories show moderate to high stability when infants’
caregiving experiences are stable: approximately 65% of infants are
classified in the same category at two points in time (for a review,
see Scharfe, 2003b). Furthermore, many studies have explored the
influence of variables that Bowlby (1982) originally suggested may
produce change (e.g., life events, depression, birth of a sibling) and
found that change in infant attachment is associated with several
life events. For example, several studies exploring change in both
clinical and non-clinical samples have found that increased quality
of care was associated with changes from insecure to secure attach-
ment (e.g., Egeland & Farber, 1984; Rauh, Ziegenhain, Müller, &
Wignroks, 2000; Vondra, Hommerding, & Shaw, 1999). Corre -
spondingly, decreases in quality of care have been found to be asso-
ciated with changes from secure to insecure attachment (Egeland
& Sroufe, 1981; Vaughn, Egeland, Sroufe, & Waters, 1979). In spite
of the many studies examining the stability of parent-child attach-
ment, there is much work to be done in the area of interventions
to change parent-child attachment, in particular for typical non-
clinical families.
Child WelfareScharfe
11
Intervention Studies
Despite the finding that 40–50% of children from typical non-
clinical families develop insecure attachment (Ainsworth etal., 1978;
Van IJzendoorn & Kroonenberg, 1988), research has focused on pro-
fessionally facilitated interventions in high-risk clinical samples
(Berlin etal., 2008), and to date, no studies have evaluated the impact
of community-based programs on change of attachment. Although,
there is little debate that secure parent-child attachment relation-
ships are benecial and that insecure parent-child attachment rela-
tionships put children at risk for a variety of personal, academic, social,
and emotional diculties, the majority of parents experiencing par-
enting diculties are unlikely to seek professional assistance. e
empirical validation of an effective attachment intervention for
non-clinical families has been slow, as researchers examining attach-
ment in non-clinical samples typically do not systematically inter-
vene. Furthermore, many parents do not seek out help presumably
because they are not aware that they can be helped (or need to be
helped), may be concerned about being labeled a “bad parent,” or are
not aware of a choice of interventions. Furthermore, compared to
high-risk clinical families, typical families with insecure children may
not be in contact with professionals who could suggest appropriate
intervention. To reach these families, community-based interventions
may be helpful.
Community-Based Interventions
Which interventions are most eective in preventing and treating
attachment disorders remains an empirical question (Bakermans-
Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, & Juer, 2008), and while the benets
of community-based interventions are just beginning to be realized,
the study of the eectiveness of these programs have yet to be
extended to attachment. Although, parents experiencing parenting
diculties may be unlikely to seek professional assistance, there are
community programs that parents may enroll in that may provide
assistance. One such program, PCMG, focuses on the pleasure and
Vol. 90, No. 5Child Welfare
12
power of using rhymes, songs, and stories to strengthen parent-child rela-
tionships (Formosa & Heinz, 2003, p. iv). Several positive outcomes
are expected because of participating in this program including
increased positivity of parent-child interactions, improvement in
pre-literacy skills, and improvements in parents’ understanding of
typical child behavior and development (Formosa & Heinz, 2003;
Lottridge, Hamilton, Shewchuk, & Knott, 2004).
Two recent research projects have demonstrated the effective-
ness of PCMG programming in typical, non-clinical families on
language (Formosa & Heinz, 2003) and socioemotional develop-
ment (Lottridge etal., 2004); each study had its own limitations.
Lottridge etal. used a very small experimental (n⫽13) and com-
parison (n⫽13) middle class sample and in several analyses did not
have sucient statistical power to test for dierences between the
two groups. Formosa and Heinz recruited a much larger middle
class sample (N⫽56) but did not include a comparison group of
families not participating in PCMG; although they found dramatic
improvements in language development, without a comparison
group, their conclusions are limited. e current study explored the
benet of PCMG on mother’s parenting ecacy and satisfaction,
and parents’ and children’s attachment in a comparable, non-clini-
cal sample. Consistent with previous research, mothers in the
PCMG program were expected to report greater parenting satisfac-
tion and ecacy and improvements in their children’s attachment
relationships.
Method
Participants
Participants in this study were mothers and their young children (55%
female) who were between the ages of 0 and 50 months (M⫽12.59)1
who expressed their desire to participate in the program. Program
participants were enrolled in the program and participants in the
Child WelfareScharfe
13
1 Very few fathers (n⫽7) and grandmothers (n⫽4) participated in the program; however, they were deleted
from the data analyses. All analyses were limited to data reported by mothers.
control group were on the waitlist and did not participate in a pro-
gram during the time of the study. In total, 310 mothers completed
the T1 questionnaire (132 waitlist and 178 program participants).
ese numbers represent participation rates of 73% for the waitlist-
control group (in total 182 questionnaires were mailed) and 79% for
the program group (in total 226 participants participated in one of
19 programs from October 2005 to April 2008).
At T1, 94% of the participants were married, 89% had at least
some postsecondary education, as is typical in this community the
majority of the parents and children were Caucasian, and 97% spoke
English as their rst language. For 58% of the women, this was their
rst child and 55% of the children were female. At T1, program par-
ticipants were older (32.81 vs. 31.41 years; t(305) ⫽1.98, p⬍0.05),
had more children (1.66 vs. 1.36; t(308) ⫽2.88, p⬍0.01), reported
on an older child (12.94 vs. 11.30 months; t(308) ⫽1.70, p⬍0.10),
and had a higher SES (t(306) ⫽2.66, p⬍0.01) as measured by the
Blishen Occupation Code (Blishen, Carroll, & Moore, 1987) com-
pared to waitlist participants.
In total, of the 310 mothers with T1 data, 239 mothers completed
T2 questionnaires (95 waitlist and 144 program participants)2and
140 mothers completed both T2 and T3 questionnaires (42 waitlist
and 98 program participants). As there were dierences between the
program and waitlist-control groups at T1 on variables that would
be expected to inuence the parent-child relationship and/or child
development, the 42 waitlist-control participants with complete
data were matched with one of program participants with complete
data and who attended 70% or more of the sessions. Participants were
matched on child gender, child age (matched within three months),
marital status, relationship length, mother’s age, education, and occu-
pation, and number of children in the family. There were 23 girls
and 19 boys in each group. For demographic data for both groups,
please see Table 1.
Vol. 90, No. 5Child Welfare
14
2 ere was a trend that program participants were more likely to complete the T2 questionnaire (2(df ⫽1) ⫽
3.42, p⬍0.10); however, some waitlist participants were removed from the waitlist group because they par-
ticipated in the PCMG program before their six-month follow-up.
Procedure
Data were collected at three points in time. Program participants were
asked to complete a short questionnaire (approximately 30 minutes)
at the beginning and end of the program and six months after the
program. During the program, data were collected by research assis-
tants who also attended the program and assisted the program lead-
ers. Program participants were given the questionnaires during week
1 and returned the completed questionnaires at the beginning of the
second session. e T2 questionnaires were handed out in week 9 and
participants were asked to complete at home and bring to the nal
session (week 10, the nal week of the program). If participants did
not attend the nal session or they forgot their questionnaires at
home, they were given a stamped addressed envelope to return the
questionnaires by mail. Questionnaires were mailed to the partici-
pants for the six-month follow up and participants were asked to
complete within one week and return in the stamped addressed enve-
lope. All participants received a reminder call after one week. Families
on the waitlist were called during each of the programs and asked
Child WelfareScharfe
15
Program Waitlist Difference testa
Parent age (mean in years) 32.24 31.42 ⫺0.81
% Married 98% 93% 2.05
Relationship lengthb107.27 98.70 ⫺0.76
Education completed 2.83
High school 7% 12%
College/university 77% 62%
Graduate degreec21% 26%
Occupation 215.32 151.22 ⫺0.97
Child age (in months) 11.98 12.68 0.40
Number of children 1.40 1.29 ⫺0.92
a.
t
value for tests of continuous variables and 2for test of categorical variables
b. Relationship length is in months
c. Graduate degree includes all participants with a graduate and professional degree
Table 1
Demographics of Program and Waitlist Participants
to complete questionnaires at the same time as the program partici-
pants. Questionnaires were mailed to the waitlist participants and
were returned to the researchers by mail. Waitlist participants also
received a reminder call after one week.
Study Site
e PCMG Program (n.d.) began in Toronto, Canada in the mid-
1980s and quickly became a national, community-based program
known for fostering parent-child relationships. Each PCMG group
is facilitated by two trained and qualied PCMG leaders who have
completed training workshops on the philosophy and methods as
well as apprenticeships. During the program, parents learn songs,
stories, and rhymes appropriate to entertain or calm their infants
and/or toddlers. e program began in this community in 1998 and
sessions are typically scheduled in a church or other community
building. e leaders were assisted by one to two child minders and,
for the purpose of collecting data for this research study, one to two
student research assistants. During the course of the study, each
PCMG program was scheduled to run one hour weekly for 10 con-
secutive weeks and each group included 9 to 14 parent-child dyads.
In this community, parents typically learn about the program
through word of mouth or community newspapers (self-referral) and
a small percentage of families (less than 10%) were referred to the
program through health care workers or organizations (e.g., health
units, family and children’s services). e popularity of the program
was such that the waitlist in the community typically included
approximately 100 to 120 families.
Measures
Mothers’ attachment in their close friendships and romantic rela-
tionships was assessed using the Relationship Scales Questionnaire
([RSQ] Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Grin & Bartholomew,
1994). Mothers were asked to rate a series of 17 statements regard-
ing their relationships. e RSQ yields four subscales, one for each of
the four attachment patterns (secure, e.g., I am comfortable depend-
ing on others; fearful, e.g., I nd it dicult to trust others completely;
Vol. 90, No. 5Child Welfare
16
preoccupied, e.g., I nd that others are reluctant to get as close as I
would like; and dismissing, e.g., It is very important to me to feel
independent from others). For this research, each of the four scales
were standardized and used to compute a degree of security score.3
At each time, mothers were divided into one of two groups: pre-
dominant secure attachment if their standardized score on the secure
scale was highest and predominant insecure attachment if their
standardized score on the fearful, preoccupied, or dismissing scale
was highest.
Child attachment security (Waters & Deane, 1985) was assessed
using a survey consisting of 24-items from the security scale from
the Waters and Deane Attachment Q-sort. Mothers rated their
children’s attachment behavior on each of the 24 items using a
7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlike my child) to 7 (very
like my child; e.g., My child keeps track of my location when she/he
plays around the house; My child quickly greets me with a big smile
when I enter the room). Attachment data can also be considered
using categorical assessments. At each time, children were divided
into one of two groups: predominant secure attachment (average
score of 5 or higher) and predominant insecure attachment (aver-
age score less than 5).
Parenting Sense of Competence (Johnson & Mash, 1989) was used
to assess mother’s feelings of ecacy and satisfaction with parent-
ing. Mothers were asked to rate their agreement from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) a series of 17 statements regarding
their feelings about parenting. e scale yields two subscales: e-
cacy (e.g., e problems of taking care of a child are easy to solve
once you know how your actions aect your child, an understand-
ing I have acquired.) and satisfaction (e.g., Even though being a par-
ent could be rewarding, I am frustrated now while my child is at
his/her present age.).
Child WelfareScharfe
17
3 The degree of security score was calculated using the following equation: degree of security ⫽secure ⫺
((fearful ⫹preoccupied ⫹dismissing)/3). High scores (greater than zero) indicate a higher degree of
security than insecurity whereas low scores (less than zero) indicate a higher degree of insecurity than
security.
Data Analysis
All data were analyzed using STATISTICA, version 6.1 (StatSoft,
Inc., 2002). First, to test the mean level of change over time, to deter-
mine if there were positive eects from participation in the PCMG
program, a repeated measures ANOVA was calculated using the
between groups eect was the group (program versus waitlist), within
group eect was time, and the dependent variables were the three
scores over time. A separate ANOVA was calculated for each of the
variables measured. Group and time main eects were tested as well
as the interaction between group X time; signicant group X time
interactions would indicate that there were dierences in the rate of
change of program and waitlist groups. Next, a comparison of attach-
ment category membership between groups at each time was tested
using a 2-by-2 chi-square (2) analysis. For example, the proportion
of predominantly secure and insecure parents at T1 in the program
group was compared to the proportion of predominantly secure and
insecure parents at T1 in the waitlist group.
Results
Average scores over time for the matched groups are presented in
Table 2.Signicant group eects would indicate that there were dif-
ferences between the program and waitlist group. As expected, at T1
there were no group eects for any of the variables studied thereby
indicating that before the program the groups were not signicantly
dierent on any of the variables in question at T1.4Signicant time
eects would indicate that the scores changed over time. As expected,
there were signicant time eects for child security: time eects
would be expected due to expected developmental changes in attach-
ment at this time (i.e., the majority of children were 12 to 18 months
old). Consistent with considerable research, parent security did not
change over time (cf. Scharfe, 2003b) nor did parenting satisfaction
Vol. 90, No. 5Child Welfare
18
4 This was confirmed using a t-test for independent means comparing T1 scores for program and waitlist
participants: t-tests would have more power to detect differences than repeated measures ANOVAs.
or ecacy. Group X time interactions were calculated to test the
eects of the program. A signicant group X time interaction indi-
cates that there were dierences in the rate of change of program and
waitlist groups. Mothers in the program group reported signicantly
more positive change in their reports of parenting ecacy over time
thereby indicating that the program had a positive inuence on their
view of how eective they were in the parenting role.
Using the attachment continuous scores in the repeated measures
ANOVA, there were no group X time eects. However, attachment
is typically viewed as a categorical variable: participants are either
secure or insecure. As described previously, both parents and children
were divided into secure and insecure groups at each time. Changes
in parent and child predominant attachment category were tested and
are presented in Table 3. Mothers who participated in the program
reported a gradual, albeit non-signicant, increase in their own
Child WelfareScharfe
19
T1 T2 T3 F (2, 164)
Child security 0.68
Program 4.94a 5.05a 5.40b
Waitlist 4.79a 4.94ab 5.13b
Mother security 1.78
Program 1.08a 1.06a 0.85a
Waitlist 0.77a 0.75a 0.91a
Parenting efficacy 3.75*
Program 5.10a 5.17ab 5.46b
Waitlist 5.24a 5.35a 5.24a
Parenting satisfaction 1.95
Program 5.43a 5.42a 5.53a
Waitlist 5.23a 5.17a 5.05a
Note:
Items in same row with different subscripts are different from each other at
p
⬍0.05
using Newman-Keuls test. The
F
value is from the group by time interaction from the
repeated measures ANOVA. There were no group effects, and all variables changed over
time (i.e., a time effect).
*
p
⬍0.05
Table 2
Average Scores Over Time
attachment security (48% classied as secure at T1 and 60% classi-
fied as secure at T3) and waitlist participants reported a decrease
(57 to 45%). ere were, however, signicant changes in the children’s
attachment categories over time. ere were no dierences between
child attachment categories between waitlist and program groups at
T1 or T2. However, participants in the program group were more
likely to be classied as secure over time (55% classied as secure at
T1 to 81% classied as secure at T3) as compared to the waitlist par-
ticipants (45% at T1 to 62% at T2).
Conclusions
e goal of the study was to examine the eect of this popular, rela-
tively inexpensive, community-based program on developing parent-
child relationships in a typical community sample. Results supported
the expectations that mothers who completed the program reported
higher levels of parenting ecacy and were more likely to judge their
children to be secure at T3 than mothers in the waitlist control group.
Importantly, although there were some initial improvements over the
10-week program, the results clearly support that program participants
Vol. 90, No. 5Child Welfare
20
Program Waitlist 2
Parent % secure
T1 48 57 0.76
T2 43 50 0.43
T3 60 45 1.72
Child % secure
T1 55 45 0.76
T2 60 50 0.77
T3 81 62 3.73*
Note:
2tests the difference between secure and insecure categories at T1, T2, and T3 for
program and waitlist groups.
*
p
⬍0.05
Table 3
Change in the Percentage of Predominantly Secure Parents and Children Over Time
learned skills that continued to inuence their relationship with their
children six months after the conclusion of the program.
e current project replicated the ndings of two previous studies
while including a larger sample and a matched waitlist-control group.
Unlike the previous research, this study had sucient power to test
for dierences between groups (cf. Lottridge etal., 2004) and included
a matched comparison group to test for developmental changes
versus program eects (cf. Formosa & Heinz, 2003). e ndings,
however, were consistent with previous work: the PCMG program
positively inuenced both children’s development and parenting
experience. e skills that parents learn during the PCMG program
are proposed to increase the quality of care that parents provide for
their children. In particular, parents may learn alternative ways to
sooth their infant, may become more aware of their infant’s prefer-
ences, and may gain support and condence in the relationships
developed with other parents. Each of these changes would be
expected to increase parents’ ability to react to their infants needs in
a sensitive and responsive manner. In this study, mothers who par-
ticipated in the program reported higher levels of parenting ecacy
over time supporting that mothers felt better prepared to cope with
parenting challenges after participating in the program. It is well
established that increases in parental sensitivity is associated with
changes from insecure to secure attachment (cf. Egeland & Farber,
1984; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Rauh etal., 2000; Vondra etal., 1999).
Both results, increases in parenting ecacy and increased security,
support the benet of participating in this program.
However, a few limitations need to be considered when inter-
preting the results. First, the families who participated in this study
were relatively stable, middle class, and well functioning. Nevertheless,
given this limitation—which restricted the range of the data—the
changes in the program group over six to seven months were large
enough to be signicantly dierent from the changes in the waitlist-
control group. Clearly, the positive inuence of this program must be
studied in a high-risk sample—the eects would be expected to be
stronger. Furthermore, data were analyzed from program participants
who attended at least 70% of the PCMG sessions. Although there
Child WelfareScharfe
21
were no dierences at T1 between families who attended 70% or
more of the program sessions and those families who did not, future
research may wish to explore reasons for discontinuing participation
and the level of participation needed for families to be positively
inuenced. For example, participants may have discontinued partic-
ipation due to a lack of interest in the program, a lack of transporta-
tion or illness. Each of these reasons for discontinuing with the
program may predict dierent pathways for family relationships and
children’s development.
Implications for Practice
Several suggestions can be made from the results of the study to
improve practice with families. First, it is clear from the results that
parents and children benetted from this community-based program
and the program is as successful as professionally facilitated pro-
grams to remedy parent-child attachment diculties (for a review,
see Berlin etal., 2008). is is a cost eective way to intervene with
parents who are not at risk but whose children may still benet from
improved parenting skills. Furthermore, when individuals are strug-
gling with parenting, it would be expected that secure individuals
would be more likely to seek support, more likely to communicate
what they need to be supported, and more likely to report satisfac-
tion with support received. Insecure individuals would have more dif-
culty asking for support and may view particular types of support
negatively. Specically, avoidant individuals may feel judged if pro-
fessionals focus on the benets of a particular program for children.
One reason why the PCMG program may be benecial for all par-
ents, including predominately avoidant individuals, may be because
it is designed to focus on the practical skills associated with good par-
enting; parents do not feel judged despite the fact that many parents
are learning new ways to interact, play, and sooth their children.
One of the great strengths of the PCMG program is that it is a
relatively inexpensive community-based program. Although program
leaders are trained and certied (see PCMG Program, n.d.), the cost
or time commitment is not unreasonable, and the results of this
study suggest considerable benets for non-clinical families. Future
Vol. 90, No. 5Child Welfare
22
research needs to explore the benets of this program for high-risk
families: Findings of the current study suggest that the program may
be a cost-eective way to engage parents in high-risk families while
working to improve their condence with parenting. Finally, it is
important to note that the original program was 30 weeks long, but,
in many communities, including the community studied in this
project, the program has been shortened to 10 weeks due to nan-
cial considerations. Future research exploring the benefits of this
program, in particular for high-risk samples, may benet by using the
longer timeframe.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment:
A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juer, F. (2008). Less is more: Meta-
analytic arguments for the use of sensitivity-focused interventions. In F. Juer, M. J.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, & M. H. van IJzendoorn (Eds.), Promoting positive parenting:
An attachment-based intervention (pp. 59–74). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of
a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244.
Berlin, L. J., Zeanah, C. H., & Lieberman, A. F. (2008). Prevention and intervention pro-
grams for supporting early attachment security. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: eory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 745–761).
New York: Guilford Press.
Blishen, B. R., Carroll, W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). e 1981 socioeconomic index for occu-
pations in Canada. e Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 24, 465–488.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1995). Dimensions of adult attachment, affect regula-
tion, and romantic relationship functioning. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,
267–283.
Child WelfareScharfe
23
Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Jaffe, K. (1994). Depression, working models of
others, and relationship functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,
127–140.
Chatoor, I., Ganiban, J., Colin, V., Plummer, N., & Harmon, R. J. (1998). Attachment and
feeding problems: A reexamination of nonorganic failure thrive and attachment insecu-
rity. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 1217–1224
DeVito, C., & Hopkins, J. (2001). Attachment, parenting, and marital dissatisfaction as
predictors of disruptive behavior in preschoolers. Development & Psychopathology, 13,
215–231.
Egeland, B., & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant-mother attachment: Factors related to its devel-
opment and changes over time. Child Development, 55, 753–771.
Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1981). Attachment and early maltreatment. Child Development,
52, 44–52.
Fagot, B. I., & Leve, L. D. (1998). Teacher ratings of externalizing behavior at school entry
for boys and girls: Similar early predictors and dierent correlates. Journal of Child
Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 39, 555–566.
Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Callan, V. J. (1994). Attachment style, communication and satis-
faction in the early years of marriage. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances
in personal relationships: Vol. 5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 269–308). London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Formosa, S., & Heinz, L. (2003). TLC3 Vancouver project nal report. Unpublished report.
Grin, D. W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). e metaphysics of measurement: e case of adult
attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships:
Vol. 5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17–52). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Jacobsen, T., & Hofmann, V. (1997). Children’s attachment representations: Longitudinal
relations to school behavior and academic competency in middle childhood and adoles-
cence. Developmental Psychology, 33, 703–710.
Johnston, C., & Mash, E. J. (1989). A measure of parenting satisfaction and ecacy. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 167–175.
Kunce, L. S., & Shaver, P. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in roman-
tic relationships. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in adult-
Vol. 90, No. 5Child Welfare
24
hood: Vol. 5: Advances in personal relationships (pp. 205–237). London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Lottridge, C., Hamilton, D., Shewchuk, D., & Knott, T. (2004). Parent child Mother Goose
program pilot research study. Unpublished report.
Mrazek, D. A., Casey, B., & Anderson, I. (1987). Insecure attachment in severely asthmatic
preschool children: Is it a risk factor? Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 26, 516–520.
Parent-Child Mother Goose Program. (n.d.). Meet the parent-child mother goose program.
Retrieved October 7, 2011, from www.nald.ca/mothergooseprogram/start.htm.
Rauh, H., Ziegenhain, U., Müller, B., & Wignroks, L. (2000). Stability and change in infant-
mother attachment in the second year of life: Relations to parenting quality and vary-
ing degrees of day-care experience. In P. Crittenden (Ed.), The organization of attachment
relationships: Maturation, culture, and context (pp. 251–276). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Scharfe, E. (September 30, 2003a). Peterborough postnatal mood disorders collaboration: Final
report. Report presented to the Ontario Women’s Health Council, Ministry of Health and
Long-Term Care, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.
Scharfe, E. (2003b). Stability and change of attachment representations from cradle to grave.
In S. M. Johnson & V. Whien (Ed.), Attachment processes in couple and family therapy
(pp. 64–84). New York: Guilford Press.
Scharfe, E., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Reliability and stability of adult attachment patterns.
Personal Relationships, 1, 23–43.
Schneider, B. H., Atkinson, L., & Tardif, C. (2001). Child-parent attachment and children’s
peer relations: A quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 37, 86–100.
StatSoft, Inc. (2002). STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6.1 [Software].
Retrieved October 7, 2011, from www.statsoft.com.
Troy, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment
relationship history. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26,
166–172.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment:
A meta-analysis of the strange situation. Child Development,59, 147–156.
Child WelfareScharfe
25
Vaughn, B., Egeland, B., Sroufe, A., & Waters, E. (1979). Individual dierences in infant-
mother attachment at twelve and eighteen months: Stability and change in families under
stress. Child Development, 50, 971–975.
Vondra, J. I., Hommerding, K. D., & Shaw, D. S. (1999). Stability and change in infant attach-
ment in a low income sample. In J. I. Vondra & D. Barnett (Eds.), Atypical attachment in
infancy and early childhood among children at developmental risk. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 64(3, Serial No. 258), 119–144.
Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Dening and assessing individual dierences in attach-
ment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early
childhood. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and
research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1, Serial No. 209),
41–65.
Vol. 90, No. 5Child Welfare
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
