ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The aim of this study was to specify and test the factor structure of the Child Attachment Interview (CAI), by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA provides a continuous measure of attachment, and also an examination of the construct validity of this continuous approach. Analyses included 150 children aged 9–13, recruited from schools in Norway. The one factor-model “Security–Dismissal”, as well as a model including the supplementary factor “Preoccupation–Idealization”, fitted the data well. Individuals' scores based on these factors converged with the categorical attachment classifications, but added more information about individual differences within categories. The findings support the construct validity of this continuous approach to the CAI.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo]
On: 25 November 2011, At: 05:45
Publisher: Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
European Journal of
Developmental Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pedp20
Factor structure of the Child
Attachment Interview
Henrik Daae Zachrisson a b , Espen Røysamb a c , Brit
Oppedal a & Stuart T. Hauser a b
a Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of
Mental Health, Department of Child and Adolescent
Mental Health, Oslo, Norway
b Judge Baker Children's Center & Harvard Medical
School, Cambridge, MA, USA
c Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo,
Norway
Available online: 21 Nov 2011
To cite this article: Henrik Daae Zachrisson, Espen Røysamb, Brit Oppedal & Stuart T.
Hauser (2011): Factor structure of the Child Attachment Interview, European Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 8:6, 744-759
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.631293
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
Factor structure of the Child Attachment Interview
Henrik Daae Zachrisson
1,2
, Espen Røysamb
1,3
, Brit Oppedal
1
,
and Stuart T. Hauser
1,2
1
Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Mental Health,
Department of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Oslo, Norway
2
Judge Baker Children’s Center & Harvard Medical School, Cambridge,
MA, USA
3
Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
The aim of this study was to specify and test the factor structure of the Child
Attachment Interview (CAI), by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
The CFA provides a continuous measure of attachment, and also an
examination of the construct validity of this continuous approach. Analyses
included 150 children aged 9–13, recruited from schools in Norway. The one
factor-model ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’, as well as a model including the
supplementary factor ‘‘Preoccupation–Idealization’’, fitted the data well.
Individuals’ scores based on these factors converged with the categorical
attachment classifications, but added more information about individual
differences within categories. The findings support the construct validity of this
continuous approach to the CAI.
Keywords: Attachment dimension; Child Attachment Interview; Confirmatory
factor analysis; Validation.
Methodologists have long argued against dichotomization of continuous
measures in psychology (e.g., DeCoster, Iselin, & Gallucci, 2009;
MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002). In attachment research,
well-established measures like the Infant Strange Situation (ISS; Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) and the Adult Attachment Interview
Correspondence should be addressed to Henrik Daae Zachrisson, Norwegian Institute of
Public Health, Division of Mental Health, Department of Child and Adolescent Mental Health,
PO Box 4404 Nydalen, 0403 Oslo, Norway. E-mail: heza@fhi.no
Parts of the results were presented as Pecha Kucha at the Society for Research in Child
Development Biannual conference in Denver, CO, April 2009.
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
2011, 8 (6), 744–759
Ó2011 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/edp http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.631293
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
(AAI; see Hesse, 2008, for a review) are rated by trained coders on a number
of continuous scales, ultimately arriving at a categorical classification of
attachment. Although researchers have suggested dimensional approaches
to both the ISS (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978; Cummings, 1990) and the AAI
(e.g., Kobak, Cole, Ferenzgillies, Fleming, & Gamble, 1993), continuous
approaches to attachment have been most common among the question-
naire-based adult attachment measures (Crowell, Fraley, & Shaver, 2008).
Advances in the measurement of attachment in middle childhood
(Dwyer, 2005), have included continuous approaches in questionnaires
(Kerns, Aspelmeier, Gentzler, & Grabill, 2001), and interviews (Shmueli-
Goetz, Target, Fonagy, & Datta, 2008; Steele & Steele, 2005). Although new
attachment measures have raised concerns about validation issues (e.g.,
Laible, 2005), advances in psychometrics and statistics have to a limited
extent been applied. We aimed to specify and test a measurement model of a
continuous approach to the CAI by means of a Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (Brown, 2006), and thereby test the construct validity of this
approach (John & Benet-Martinez, 2000).
The Child Attachment Interview
The CAI builds upon the AAI, but the interview and the coding manual is
designed to measure representations of current attachment relationships of
children aged 8–13. In the CAI quality of the discourse is considered to be
indicative of attachment representations. The interview is rated on a number
of subscales, allowing the coder to classify it into one of the attachment
categories secure, dismissing, and preoccupied. The secure pattern reflects
undistorted affective and cognitive information about the availability of the
attachment figures, and their capacity to provide safety and comfort (see
Crowell et al., 2008, for an overview of attachment patterns). The dismissing
and preoccupied patterns reflect representations of the attachment figures as
being unpredictable and/or unavailable, and strategies to cope with this
experience. This includes for the dismissing category idealization or
dismissal attachment figures in order to avoid experiences of them being
rejecting and unavailable, for the preoccupied category angry or passive
blame the attachment figures for their shortcomings. Classification into
the disorganized category (with no coherent strategy to cope with unpre-
dictable or unresponsive attachment gures) is based on a qualitative judge-
ment, and is not anchored in the rating scales. Further details about the
interview and the coding procedure are presented in the method section below.
Classification based on the CAI has been related to theoretically
predictable aspects of child functioning. They are overlapping with the
capacity for mentalizing (Humfress, O’Connor, Slaughter, Target, &
Fonagy, 2002), and the secure classification has been associated with
FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CAI 745
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
aspects of emotion regulation (Borelli, Crowley et al., 2010). Finally,
disorganized attachment has been associated with higher levels of self-
reported depressive symptoms and shyness, as well as parental reports of
social anxiety, inattention, and thought problems (Borelli, David, Crowley,
& Mayes, 2010).
Shmueli-Goetz et al. (2008) suggested that the CAI provides a continuous
measure of attachment as a supplement to the categories, however without
specifying how this should be constructed. In this paper, we will argue that a
CFA model based on the subscales of the CAI is a valuable approach to
construct this continuous measure.
Attachment dimensions
There are many reasons not to categorize a continuous measure. It leads to
‘‘loss of information about individual differences, loss of effect size and power,
the occurrence of spurious main effects and interactions, risks of overlooking
nonlinear effects, and problems in comparing and aggregating findings across
studies’’ (MacCallum et al., 2002, p. 29). DeCoster et al. (2009) demonstrated
that a continuous measure is preferable under most circumstances, and that
a categorical measure never performs substantially better. Consequently,
attachment research will benefit from taking a continuous approach.
The idea of attachment dimensions is not new. In the initial description of
the ISS, Ainsworth et al. (1978) described dimensions of security to
insecurity and avoidance to conflict. Cummings (1990) suggested one
dimension of felt security in the ISS. Another example is Kobak et al’s
(1993) Q-sort procedure for the AAI, including two dimensions; security to
insecurity/anxiety and hyperactivating insecurity to deactivating insecurity.
There is empirical support for a dimensional approach to the attachment
construct. Using a taxometric technique (Waller & Meehl, 1998), the latent
structure of attachment was found to be continuous, not categorical, when
measured in infants with the ISS (Fraley & Spieker, 2003a) and in adults
with the AAI (Roisman, Fraley, & Belsky, 2007).
A confirmatory factor model of the CAI
These taxometric studies (Fraley & Spieker, 2003a; Roisman et al., 2007)
found two dimensions underlying variation in attachment organization. In
infants, these were ‘‘Proximity-Seeking versus Avoidant Strategies’’, and
‘‘Angry and Resistant Strategies’’ (Fraley & Spieker, 2003a). The authors
argued that these dimensions remain throughout development (Fraley &
Spieker, 2003b). In adults, they found a similar dimension from security to
dismissal, and that there may be a second dimension reflecting active versus
passive forms of preoccupation (Roisman et al., 2007).
746 ZACHRISSON ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
Expanding on these conceptualizations, we hypothesize a two-dimen-
sional model, capturing the essence of the secure, dismissing, and
preoccupied categories. The first dimension is adapted from Fraley and
Spieker (2003a) and Kerns et al. (2001), ranging from high levels of security
to high levels of dismissal. The Security–Dismissal dimension reflects the
logic inherent in coding of the CAI (Shmueli-Goetz, Target, Fonagy, &
Datta, 2004), that an individual rated high on indicators of security is rated
low on indicators of dismissal. This ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’ factor reflects the
two most prevalent attachment categories as opposites on a continuum, and
may be considered a one-dimensional measure of attachment security in
middle childhood, because the preoccupied pattern is very uncommon in the
normal population (Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2008).
In order to account for the preoccupied pattern, a second factor could be
added as a supplement. Following models of attachment in both infants
(Fraley & Spieker, 2003b) and adults (Kobak et al., 1993), we hypothesized
a dimension ranging from high levels of preoccupation to high levels of
dismissal, thus differentiating between forms of insecurity. This ‘‘Preoccu-
pied–Dismissal’’ dimension is also based on the logic of CAI coding, where
the two insecure patterns are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, moderate to
high ratings on the ‘‘Preoccupied anger’’ scales are relatively independent of
ratings on the scales indicative of attachment security (Shmueli-Goetz et al.,
2004), and we therefore assume this factor to be uncorrelated with the
‘‘Security–Dismissal’’ factor. The two-dimensional model, and its hypothe-
sized relation to the attachment categories, is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Theoretically derived dimensional model of the attachment construct to be tested with
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The horizontal double-arrow illustrates the ‘‘Security–
Dismissal’’ dimension. The vertical double-arrow illustrates the ‘‘Preoccupied–Dismissal’’
dimension.
FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CAI 747
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
Inspired by Cummings (1990), we examined the convergence of the
dimensional and the categorical approach to measuring attachment.
The dimensional approach should maintain the information inherent in
the categories, and in addition provide information about differences
between individuals within the categories.
To summarize, the aim of this study was to specify and test two separate
factor models of the CAI, a one-dimensional and a two-dimensional. We
specified the one-dimensional model to distinguish between attachment
security and dismissal, the ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’ factor. We supplemented
this model with a second factor, distinguishing between attachment
preoccupation and dismissal, the ‘‘Preoccupied–Dismissal’’ factor. We also
examined whether the models converge with the traditional attachment
classifications.
METHOD
Participants and procedure
Participants were recruited from five public schools in the city of Bergen,
Norway, as part of the project ‘‘Youth, Culture, and Competence’’ (YCC)
at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Schools with larger proportions
of ethnic minority children were selected for the study. All students in 4th,
5th, 6th, and 7th grade (N¼496) and their mothers were invited to the YCC
in Bergen, through a letter to the parents. Consent forms were returned for
333 (67%) students. These students and parents were invited to complete
questionnaires, and the children were invited to an interview, including the
CAI, and of these 136 (41%) accepted. The interviewers were trained and
supervised by the first author, who is a clinical psychologist and certified
CAI coder. Compared to the total study sample, a higher proportion of
girls, w
2
(1) ¼4.92, p5.05, and children with immigrant backgrounds,
w
2
(1) ¼4.42, p5.05, participated in the second phase. The only socio-
economic indicator available for all participants in the study was children’s
perception of economic hardship in the family. This did not differ between
those attending and not attending the second phase. Interviews conducted as
part of the pilot study for YCC (n¼27) are also included in the analyses.
Children in the pilot data were on average one year younger than children in
the total sample (t¼73.37, p5.001), but did not otherwise differ on
demographic variables. Thirteen interviews could not be used due to
technical problems with the recorder, etc., or because some children with
immigrant backgrounds were considered by the coders insufficiently fluent
in Norwegian to respond adequately. The total number of participants
included in this study were 150 children (60% girls) of 9–13 years of age
(M¼11.7 years, SD ¼1.3 years). Forty-nine (33%) of these children
748 ZACHRISSON ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
reported a national background other than Norwegian (12 from Europe/
USA, 24 from the Middle East/Central Asia, 5 from East Asia, 6 from Latin
America, and 1 from West Africa). The highest level of education for either
of the parents was: 54 (36%) more than four years at college or university;
39 (26%) less than four years at college or university; 15 (10%) senior high
school; and 10 (7%) secondary school. Information about parents’ level of
education was not available for 32 (21%) of the children. Twenty-nine
(20%) children reported having divorced parents, of these, six lived in single-
parent homes. The study was carried out according to the directions of the
National Committees for Research Ethics in Norway (www.etikkom.no/
English).
Measures
The Child Attachment Interview (CAI; Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2004, 2008)
consists of an interview protocol and a manual for analysing the interview.
The interview takes about 30 minutes during which children (aged 7 to 13)
are asked about attachment-related experiences with attachment figures.
The interview protocol is directed toward general (semantic) and specific
(episodic) descriptions of the relationships with attachment figures. The
interview is videotaped and subsequently transcribed verbatim for coding.
Coding is done according to the manual (Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2004),
based on transcripts and video recordings of the interviews. The child’s
responses are rated on eleven subscales, each rated from 1–9 (low through
high). The subscales are selected to cover the main aspects of the attachment
construct. The rationale for each subscale is described by Shmueli-Goetz
et al. (2008). The CAI subscales are: Emotional openness; Balance of
references; Use of examples; Preoccupied anger with respect to mother and
father; Idealization with respect to mother and father; Dismissal with
respect to mother and father; Resolution of conflicts; and Overall coherence.
The coherence subscale is mainly a summary of other subscales, and can
therefore not be considered as a unique indicator of the attachment
construct. It is therefore not included in the analyses for the present study.
An interview is assigned to one of four attachment categories based on a
global judgement of interview, and informed by cut-off points on each of the
subscales (Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2004).
Shmueli-Goetz et al. (2008) demonstrated inter-rater reliability with a
median Intra Class Correlation (ICC) for three coders of 0.88 (ranging from
0.71 to 0.94, except for the subscale ‘‘Idealization of father’’ with an ICC of
0.38), and test–retest stability over three months had a median of r¼.63
(ranging from .55 to .90, except the subscales ‘‘Preoccupied anger with
father’’ with r¼.29, and ‘‘Idealization of father’’ with r¼.42). In spite of the
CAI-classifications being based on the child’s verbal response, neither verbal
FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CAI 749
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
IQ score nor expressive language score was related to attachment
classification, and CAI ratings corresponded to other attachment-related
measures (Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2008).
Both coders in this study were trained and certified as reliable at the Anna
Freud Centre, London. The CAI manual was under development by the time
of training, and to increase inter-rater reliability the coders incorporated
general descriptions from the manual into the specific criteria for rating the
subscales. Most importantly, a child speaking only about parents in terms of
what they can provide or do is rated on the dismissing subscale. The
supplements were approved by M. Target and P. Fonagy and have been
added to the CAI coding manual (personal communication, February 2007).
Details about the supplements can be obtained from the first author. Fifty-
two interviews used in the present study were coded by two coders after these
supplements were incorporated. The median ICC for the 11 subscales was
0.88 (range 0.77 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in the coders’
mean scores on any of the subscales. All analyses are based on the first
coder’s ratings of the entire data set. For the four attachment categories
(Secure, Dismissing, Preoccupied, and Disorganized), the inter-rater agree-
ment for the categories was 82% for mother and 78% for father.
Analysis
Missing data comprised less than 1% on all CAI subscales except the item
‘‘Resolution of conflict’’ where 4% were missing. (Missing data during the
rating procedure were due to too little information given in the interview.)
All missing data were input with Expectation-Maximization algorithm using
PASW 17.0 (SPSS, Inc., 2009). All items except the two ratings of
‘‘Preoccupied anger’’ with mother and father, respectively, were normally
distributed. The two ‘‘Preoccupied anger’’ items were highly skewed,
reflecting a rating of three or higher for only nine and eight children, for
mother and father respectively. Scale transformations were not successful.
Because the CAI coding manual (Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2004) is unspecific
with regard to the rating criteria of these subscales (M. Target, personal
communication, February 2007), the items ‘‘Preoccupied anger’’ with
mother and father respectively were dichotomized into one category of
lower than three, and one of three or higher.
CFA was performed with the Mplus version 6.1 (Muthen & Muthen,
2010a). For the first CFA, including only continuous factor indicators, we
used a maximum likelihood estimator, which is robust to non-normality
(MLR; Muthen & Muthen, 2010b). For the second CFA, combining
continuous and binary factor indicators, we used weighted least squares
mean and variance adjusted estimator (WLSMV; Muthen & Muthen,
2010b) estimating probit regressions for the categorical factor indicators,
750 ZACHRISSON ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
and linear regressions for the continuous factor indicators. WLSMV does
not assume multivariate normality, and has been found to perform well even
in smaller samples (Flora & Curran, 2004).
The fit of the models was assessed with the chi-square value, comparative
fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA). An insignificant chi-square value, CFI/TFI
values above 0.95, and RMSEA below 0.06 indicate good model fit (Hu
& Bentler, 1999).
The subscales ‘‘Preoccupied anger’’, ‘‘Idealization’’, and ‘‘Dismissal’’ are
according to the CAI manual (Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2004) rated separately
for each parent, giving six subscales altogether. Because of the high
concordance between classification of mother and father, Shmueli-Goetz
and colleagues (2008) recommend focusing on an overall classification of
security when using the CAI. We followed this by including both mother
and father ratings as indicators of the latent subconstruct.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Means and standard deviations for all subscales are presented in Table 1,
and the distribution of attachment classifications can be seen in Table 2.
There was a higher proportion of girls than boys rated in the secure
category, w
2
(1) ¼8.45, p5.01, but no differences with regard to immigrant
status or parental education level.
TABLE 1
Means, standard deviations, and Spearman–Brown inter-rater reliability for all subscales
of the Child Attachment Interview (inter-rater reliability estimates are based on a subset
of 52 interviews)
Subscale Mean SD Inter-rater reliability
Emotional openness 5.59 1.67 0.90
Balance 5.14 1.37 0.80
Use of examples 5.38 1.60 0.92
Preoccupied anger with mother 1.24 0.92 0.97
Preoccupied anger with father 1.19 0.84 0.92
Idealization of mother 2.70 1.63 0.70
Idealization of father 2.71 1.61 0.79
Distancing of mother 3.08 1.59 0.83
Distancing of father 3.15 1.63 0.86
Resolution of conflicts 5.02 1.50 0.88
Overall coherence 5.25 1.59 0.91
FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CAI 751
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
CFA models
The one-dimensional model of the CAI consisted of the ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’
factor. This factor was specified as being measured by the subscales ‘‘Emotional
openness’’, ‘‘Balance’’, ‘‘Use of examples’’, ‘‘Resolution of conflicts’’, ‘‘Idealiza-
tion with respect to mother and father’’, and ‘‘Dismissal with respect to mother
and father’’. The residuals of the two items ‘‘Idealization’’ with respect to mother
and father, the two items ‘‘Dismissing’’ with respect to mother and father were
allowed to correlate, because these pairs measure similar psychological processes.
With these two correlated residuals (idealization: r¼.52; dismissal: r¼.73), the
model fitted the data well, w
2
(18) ¼29.57, p¼.042 (TLI ¼.98, CFI ¼.99,
RMSEA ¼.065). All factor loadings were statistically significant (p5.05). Thus,
a single factor accounts for the covariance pattern in all CAI subscales except
those representing preoccupied anger. The model is depicted in Figure 2.
The two-dimensional model of the CAI consisted of the ‘‘Security–
Dismissal’’ factor as described above and the uncorrelated ‘‘Preoccupation–
Dismissal’’ factor. The ‘‘Preoccupation–Dismissal’’ factor was specified to
include the six subscales ‘‘Idealization with respect to mother and father’’,
‘‘Dismissing with respect to mother and father’’, and ‘‘Preoccupied anger
with respect to mother and father’’. This two-dimensional model fitted well,
w
2
(29) ¼39.49, p¼.09 (TLI ¼.96, CFI ¼.95, RMSEA ¼.049).
All factor loadings were significant, except the loadings of the subscales
‘‘Dismissal with respect to mother and father’’ on the ‘‘Preoccupation–
Dismissal’’ factor. Models with and without these paths did not differ
significantly. We therefore preferred the most parsimonious model (with the
loadings of the dismissal indicators on the second factor fixed to zero). The
final model therefore consisted of the factor ‘‘Preoccupation–Idealization’’ in
addition to the factor ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’. The fit indices for this modified
model were w
2
(31) ¼39.10, p¼.15 (TLI ¼.97, CFI ¼.96, RMSEA ¼.042).
The final model with factor loadings can be seen in Figure 3.
In order to examine the adequacy of the two-dimensional model compared
to the traditional attachment classifications, we plotted each individual’s
factor score in a graph indicating each individual’s attachment classification.
Figure 4 illustrates each individual’s placement in the two-dimensional space
TABLE 2
Distribution of attachment categories (missing categories are due to absence of this
specific attachment figure)
Dismissing n (%) Secure n (%)
Preoccupied
n(%)
Disorganized
n (%) Missing n (%)
Mother 47 (31.3) 95 (63.3) 5 (3.3) 1 (0.7) 2 (1.3)
Father 51 (34.0) 92 (61.3) 4 (2.7) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.7)
752 ZACHRISSON ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
created by the two factors ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’ and ‘‘Preoccupation–
Idealization’’, and indicates each individual’s attachment classification. The
graph illustrates that individual factor scores vary along continua, and at the
same time maintain the basic patterning of the attachment classifications.
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences in factor scores
between the three attachment categories for both factor one, F(2,
139) ¼112.7, p5.001, and factor two, F(2, 139) ¼20.29, p5.001.
We conducted post hoc power analyses utilizing Monte Carlo simula-
tions, as described by Brown (2006). Given the specified factor models and
parameter estimates, the sample size of 150 was sufficient for achieving
unbiased parameter estimates and standard errors, and achieving sufficient
coverage on all parameters.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to specify and test a one-dimensional and a two-
dimensional CFA of the CAI. Applying a CFA to the study of construct
Figure 2. One factor CFA model of the Child Attachment Interview, with the ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’
factor and standardized regression coefficients. w2(18) ¼29.57, p¼.042; Tucker–Lewis index
(TLI) ¼.98; comparative fit index (CFI) ¼.99; root-mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA) ¼.065. Abbreviations for the indicators are: Em ¼Emotional openness; Bal ¼
Balance of references; Ex ¼Use of examples; Res ¼Resolution of conflict; DsM ¼Distancing of
mother; DsF ¼Distancing of father; IdM ¼Idealization of mother; IdF ¼Idealization of father.
FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CAI 753
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
validity of an interview-based attachment measure may be considered a
logical next step in attachment research building on findings that attachment
should be considered a dimensionally rather than categorically structured
construct. Both the one-dimensional ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’ and the two-
dimensional model consisting of the ‘‘Security–Dismissal’ factor and a
‘‘Preoccupation–Idealization’’ factor fitted the data well. These measure-
ment models provide support for an interpretation of the structure of the
CAI to reflect a dimensional approach to the attachment construct.
Comparisons of the individuals’ factor scores with the traditional
attachment classifications demonstrated a high overlap. As the factor scores
are distributed within each category, they are more sensitive to differences
between individuals within the categories.
Attachment categories: Distribution and demographics
The distribution of attachment patterns in our sample was in accordance
with the distribution found by Shmueli-Goetz et al. (2008) in the normal
population, as was our finding that attachment category was unrelated to
Figure 3. The final two-factor CFA model of the Child Attachment Interview consisting of the
uncorrelated factors ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’ and ‘‘Preoccupation–Idealization’’ with standardized
regression coefficients. w2(31) ¼39.10, p¼.15; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) ¼.97; comparative fit
index (CFI) ¼.96; root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ¼.042. Abbreviations
in addition to those used in Figure 2 are: PaMCat* ¼Preoccupied anger with mother, coded
categorically; PaFCat* ¼Preoccupied anger with father, coded categorically.
754 ZACHRISSON ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
age and immigrant status. In contrast to this previous study, we found boys
to be more likely than girls to be categorized as insecure. Mayseless (2005)
has stated that although gender differences in attachment are uncommon in
infancy and at preschool age, there is evidence that in middle childhood and
adolescence, girls are more likely to be secure, and boys tend to have higher
levels of avoidance. This may reflect differences in attachment security or
gender-specific norms for behavioural expression (Mayseless, 2005). The
gender differences in our data may therefore not, at present, be considered
invalidating, but rather be a venue for further exploration.
The factor models
We tested both a one- and a two-dimensional model. To our knowledge,
more complex models, like three- or four-dimensional models, have not been
proposed, although Sroufe (2003) argues that such models may be more
precise. The structure of the dimensional models we tested was based on
those identified in other age groups. This is consistent with attachment
theory, assuming the same categorical system to be descriptive of individual
differences in attachment regardless of age group (Fraley & Spieker, 2003b).
The one-factor model ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’ resembles the first dimension
described by Roisman et al. (2007). This dimension differs from those
Figure 4. Convergence of the factor scores with the traditional attachment classifications. The
points represent each individual’s factor scores in the two-dimensional space created by the two
factors ‘‘Security–Dismissal’’ and ‘‘Preoccupation–Idealization’’. Each individual’s categorical
attachment classification is indicated by the signs: ¼secure; ~¼insecure dismissing;
¤¼insecure preoccupied. The dotted circle is the approximated border for the secure category.
The full circles are the approximate borders for the dismissing (large circle) and preoccupied
(small circle) categories.
FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CAI 755
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
presented by Cummings (1990) and Kobak and colleagues (1993), as these
comprised levels of security/insecurity. In contrast, the dimension we pro-
posed included one specific type of insecurity (dismissal). However, the other
insecure pattern (preoccupation) is very rare, with a prevalence of 3% in our
data and 4% reported by Shmueli-Goetz and colleagues (2008). Conse-
quently, insecurity equals dismissal for practical purposes in both of these
samples.
Idealization and dismissal represent one end of the Security–Dismissal
continuum. In this model, idealization and dismissal are considered to be
related, yet distinct psychological processes. This is reflected in the coding of
the AAI, where individuals who primarily derogate attachment figures are
assigned to a different subcategory of dismissal than those who idealize
(Hesse, 2008).
The other factor, ‘‘Preoccupation–Idealization’’, resembles the dimension
distinguishing between hyperactivating and deactivating strategies (Kobak
et al., 1993). This factor may be considered more provisional than the
‘‘Security–Dismissal’’ factor, because of low prevalence of this phenomenon
in our sample. Although we accounted for this, the model should be
replicated on samples with higher levels of preoccupation. Our analyses
supported the removal of the insignificant paths from the ‘‘Preoccupied–
Dismissal’’ factor to the two indicators of dismissal. Even though this was
ad hoc, it is conceptually meaningful. According to Shmueli-Goetz et al.
(2004), children who are rated as expressing preoccupied anger are likely to
derogate the attachment figure, and are therefore likely to be rated with
some dismissal (derogating both the relationship and the attachment figure).
The conceptual opposite of preoccupation rated in the CAI may therefore
be the idealizing aspect of dismissal rather than ‘‘Dismissal’’ as a whole.
Dimensional approach
Based on these two latent factors, each individual can be identified at one
point in a one-dimensional or a two-dimensional space. We compared each
individual’s factor score with each individual’s categorical attachment
classification, finding a dimensional system based on factor scores maintains
the basic patterning of the attachment categories. Yet, there was variability
within each of these groups as the individuals were spread out along the
continuum. The variability within each category is currently incorporated
into the classificatory procedures of both the ISS (e.g., B1, B2, etc.;
Ainsworth et al., 1978) and the AAI (F1, F2, etc.; see Hesse, 2008, for a
review). These subcategories do, however, carry the limitation of adding to
the number of categories, and thereby decreasing statistical power under
most circumstances. A dimensional approach maintains the added value of
more nuanced classifications, while avoiding such limitations.
756 ZACHRISSON ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
Limitations
A number of limitations apply to our study. A majority of the children
invited did not participate in the interview. Also, girls and children
with immigrant background were overrepresented among those inter-
viewed. Yet, the distribution within attachment categories in our
sample is similar to the non-clinical sample reported by Shmueli-Goetz
et al. (2008). Our sample was too small to examine measurement
invariance (Brown, 2006) across gender or ethnicity, which would have
been an appropriate way to examine the effect of response bias on our
results.
Other constrains are linked with the CAI subscales. The disorganized
category is not reflected in the CAI subscales. Until relevant subscales are
constructed this category cannot be examined through CFA. In our study,
such subscales would have been of limited value because only one child in
our sample was classified as disorganized. Moreover, the subscales designed
to measure preoccupation are in need of refinement (Shmueli-Goetz et al.,
2004). Currently, only preoccupied anger is rated, whereas both the CAI
coding manual, and the findings by Fraley and colleagues (Fraley &
Spieker, 2003a; Roisman & Fraley, 2007) suggest a more differentiated
subconstruct.
Our study was limited by the fact that all subscales are simultaneously
rated by one rater. Categorically oriented rating of the CAI is implicitly
based on the search for qualities in the interviews that fit the prototypes
(Dismissing, Secure, and Preoccupied). Despite the maintained focus on
subscale scores in our data, there is still a risk that a prototype-orientation
influenced the rating of the subscales. This may lead to an artificially high
coherence between the subscales.
Conclusion
In summary, our findings support the use of CFA as a way to approach
CAI as a continuous measure of attachment in middle childhood.
When comparing each individual’s factor score and attachment
classification, it was evident that the factors we specified maintained
the information inherent in the attachment categories. Together with
the findings of Shmueli-Goetz et al. (2008), these results offer
increased evidence for the CAI as a measure of attachment in middle
childhood.
Manuscript received 17 June 2010
Revised manuscript accepted 3 October 2011
First published online 18 November 2011
FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CAI 757
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Borelli, J. L., Crowley, M. J., David, D. H., Sbarra, D. A., Anderson, G. M., & Mayes, L. C.
(2010). Attachment and emotion in school-aged children. Emotion,10, 475–485.
Borelli, J. L., David, D. H., Crowley, M. J., & Mayes, L. C. (2010). Links between disorganized
attachment classification and clinical symptoms in school-aged children. Journal of Child
and Family Studies,19, 243–256.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Crowell, J., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Measurement of individual differences in
adolescent and adult attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment. Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 599–635). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Cummings, E. M. (1990). Classification of attachment on a continuum of felt security:
Illustrations from the study of children of depressed parents. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti,
& E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years. Theory, research, and
intervention (pp. 311–338). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
DeCoster, J., Iselin, A.-M. R., & Gallucci, M. (2009). A conceptual and empirical examination
of justifications for dichotomization. Psychological Methods,14, 349–366.
Dwyer, K. M. (2005). The meaning and measurement of attachment in middle and late
childhood. Human Development,48, 155–182.
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of
estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods,9,
466–491.
Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003a). Are infant attachment patterns continuously or
categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior. Developmental
Psychology,39, 387–404.
Fraley, R. C., & Spieker, S. J. (2003b). What are the differences between dimensional and
categorical models of individual differences in attachment? Reply to Cassidy (2003),
Cummings (2003), Sroufe (2003), and Waters and Beauchaine (2003). Developmental
Psychology,39, 423–429.
Hesse, E. (2008). The Adult Attachment Interview. Protocol, method of analysis, and empirical
studies. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment. Theory, research, and
clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 532–598). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6, 1–55.
Humfress, H., O’Connor, T. G., Slaughter, J., Target, M., & Fonagy, P. (2002). General and
relation-specific models of social cognition: explaining the overlap and discrepancies.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,43, 873–883.
John, O. P., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and
scale construction. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in
social and personality psychology (pp. 339–369). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Kerns, K. A., Aspelmeier, J. E., Gentzler, A. L., & Grabill, C. M. (2001). Parent–child
attachment and monitoring in middle childhood. Journal of Family Psychology,15, 69–81.
Kobak, R. R., Cole, H. E., Ferenzgillies, R., Fleming, W. S., & Gamble, W. (1993). Attachment
and emotion regulation during mother–teen problem-solving. A control-theory analysis.
Child Development,64, 231–245.
758 ZACHRISSON ET AL.
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
Laible, D. (2005). Measuring attachment in middle childhood: Challenges and future directions.
Human Development,48, 183–187.
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of
dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods,7, 19–40.
Mayseless, O. (2005). Ontogeny of attachment in middle childhood—Conceptualization of
normative changes. In K. A. Kerns & R. A. Richardson (Eds.), Attachment in middle
childhood (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010a). Mplus VERSION 6.1. [computer software]. Los
Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010b). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.
Roisman, G. I., Fraley, R. C., & Belsky, J. (2007). A taxometric study of the Adult Attachment
Interview. Developmental Psychology,43, 675–686.
Shmueli-Goetz, Y., Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Datta, A. (2004). Child Attachment Interview
(CAI): Coding and classification manual Version V. The Sub-Department of Clinical Health
Psychology, University College London, UK. Unpublished manual.
Shmueli-Goetz, Y., Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Datta, A. (2008). The Child Attachment
Interview: A psychometric study of reliability and discriminant validity. Developmental
Psychology,44, 939–956.
SPSS, Inc. (2009). PASW statistics 17.0 Command Syntax Reference. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
Sroufe, L. A. (2003). Attachment categories as reflections of multiple dimensions: Comment on
Fraley and Spieker (2003). Developmental Psychology,39, 413–416.
Steele, H., & Steele, M. (2005). The construct of coherence as an indicator of attachment
security in middle childhood: The Friends and Family Interview. In K. A. Kerns & R. A.
Richardson (Eds.), Attachment in middle childhood (pp. 137–160). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Waller, N. G., & Meehl, P. E. (1998). Multivariate taxometric procedures: Distinguishing types
from continua. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
FACTOR STRUCTURE OF THE CAI 759
Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Oslo] at 05:45 25 November 2011
... In 2018, Cavanna et al. (2018) translated the CAI into Italian, and their findings suggested adequate reliability and validity for CAI scores generated from the Italian version. Further, Zachrisson et al. (2011) provided support for the CAI's factor structure in a Norwegian sample. Finally, Venta et al. (2020) published preliminary descriptive data on the internal working models of recently immigrated youth to the United States with interviews administered in Spanish. ...
... Specifically, we sought to (a) evaluate interrater reliability of CAI scores; (b) examine the factor structure of the CAI subscales; (c) examine relations between CAI classifications and subscales; (d) evaluate concurrent validity of CAI score interpretations by assessing relations between the CAI against established questionnaire-based measures of attachment routinely used in high school samples; (e) evaluate convergent validity of CAI score interpretations by exploring relations between the CAI and caregiver-reported psychopathology; and evaluate discriminant validity of CAI score interpretations by exploring relations between the CAI and selfreported personality variables following the example of Borelli et al. (2016). Regarding the factor structure of the CAI in Spanish, four previously published measurement models were evaluated, the unidimensional and two-factor models published by Zachrisson et al. (2011), the two-factor model published by Borelli et al. (2016), and the three-factor model reported by Venta et al. (2014). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. ...
... Confirmatory factor analyses with maximum likelihood estimation were conducted in Stata 17.0 to examine the three previously published factor structures of the CAI. The most parsimonious, one factor model posited by Zachrisson et al. (2011) was tested first. All scales except Preoccupied Anger were posited as representing a sole factor called "Security-Dismissal." ...
Article
Full-text available
The Child Attachment Interview (CAI) was designed to assess attachment representation in middle childhood-filling a gap between behavioral paradigms and adult interviews-and has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in middle childhood and adolescence. To date, the CAI has not been available in Spanish, given the absence of an accepted translation and psychometric data. Spanish is the second most spoken language in the world, and assessment of attachment in an individual's native language is critical given differences in emotional processing, memory, and disclosure in first versus second languages. We translated the CAI (with consultation from its creator) utilizing standardized translation and back-translation procedures and examined its psychometric properties in a sample of Spanish-speaking high school students. In this study, we report on that process and data gathered from N = 94 Spanish-speaking adolescents in grades 9-12; 20% were double-coded and interrater reliability was acceptable. Findings support the single factor "Security-Dismissal" model, and relations between classifications and subscales were consistent with previous findings. Support for convergent and discriminant validity was provided for both classifications and subscales; however, concurrent validity varied across classifications and subscales. In sum, our translation demonstrates psychometric promise for the assessment of internal working models of attachment in Spanish-speaking high school students. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
... The secure classification is assigned when there is high coherence in discourse, emotional openness, balance of positive and negative references to attachment figures, appropriate use of examples, and descriptions of conflicts and their resolution, combined with low scores on the scales characterizing the insecure-dismissing (idealization and dismissal of attachment) and insecure-preoccupied (uncontained anger toward attachment figures) classifications. Scale scores can also be computed into continuous factors from security to insecurity (Coherence factor; Venta et al., 2014); from security to different insecure strategies (Anger factor, Idealization factor; Venta et al., 2014;Dismissal-Security continuum;Zachrisson et al., 2011) or from one insecure dimension to the other (Preoccupation-Idealization continuum; Zachrisson et al., 2011). Psychometric properties, for example, discriminant validity, construct validity, and test-retest reliability of the CAI, vary from good to excellent (for a review, see Privizzini, 2017). ...
... The secure classification is assigned when there is high coherence in discourse, emotional openness, balance of positive and negative references to attachment figures, appropriate use of examples, and descriptions of conflicts and their resolution, combined with low scores on the scales characterizing the insecure-dismissing (idealization and dismissal of attachment) and insecure-preoccupied (uncontained anger toward attachment figures) classifications. Scale scores can also be computed into continuous factors from security to insecurity (Coherence factor; Venta et al., 2014); from security to different insecure strategies (Anger factor, Idealization factor; Venta et al., 2014;Dismissal-Security continuum;Zachrisson et al., 2011) or from one insecure dimension to the other (Preoccupation-Idealization continuum; Zachrisson et al., 2011). Psychometric properties, for example, discriminant validity, construct validity, and test-retest reliability of the CAI, vary from good to excellent (for a review, see Privizzini, 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
Based on the attachment promotion hypothesis of dreaming, this study explored the wake-to-dreamcontinuity of youths’ attachment representations and earlymaladaptive schemas. A total of 19 children and adolescents (12 boys;M= 11.8 years, SD = 2.1) were administered the Child Attachment Interview and completed the self-reported Schema Inventory for Children. They were provided a digital audio recorder to report their dreams for 14 consecutive days. Data from95 dreams (M = 5 per participant, SD=2.6) were collected. Dream coding systems were developed to assess attachment- and schema-related content. Bootstrapped correlations were conducted between waking scores and the highest dream-derived scores. In addition, a cluster analysis of dreams—with a subsequent inclusion of the waking scores—was conducted for each participant. The results showed that security-related waking scores were linked to insecurity-related dreaming scores (dismissingness). Conversely, insecurity-related waking scores (dismissingness) were negatively linked to security-related dreaming scores. Security-related waking scores accounted significantly for the merging of the waking attachment profile to a cluster of dreams. No wake-to-dream association was found for attachment-related schemas (Disconnection and Rejection domain). Because dreams depict more insecure than secure attachment-related content, they may function to rehearse different attachment strategies. However, attachment security showed wake-to-dream continuity through cluster analysis, which might be a way to consolidate, in addition to a way to test or improve, attachment representations in childhood and adolescence. Implications for the hypothesized dream functions of attachment promotion, emotion regulation, and threat simulation are discussed.
... Based on these subscales, each participant is coded as Secure or Insecure. The CAI has been validated in both clinical and community samples (Shmueli-Goetz et al., 2008;Target et al., 2003) and its factor structure was confirmed in a large community sample of children, ages 9 to 13 years, through confirmatory factor analysis (Zachrisson, Røysamb, Oppedal, & Hauser, 2011), as well as in a clinical sample of adolescents, ages 12 to 17 years (Venta, Shmueli-Goetz, & Sharp, 2014). In this study, attachment security for both mother and father was assessed, and results are reported for both. ...
Article
Full-text available
Experiencing sexual trauma has been linked to internalizing and externalizing psychopathologies. Insecure attachment has been shown to moderate the relation between sexual trauma and trauma symptoms among adults. However, few studies have explored relations among sexual trauma, attachment insecurity, and trauma symptoms in adolescence, and none have used developmentally appropriate measures. The present study sought to examine attachment security as a potential moderator of the relation between having a history of sexual trauma (HST) and trauma symptoms among adolescents at an inpatient psychiatric facility. Attachment to caregivers was measured by the Child Attachment Interview (CAI) and trauma symptoms by the Trauma Symptoms Checklist for Children (TSCC). HST was assessed with responses to two separate interviews that asked about traumatic experiences: the Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (C-DISC) and the CAI. Moderation analyses were conducted using univariate General Linear Modeling (GLM). Of the 229 study participants, 50 (21.8%) had a HST. The relation between HST and trauma symptoms was significantly moderated by insecure attachment with both mother, F(1, 228) = 4.818, p = .029, and father, F(1, 228) = 6.370, p = .012. Specifically, insecurely attached adolescents with a HST exhibited trauma symptoms at levels significantly greater than securely attached adolescents with a HST and adolescents with no HST. Results are consistent with previous research that suggests secure attachment may protect against the development of trauma symptoms among those who have experienced a sexual trauma.
... En el intento de adaptar la AAI al desarrollo del niño para poder diferenciar las limitaciones propias del desarrollo expresado a través de una narrativa empobrecida, de lo que es una estrategia evitativa, se desarrolló la Child Attachment Interview-CAI (42,43). Tiene las mejores propiedades psicométricas de entrevistas y medidas proyectivas de la infancia media (26,44,45). Todavía no está validada al español. ...
Article
Full-text available
Evaluación del vínculo de apego en la infancia y adolescencia Assessment of attachment in childhood and adolescence RESUMEN Este artículo presenta los métodos de evaluación del apego gold standard para cada franja de edad, los métodos que permiten obtener importante material clínico, así como los cuestionarios de mejores propiedades psicométricas validados al español y de uso extensivo. Los métodos se dividen en dos grupos: en primer lugar, aquellos que evalúan el apego en forma categorial, es decir en clases excluyentes entre sí, y en segundo lugar los que lo hacen de forma dimensional como grados de un continuum. El primer grupo incluye los basados en la observación directa, que evalúan los 'modelos de apego" en función de las conductas de apego del niño pequeño y en función de las respuestas verbales de entrevistas o juegos semiestructurados, que evalúan los estados de la mente respecto del apego. El segundo grupo, dimensional, incluye los cuestionarios, que evalúan los 'estilos de apego'. Dado su extensivo uso se incluye también un método de evaluación de la interacción diádica. Se muestra las fortalezas y debilidades de cada método y los desafíos que la evaluación del apego todavía presenta a ciertas edades. ABSTRACT This article presents the gold standard attachment assessment methods for each age group, the methods that allow obtaining important clinical material, as well as the questionnaires with the best psychometric properties validated in Spanish and extensively used. The methods are divided into two groups, firstly, those that evaluate attachment in a categorical way, that is, in mutually exclusive classes, and secondly, those that do so in a dimensional way, as degrees of a continuum. The first group includes those based on direct observation, which evaluate 'attachment models' based on the attachment behaviors of the young child and those based on verbal responses to interviews or semi-structured play therapy assessments sessions, which assess the states of mind regarding attachment. The second group, dimensional, includes the questionnaires, which evaluate "attachment styles". Given its extensive use, a method for evaluating dyadic interaction is also included. Strengths and weaknesses of each method and the challenges that attachment assessment still presents at certain ages are shown.
... En el intento de adaptar la AAI al desarrollo del niño para poder diferenciar las limitaciones propias del desarrollo expresado a través de una narrativa empobrecida, de lo que es una estrategia evitativa, se desarrolló la Child Attachment Interview-CAI (42,43). Tiene las mejores propiedades psicométricas de entrevistas y medidas proyectivas de la infancia media (26,44,45). Todavía no está validada al español. ...
Article
Full-text available
Este artículo presenta los métodos de evaluación del apego gold standard para cada franja de edad, los métodos que permiten obtener importante material clínico, así como los cuestionarios de mejores propiedades psicométricas validados al español y de uso extensivo. Los métodos se dividen en dos grupos: en primer lugar, aquellos que evalúan el apego en forma categorial, es decir en clases excluyentes entre sí, y en segundo lugar los que lo hacen de forma dimensional como grados de un continuum. El primer grupo incluye los basados en la observación directa, que evalúan los ‘modelos de apego” en función de las conductas de apego del niño pequeño y en función de las respuestas verbales de entrevistas o juegos semiestructurados, que evalúan los estados de la mente respecto del apego. El segundo grupo, dimensional, incluye los cuestionarios, que evalúan los ‘estilos de apego’. Dado su extensivo uso se incluye también un método de evaluación de la interacción diádica. Se muestra las fortalezas y debilidades de cada método y los desafíos que la evaluación del apego todavía presenta a ciertas edades. https://www.aepnya.eu/index.php/revistaaepnya/article/view/883
... Importantly, Zachrisson et al. (2011) found evidence of a factor structure comprising two dimensions underlying the CAI. Thus the findings from this review appear to converge with emerging findings at other points in the lifespan, with taxometric analyses of both the Strange Situation Procedure (Fraley and Spieker, 2003) , whilst Scott et al. (2011) reported security in 52% and 73% respectively in moderate and high-risk samples for conduct problems. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
Family therapy for adolescent anorexia nervosa (FT-AN) is the first line treatment for the disorder, but little is known about who the treatment works for, or how it works. This thesis investigates the potential value of the constructs of attachment and mentalization as predictors of outcome in family therapy for adolescent AN. The thesis presents a systematic review of attachment and mentalization and their association with child and adolescent eating pathology in which 22 relevant studies were found. In keeping with the evidence base for adults with eating disorders, both attachment and mentalization were found to be correlates of eating pathology in childhood and adolescence. However, evidence for these constructs in the process of treatment in child and adolescent eating disorders is scarce. In a second systematic review, the psychometric properties of attachment measures in middle childhood and adolescence were investigated across 53 studies. The overall conclusion of the study is that there is a lack of evidence of adequate psychometric properties for attachment measures in this age group. In the main study, attachment and mentalization were investigated as predictors of outcome in a sample of adolescents and their parents (n = 192) receiving FT-AN across three specialist outpatient eating disorder services. Mentalization, but not attachment, was found to predict poor clinical outcome at nine months after starting of treatment, with the strongest predictive effect being excessive certainty about mental states as assessed in parents. Therapeutic alliance scores at one month were predictive of outcome but did not play a mediating role in relation to baseline attachment or mentalization. iii In a further empirical study, definitions of eating disorder recovery were investigated through a qualitative analysis of comments on recovery-focused social media forums. Two super-ordinate themes emerged: firstly, recovery was defined as encompassing broad psychosocial domains of wellbeing; secondly, recovery was understood to be an ongoing process. Social connectedness to others was regarded as important both to the process and definition of eating disorder recovery. The final chapter of the thesis integrates findings from across the studies with emerging theoretical developments in the fields of attachment and mentalization. It is argued that attachment and mentalization represent worthwhile constructs for further FT-AN research, with a particular emphasis on the need to better understand the mechanisms by which excessive mental state certainty might lead to poor clinical outcomes.
... As for the AAI, we used a dimensional approach to youths' attachment to retrieve, once again, as much relevant attachment information considering the small sample size and the uneven distribution of attachment classifications in our sample. Composite scores derived from the CAI two-factor model (Zachrisson et al., 2011) were computed from the standardized scores on the attachment interview scales relevant to each factor. The preoccupationidealization factor includes the "preoccupied anger" and "idealization of attachment figures" scales, and the securitydismissing factor includes the "emotional openness, " "balance of positive/negative references to attachment figures, " "use of examples, " "resolution of conflicts, " and "idealization of attachment figures" scales. ...
Article
Full-text available
Reflective functioning (RF), meaning the capacity to interpret mental states (intentions, emotions, thoughts, desires, and beliefs) underlying one’s own and others’ behaviors, may help understand the dysfunctional self-regulation associated with anxiety disorders. However, research on anxiety and RF in clinical samples is scarce. This study aimed to assess whether mothers’ and youths’ RF was associated with youths’ (a) anxiety disorders and symptoms and (b) internalizing symptoms. Another goal was to explore whether RF predicted anxiety and internalizing symptoms beyond the more commonly established effect of attachment. Canadian children and adolescents aged between 8 and 16years, and their mothers were recruited in an outpatient psychiatric clinic (clinical group with a diagnosed anxiety disorder, n=30, mean age=11.5±2.8years) and in the general population (non-clinical group, n=23, mean age=11.5±2.1years). The Child Attachment Interview was used to assess youths’ attachment along with three dimensions of RF (global, regarding self, regarding others). Mothers’ attachment and RF were assessed with the Adult Attachment Interview. Children’s and adolescents’ anxiety and internalizing symptoms were measured with the Behavior Assessment Scale for Children, second version. The clinical and non-clinical groups did not differ in mothers’ or youths’ RF. However, in the overall sample, youths’ RF regarding themselves and maternal attachment preoccupation were associated with internalizing symptoms. Sequential regression analyses revealed that higher RF regarding self predicted a higher level of self-reported internalizing symptoms, beyond the effect of maternal attachment (β=0.43, p<0.05). This study’s finding suggests that clinically anxious children and adolescents have adequate RF. We propose that the sustained hypervigilance and apprehension associated with anxiety make anxious youths sensitive to their own and others’ mental states. Our findings suggest that psychotherapeutic treatments for anxiety should make use of patients’ RF abilities to help them make sense of their symptoms and thus reduce them.
Article
A variety of parent-child attachment measures, representing a range of conceptual approaches, have been adapted for use in middle childhood. A recent surge in studies using the new methods makes a comprehensive review of these measures timely. This systematic review of 67 studies covers representational and behavioral measures of parent-child attachment used with children 9-12 years old. This paper aims to evaluate parent-child attachment measurements with an emphasis on understanding their theoretical bases in addition to considering the available validity evidence. Findings identify several independently well-validated representational measures, and they highlight a continued need to investigate direct comparisons of the measures, as very little research has considered how the measures relate to each other, both conceptually and empirically. Behavioral measures of attachment in middle childhood, which are relatively new, are identified as potentially important in developing a better understanding of attachment measurement in this age group.
Thesis
Full-text available
Les troubles anxieux et les symptômes associés s’avèrent être reconnus comme l’une des formes de psychopathologies vécues le plus fréquemment chez les enfants et les adolescents (Costello, Mustillo, Erkanli, Keeler, & Angold, 2003). Le degré de sécurité d’attachement est considéré depuis longtemps comme un facteur ayant une influence fondamentale sur le développement de l’enfant et dans l’émergence de psychopathologie (DeKlyen & Greenberg, 2008; Kobak, Cassidy, Lyons-Ruth, & Zir, 2006), s’avérant ainsi une variable importante pour comprendre l’émergence des troubles anxieux pendant l’enfance (Colonnesi et al., 2011). La présente étude de cas multiples s’avère la première à utiliser des mesures représentationnelles afin d’observer l’attachement auprès d’une population clinique d’enfants d’âge scolaire ayant un trouble anxieux (Child Attachment Interview) et chez leur mère (Adult Attachment Interview). Trois principaux objectifs, tous de nature exploratoire, sont visés: 1) procéder à une analyse approfondie des profils d’attachement chez les enfants ayant un trouble anxieux et leur mère, tant sur le plan des catégories que des dimensions d’attachement; 2) décrire les correspondances entre les représentations d’attachement de la mère et de son enfant; 3) examiner les associations entre les types de représentations d’attachement mère-enfant et les types de symptômes anxieux chez l’enfant. Pour ce faire, des mesures de ces deux variables ont été prises auprès de six enfants âgés entre 8 et 15 ans et leurs mères, recrutés au sein d’une clinique de troisième ligne spécialisée en traitement des troubles anxieux. Les résultats démontrent que la majorité des enfants ayant un trouble anxieux présente une insécurité des représentations d’attachement, accompagnée principalement d’une tendance à l’attachement détaché. Concernant les dimensions d’attachement, la majorité des enfants anxieux présente d’importants déficits liés à l’ouverture émotionnelle. De plus, toutes les mères présentent des représentations d’attachement se situant sur le continuum de la préoccupation, impliquant des stratégies d’hyperactivation (de modérées à élevées). Les mères des enfants ayant un attachement sécurisant composent avec des représentations d’attachement préoccupées par des évènements traumatiques. Ensuite, peu de correspondances intergénérationnelles sont observables. Une tendance à présenter des stratégies d’attachement complémentaires est plutôt relevée, particulièrement concernant des stratégies d’hyperactivation chez la mère (pôle préoccupé) et de désactivation chez l’enfant (pôle détaché). Par ailleurs, peu d’associations spécifiques sont identifiées entre les représentations d’attachement et les troubles anxieux, mis à part la présence d’insécurité chez les enfants ayant un trouble d’anxiété de séparation. Enfin, une importante tendance aux difficultés d’ordre psychosomatique est observée chez les enfants ayant un trouble anxieux. À la lumière de ces principales tendances relatives à l’attachement, des pistes cliniques seront proposées afin de soutenir l’intervention des équipes traitantes auprès des enfants composant avec un trouble anxieux et de leur mère.
Article
Full-text available
In this study, we sought to expand on what is currently known regarding autonomic nervous system (ANS) reactivity in middle childhood as a function of attachment. ANS activity includes multiple indices - respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) is an index of parasympathetic nervous system activation (PNS) and electrodermal activity (EDA) is an index of sympathetic nervous system activation (SNS). Children (N = 103) completed Child Attachment Interviews and read vignettes describing situations aimed to activate attachment needs (NEED; e.g., getting hurt, which can elicit need for comfort or assistance) and help-seeking (HS; when children experience need and seek comfort from attachment figures), while SNS and PNS reactivity were monitored. Attachment was not associated with children's SNS or PNS reactivity during NEED, but attachment was associated with physiological reactivity during HS: Dismissing attachment was associated with greater SNS activation (higher EDA) and preoccupied attachment with PNS deactivation (lower RSA, greater vagal withdrawal) during HS.
Article
Let Ω be a domain in ℝ n whose boundary is C 1 if n≥3 or C 1,β if n=2. We consider a magnetic Schrödinger operator L W,q in Ω and show how to recover the boundary values of the tangential component of the vector potential W from the Dirichlet to Neumann map for L W,q . We also consider a steady state heat equation with convection term Δ+2W·∇ and recover the boundary values of the convection term W from the Dirichlet to Neumann map. Our method is constructive and gives a stability result at the boundary.
Article
Ethological attachment theory is a landmark of 20th century social and behavioral sciences theory and research. This new paradigm for understanding primary relationships across the lifespan evolved from John Bowlby's critique of psychoanalytic drive theory and his own clinical observations, supplemented by his knowledge of fields as diverse as primate ethology, control systems theory, and cognitive psychology. By the time he had written the first volume of his classic Attachment and Loss trilogy, Mary D. Salter Ainsworth's naturalistic observations in Uganda and Baltimore, and her theoretical and descriptive insights about maternal care and the secure base phenomenon had become integral to attachment theory. Patterns of Attachment reports the methods and key results of Ainsworth's landmark Baltimore Longitudinal Study. Following upon her naturalistic home observations in Uganda, the Baltimore project yielded a wealth of enduring, benchmark results on the nature of the child's tie to its primary caregiver and the importance of early experience. It also addressed a wide range of conceptual and methodological issues common to many developmental and longitudinal projects, especially issues of age appropriate assessment, quantifying behavior, and comprehending individual differences. In addition, Ainsworth and her students broke new ground, clarifying and defining new concepts, demonstrating the value of the ethological methods and insights about behavior. Today, as we enter the fourth generation of attachment study, we have a rich and growing catalogue of behavioral and narrative approaches to measuring attachment from infancy to adulthood. Each of them has roots in the Strange Situation and the secure base concept presented in Patterns of Attachment. It inclusion in the Psychology Press Classic Editions series reflects Patterns of Attachment's continuing significance and insures its availability to new generations of students, researchers, and clinicians.
Article
This paper is organized to highlight gaps in our current understanding of attachment during the middle and later years of childhood and to allow researchers to make informed decisions regarding measurement selection. First, theoretical and methodological considerations with respect to the study of attachment during this age range are discussed. Thereafter, all published self&hyphen;report and interview&hyphen;based measures that have been used with normative samples of children aged eight through twelve years are examined and evaluated in detail in terms of the available evidence of their reliability and validity. Finally, advantages and disadvantages of the measures are highlighted, and specific recommendations are suggested for further research.
Article
Dwyer provides a thoughtful review of the current measures of attachment security in middle childhood and early adolescence. In her article, Dwyer does an excellent job raising issues relevant to the measurement of attachment in middle childhood, including the strengths and weaknesses of each of the current measures of attachment in middle childhood. There remains, however, a need for an examination of measurement validation. Joining the call of other attachment researchers [see e.g., Solomon & George, 1999; Thompson & Raikes, 2003], this commentary delves into the complexities involved in validating measures of attachment in middle childhood.
Article
The chapter is organized into three major sections. The first section provides a description of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) protocol and individual differences among the organized response patterns. I begin by introducing the ways in which the three organized classifications can be understood in terms of both attentional and—separately, albeit relatedly—linguistic (conversational or discourse) mechanisms. The former relies on the thinking of Main (e.g., 1990, 1993) regarding flexibility versus inflexibility of attention under stress. The analyses of the linguistic or conversational mechanisms draw upon the work of linguistic philosopher H. P. Grice (1975, 1989). These mechanisms are well represented in the central AAI state-of-mind scales, although each of those scales (as described in a history of the Bay Area longitudinal study; Main, Hesse, & Kaplan, 2005) had been devised prior to Main's discovery of Grice's work. I conclude this section by presenting some prototypical responses to two different AAI queries that are common among "organized" speakers. As differing responses are presented, I point out how they can be understood in terms of both attentional and Gricean conversational mechanisms. In the second section, I describe how trained coders systematically approach the analysis of an AAI transcript. This was not explicated in the first edition of this chapter (Hesse, 1999), leaving a mystery for readers who had been aware of the instrument and its connections to other phenomena, but not of the ways in which interview texts are analyzed. There are two additional approaches to analyzing the AAI, beyond the five major classifications presented in 1999. These have drawn less attention in the literature, despite the fact that they appear to be of at least equal power. First, the three organized categories of the AAI are ultimately divided into 12 subclassifications, which I describe here for the first time. This is in keeping with Ainsworth's division of her three organized infant Strange Situation classifications into eight subclassifications (Ainsworth et al, 1978), which she predicted would "in time prove even more useful than classification into the three major groups themselves" (Ainsworth et al, 1978, p. 251). As I note here, AAI and Strange Situation subclassifications have now been found to be significantly related in four different investigations (including Behrens, Hesse, & Main, 2007), but nonetheless remain underutilized. Second, from its inception, the AAI scoring system has included a set of (9-point) continuous rating scales that assess the speaker's current "state of mind with respect to attachment," whether with respect to a given parent (e.g., idealizing of the father) or with respect to discourse patterning in general (e.g., overall coherence of transcript, vague discourse usages). As researchers from several laboratories have correctly emphasized, use of these scales releases the restriction of range imposed by the presentation of findings only in terms of classifications, and hence substantially increases statistical power (Fyffe & Waters, 1997; Roisman, Fraley, & Belsky, 2007). This section brings together all three current methods of AAI text analysis. In the third section, I review selected studies based on the AAI, beginning with Main's original investigation of a Bay Area sample (Main & Goldwyn, 1984b, 1988, 2008). I review (and then partially update) the best-replicated findings regarding the AAI, including those related to its psychometric properties, and then move on to a necessarily select group of newer studies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)