Assessing the Use of the Child Attachment Interview in a Sample of Israeli Jewish Children.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Amit Baumel, Leo Wolmer, Nathaniel Laor, Paz Toren
{"title":"Assessing the Use of the Child Attachment Interview in a Sample of Israeli Jewish Children.","authors":"Amit Baumel,&nbsp;Leo Wolmer,&nbsp;Nathaniel Laor,&nbsp;Paz Toren","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This manuscript assesses the use of the Child Attachment Interview (CAI) in a sample of Israeli Jewish children in middle childhood in order to add to empirical data on this measure.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Forty-one children between the ages of 7 and 13 were consecutively recruited to the study. The clinical sample included 29 children diagnosed with anxiety disorder, major depression or ADHD. The Father Focused Referral (FFR) sample included 12 children whose father was unavailable to them. Participants were administered the CAI and coded by certified personnel.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>81.4% concordance was found between maternal and paternal secure-insecure attachment classifications in the clinical sample; 100% of the children in the FFR group were classified as insecurely attached to their fathers suggesting convergent validity for the classification of father attachment; 45.4% of the children in the FFR sample were also classified as insecurely attached to their mothers, pointing to the difference that can be found between the two parental attachment classifications in relevant cases, and therefore to sufficient discriminant validity between the two classifications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical sample concordance rate, which was lower than in previous studies, indicates that parental concordance rates should be further investigated using different samples and countries. The study's findings regarding the difference that can be found between parental attachment classifications show the instrument's relevance in cases which the parental representations may differ. In these cases, using an instrument that does not examine the attachment toward both parents might not suffice. Study limitations and further implications are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":49288,"journal":{"name":"Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This manuscript assesses the use of the Child Attachment Interview (CAI) in a sample of Israeli Jewish children in middle childhood in order to add to empirical data on this measure.

Method: Forty-one children between the ages of 7 and 13 were consecutively recruited to the study. The clinical sample included 29 children diagnosed with anxiety disorder, major depression or ADHD. The Father Focused Referral (FFR) sample included 12 children whose father was unavailable to them. Participants were administered the CAI and coded by certified personnel.

Results: 81.4% concordance was found between maternal and paternal secure-insecure attachment classifications in the clinical sample; 100% of the children in the FFR group were classified as insecurely attached to their fathers suggesting convergent validity for the classification of father attachment; 45.4% of the children in the FFR sample were also classified as insecurely attached to their mothers, pointing to the difference that can be found between the two parental attachment classifications in relevant cases, and therefore to sufficient discriminant validity between the two classifications.

Conclusions: The clinical sample concordance rate, which was lower than in previous studies, indicates that parental concordance rates should be further investigated using different samples and countries. The study's findings regarding the difference that can be found between parental attachment classifications show the instrument's relevance in cases which the parental representations may differ. In these cases, using an instrument that does not examine the attachment toward both parents might not suffice. Study limitations and further implications are discussed.

在以色列犹太儿童样本中评估儿童依恋访谈的使用。
背景:本文评估了儿童依恋访谈(CAI)在以色列犹太儿童中期儿童样本中的使用,以增加这一措施的经验数据。方法:选取41名年龄在7 ~ 13岁的儿童作为研究对象。临床样本包括29名被诊断患有焦虑症、重度抑郁症或多动症的儿童。以父亲为中心的转诊(FFR)样本包括12名父亲无法与他们联系的儿童。参与者由持证人员进行CAI管理和编码。结果:在临床样本中,母亲与父亲的安全-不安全依恋分类有81.4%的一致性;FFR组100%的儿童被归类为父亲不安全依恋,表明父亲依恋分类具有趋同效度;在FFR样本中,45.4%的儿童也被归类为母亲不安全依恋,这表明在相关情况下,两种父母依恋分类之间存在差异,因此两种分类之间具有足够的区分效度。结论:临床样本的符合率低于以往的研究,表明需要进一步调查不同样本和国家的亲本符合率。该研究的结果关于父母依恋分类之间的差异,表明该工具在父母陈述可能不同的情况下的相关性。在这些情况下,使用一种不检查对父母双方依恋的工具可能是不够的。讨论了研究的局限性和进一步的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: THE ISRAEL JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY publishes original articles dealing with the all bio-psycho-social aspects of psychiatry. While traditionally the journal has published manuscripts relating to mobility, relocation, acculturation, ethnicity, stress situations in war and peace, victimology and mental health in developing countries, papers addressing all aspects of the psychiatry including neuroscience, biological psychiatry, psychopharmacology, psychotherapy and ethics are welcome. The Editor also welcomes pertinent book reviews and correspondence. Preference is given to research reports of no more than 5,000 words not including abstract, text, references, tables and figures. There should be no more than 40 references and 4 tables or figures. Brief reports (1,500 words, 5 references) are considered if they have heuristic value. Books to be considered for review should be sent to the editorial office. Selected book reviews are invited by the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信