Fluent Essays

Criterion 1: Explain an issue explored through quantitative research in a peer-reviewed journal article. In your words, explain the issue that the study was undertaken to address and why it is important in individual, organizational, or social contexts. Criterion 2: Evaluate research that proposes solutions based on interpretation of statistical analyses. Explain and evaluate the research methodology, including: Relevance and clarity of the research questions and hypotheses. Methods of sampling and gathering data. Methods of statistical analyses. Evaluate areas of strength and areas of weakness in the study design and research process. Criterion 3: Assess conclusions based on interpretation and selection of supporting statistical analyses. Explain and evaluate how the statistical analyses support the conclusions, or if the support is not conclusive. Was the null hypothesis rejected or did the author (or authors) fail to reject the null hypothesis? the_development__psychometric_assessment6.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Journal of Child and Family Studies (2018) 27:1805–1817 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1028-1 ORIGINAL PAPER The Development, Psychometric Analyses and Correlates of a SelfReport Measure on Disorganization and Role Reversal Molisa Meier1 Jean-François Bureau ● 1 1234567890();,: Published online: 19 February 2018 © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract A limited number of measures assess young adults’ perceptions of childhood disorganized and controlling attachment, and although they are empirically strong, the use of these measures can be time consuming and financially straining. The current study aimed to add to the attachment literature by developing a self-report measure, the Childhood Disorganization and Role Reversal Scale (CDRR), to assess for the complexity of those attachment constructs in young adults. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the CDRR using two separate samples of 750 and 656 undergraduate students (601 females; Mage = 18.68, 66.4\% Caucasian; 531 females; Mage = 18.68 years, 63.6\% Caucasian; respectively), and a community sample of 96 participants (81 females, Mage = 19.27, 65.6\% Caucasian). The results of the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed a four-factor structure for both CDRR parent versions. The CDRR mother version includes the Disorganization/Punitive, Mutual Hostility, Affective Caregiving, and Appropriate Boundaries scales, while the CDRR father version includes the Disorganization, Affective Caregiving, Appropriate Boundaries, and Punitive scales. Overall, support was provided for the psychometric properties of the CDRR. For instance, the CDRR scales demonstrated adequate structural stability (confirmatory factor analyses), internal consistency (Cronbach’s coefficient alphas ranged from .78–.95 for mother scale, and .75–.96 or father scale), temporal reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from .68–.89 for mother scale, and .69–.87 for father scale), criterion-related validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The CDRR will assist researchers in broadening the understanding of psychological outcomes of disorganized and controlling attachment representations in young adulthood. Keywords Attachment Disorganized/controlling attachment Parentification Scale development Young adults ● It has been shown that infant disorganization, a dysfunctional attachment system whereby the child engages in contradictory or disorganized behaviours in the presence of the parent, is a key predictor of psychopathology in children and adults (Lyons-Ruth and Jacobvitz 2008; Main and Solomon 1990). Infant disorganization may develop into a role reversed or controlling attachment pattern during the preschool years, which is manifested in caregiving or punitive behaviours and labelled as controlling/caregiving attachment and controlling/punitive attachment, respectively (Main and Cassidy 1988; Moss et al. 2005; Wartner et al. 1994). Corresponding to Bowlby’s theoretical description (1977, 1980), the attachment literature defines * Jean-François Bureau jean-francois.bureau@uottawa.ca 1 University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada ● ● ● controlling/caregiving attachment as the abdication of a child’s own attachment needs to respond to the emotional or physical needs of their parents, such as cheering them up or providing them with emotional support (see Moss et al. 2011). Controlling/punitive attachment is another form of role reversal involving a child controlling interactions with their parents through being hostile and demeaning towards them (see Moss et al. 2011). Studies have found associations between internalizing and/or externalizing problems in disorganized and controlling/punitive children, especially in combination with disorganized behaviours; however, there have been inconsistent findings between caregiving behaviours in childhood and problems in social adaptation (Bureau et al. 2009a; Moss et al. 2004; O’Connor et al. 2011). These inconsistent findings on controlling/caregiving attachment may be due to the under-reporting of these behaviours as adult informants may not perceive them as harmful (O’Connor et al. 2011). 1806 Internal working models or attachment representations provide a systematic manner in which an individual processes attachment-related information (Main et al. 1985). They are thought to develop in early childhood and to be based on caregiver’s availability and responsiveness to their child’s attachment needs across repeated interactions and overt or covert discussions of emotions with their child (Bowlby 1980). Internal working models of caregiving (or disorganized and punitive) attachment may be more salient in adolescence or young adulthood when there are increased desires to achieve independence from parents, and to develop intimate relationships outside the family. The association between these representations and psychological problems have not been readily investigated in young adults, presumably from the absence of a convenient measure that assesses for disorganized and role reversed attachment representations in young adults. Main and Hesse (1990) stated that infant disorganization results from a paradox created when the attachment figure is both the child’s object of comfort and the source of its distress by exhibiting frightening or frightened behaviours. These parental behaviours result in the infant’s attachment system breaking down, as the infant wants to approach their attachment figure for comfort, yet fears that very same person. Moreover, George and Solomon (2008) suggested that in addition to frightened and frightening behaviours, a child’s perception of failed protection by their parent (e.g., feeling abandoned) leaves him/her disorganized. LyonsRuth et al. (1999) expanded on Main and Hesse’s theory and hypothesized that infant disorganization may develop from extreme maternal insensitive behaviour, such as maternal disorientation or withdrawal. This may impact the infant’s ability to apply a consistent and effective attachment strategy to reduce their attachment distress (LyonsRuth et al. 1999; Lyons-Ruth and Jacobvitz 2008). Taking these complementary theories together, it is hypothesized that disorganization may develop when an infant’s caregiver frightens them or when their caregiver is unable to lower the activation of their infant’s attachment system (Cyr et al. 2010). There is growing evidence that childhood disorganized attachment is a key predictor of negative outcomes, such as internalizing and externalizing problems (see Lyons-Ruth and Jacobvitz 2008 for a review). Fifteen percent of infants in a normative population are identified as disorganized, and this number increases to 25\% in low socioeconomic status (SES) samples, and to 48\% in maltreated samples (van IJzendoorn et al. 1999). Longitudinal studies have found that disorganization in infancy generally transforms into a controlling strategy by the end of the preschool period (Main and Cassidy 1988; Moss et al. 2005; Wartner et al. 1994). For instance, approximately 75\% of disorganized 3-year old children were identified as controlling at 6 years of age in a Canadian Journal of Child and Family Studies (2018) 27:1805–1817 sample (Moss et al. 2005). Controlling strategies refer to children’s behaviours that have the purpose, intentional or not, to take charge of the interactions with their caregivers, such that these children assume a parent-like role with their caregivers (Main and Cassidy 1988). With the increasing ability of preschoolers to coordinate their behaviours to achieve attachment-related goals (Bowlby 1969/1982), it has been hypothesized that preschoolers who were identified as disorganized as infants, develop controlling behaviours to gain more control of their stressful environment, and thereby regulate their own emotional states as they cannot be regulated through the attachment to their caregiver (Solomon et al. 1995). Controlling attachment, also referred to as role reversal, consists of two subtypes: controlling/caregiving and controlling/punitive. Bowlby (1977) introduced the concept of role inversion/ role reversal and compulsive caregiving that involves a child providing care to parents in contrast to receiving care from them. Bowlby (1980) observed that childhood role reversal or compulsive caregiving emerged in families experiencing parental death, such as a widowed parent confiding in their child, expecting their child to hold nonage-appropriate responsibilities, or perceiving their child as a substitute to their deceased spouse. Bowlby (1977, 1980) also theorized that role inversion might result in compulsive caregiving (i.e., providing excessive care) in conditions where a parent pressures their child to care for him/her, provides inadequate caregiving, suffers from depression or from a disability, or willingly accepts the care from their child. The term controlling/caregiving attachment has been used interchangeably with role reversal and compulsive caregiving in the attachment literature. Controlling/caregiving children have been reported to play a supportive role in the emotional lives of their parent, such as acting as their companion, a confidant or a substitute to their spouse (Moss et al. 2011). Researchers observed that these children tend to be excessively positive with their parents in a nonauthentic manner (Main and Cassidy 1988). Bowlby (1969/ 1982) noted that role reversed children suppress their attachment needs for comfort and protection to engage their parents. As such, caregiving children are assumed to regulate their own affect and to ensure their parent’s emotional and physical availability by lowering their parent’s distress (Moss et al. 2011; Solomon et al. 1995). Related to the concept of controlling/caregiving attachment is the term parentification (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Sparks 1973), stemming from family systems theory, that describes parent-child interactions where the child is expected to assume a parental role and engage in instrumental caregiving and/or expressive caregiving (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Sparks 1973). Attachment-related variables appear to be potential mediators between parentification and its association with negative mental health Journal of Child and Family Studies (2018) 27:1805–1817 outcomes. For instance, one study found that attachment anxiety fully mediated the relationship between role reversal toward mothers and depressive symptoms (Katz et al. 2009). In another study, perceived unfairness mediated the relationship between parentification and mental health symptoms alone and combined with problems in the differentiation of self (Jankowski et al. 2013). The authors suggest that the variability in the influence of parentification depends partially upon the individual’s belief that the task is fair and his or her ability to regulate their emotions, which complements attachment theory as perceived unfairness may be a manifestation of a child’s unfulfilled need for a balance between autonomy and connection. Bowlby (1980) alluded to the concept of controlling/ punitive attachment in his case studies; however, there still lacks a strong theoretical discussion on the origins of punitive attachment. Children identified with controlling/ punitive attachment have been noted to control the interactions with their parents in a hostile, aggressive, humiliating, commanding, and scolding manner (Main and Cassidy 1988; Moss et al. 2011). A longitudinal study found that punitive behaviours in middle childhood were related to maternal hostility and disrupted communication in infancy (Bureau et al. 2009b). This suggests that punitive behaviours may emerge when children reside in a chaotic home environment and have to protect themselves from their parents, whereas caregiving behaviours may be related to providing care to less capable parents. Disorganized attachment in infancy and preschool years has been consistently linked to various risk factors, including low family income, parental mental health problems, and marital conflict, both in infancy (see van IJzendoorn et al. 1999) and preschool (see Moss et al. 2011). Another study found that maternal insensitivity and hostility was related to controlling/caregiving and controlling/punitive attachment and maternal withdrawn behaviours were related to controlling/caregiving attachment (Easterbrooks et al. 2012). In line with the previous study, maternal depression was associated with the combined disorganized/controlling group (i.e., a combination of disorganized, controlling-caregiving, controlling-punitive and controlling-mixed attachment) (O’Connor et al. 2011). Within the parentification literature, several family stress variables have been related to a child providing excessive care to their parents, such as parental mental health problems, parental substance abuse, parental history of abuse, parental separation or divorce, and parental marital conflict (see Kerig 2005). Currently, there is only one measure that assesses both disorganization and controlling attachment in adolescence and young adulthood, namely the Goal-Corrected Partnership in Adolescence Coding System (GPACS; Obsuth et al. 2014). The GPACS is an observational measure that assesses 1807 controlling behaviours between adolescents and parents. It involves an adolescent-parent reunion and a discussion task concerning a topic of disagreement that are coded. The GPACS provides a rich source of information beneficial for research and it offers classifications that are clinically relevant. However, it may not always be a feasible option as it requires the observations between young adults and their parents and is time and labour intensive. The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI: George et al. 1985/1996) is another valuable instrument to assess for attachment mental representations. Among the AAI classifications, the unresolved attachment state of mind most closely resembles disorganized attachment, but it is only coded when an individual reports a past trauma or the loss of a significant person. The AAI has a supplemental Experiences scale that assesses for role reversal; however, unlike the GPACS, it does not distinguish between caregiving and punitive behaviours. Although parentification measures are conceptually relevant to controlling/caregiving attachment, they do not assess disorganized and controlling attachment representations in young adults, nor the co-occurrence of punitive and caregiving behaviours. Of importance, while parentification measures assess for behaviours comparable to controlling/ caregiving attachment, items place greater emphasis on the nature and type of parentification behaviours. Central to attachment theory is the importance of the individual’s representations of attachment-related experiences, rather than the reliance on reports of having particular experiences (see Bowlby 1969/1982). As such, a measure designed to assess the several constellations of controlling attachment representations that result from disorganized attachment, from an attachment theory point of view, should address the individual’s affective reactions or mental representations, such as feelings of burden, resentfulness, or fear of their parent. For instance, the type or form of caregiving behaviour is not essential to the concept of role reversal; however, of importance are feelings of emotional burden from providing emotional support to parents (Main and Goldwyn 1985/1995). We developed the Childhood Disorganization and Role Reversal Scale – Initial Version (CDRR) to conveniently assess young adults’ current disorganized and controlling attachment representations using a self-report scale. Our measure is unique in its focus on developing separate scales for mother and fathers. This study involves six objectives, namely, developing scale items based on a comprehensive review of the attachment and parentification literature and relevant measures, assessing the structural stability of the CDRR, determining the internal consistency of the items on the CDRR scales, investigating the 3 to 4-month temporal stability of the CDRR scales, assessing the convergent and discriminant validity of selected scales, and assessing the criterion-related validity. 1808 Method Participants Sample 1 Participants included 750 undergraduate students at a Canadian university that were enrolled in an introductory undergraduate psychology course. Participants were between the ages of 17 and 25 (601 females; Mage = 18.68 years, SD = 1.34). Most of the participants were Caucasian (66.4\%), while the remaining participants were Asian (11.3\%), Middle Eastern (6.8\%), Black (5.3\%), mixed ethnicity (2.4\%), Aboriginal/First Nations/Métis (1.2\%), Hispanic (1.1\%), or another ethnicity not listed (4.4\%). The sample’s demographics are representative of the population from which they were recruited. Sample 2 Participants consisted of 656 undergraduate students from a Canadian university, ranging between the ages of 16–24 (531 females; Mage = 18.68 years, SD = 1.29). The majority of the participants were Caucasian (63.6\%), while a minority were Asian (11.4\%), Black (7.6\%), Middle Eastern (7.6\%), Aboriginal/First Nations/Métis (1.4\%), Hispanic (1.4\%), mixed ethnicity (4.7\%) and another ethnicity not listed (1.4\%). Sample 3 Participants consisted of 96 participants between the ages of 17–26 (81 females;Mage = 19.27, SD = 2.13). The sample was derived from three distinct sample pools: a subsample of students from Sample 1 (n = 27) and Sample 2 (n = 50), and participants (n = 19) recruited from the community to increase the sample size. The majority of the participants were Caucasian (65.6\%), while a minority were Asian (13.5\%), Black (9.4\%), Middle Eastern (2.1\%), Hispanic (1.0\%), mixed ethnicity (7.3\%) and other ethnicities not listed (3.1\%). Procedure Participants from Sample 1 were recruited in the Fall semester of 2011 and the inter semester of 2012, while participants from Sample 2 were recruited in the Fall semester of 2012 and Winter semester of 2013. To partake in the study, students must have been less than 25 years old and able to read and write in English. Participants completed the CDRR and answered sociodemographic questions. They received one credit for participation. The university’s Ethics Board approved procedures involving all samples used in this study. Sample 3 consists a subgroup of participants from Samples 1 and 2, as well as a community sample. For Journal of Child and Family Studies (2018) 27:1805–1817 instance, upon completion of the questionnaires, participants were invited to participate in the second phase of the study. At the 3 to 4-month period, interested participants were contacted through email to complete the CDRR questionnaire online. Online advertisements were used to recruit participants from the community between the ages of 18 to 25. Participation consisted of completing the CDRR at two different time points within a 3 to 4-month interval. Measures Childhood disorganization and role reversal scale—initial version (CDRR) The creation of items of the CDRR was based on a comprehensive review of the disorganized and controlling attachment literature, parentification literature and relevant existing measures to the study. Unique to the CDRR, its development was guided by the re-conceptualization of the role of fathers within attachment theory as recent studies have not only found that fathers play an important role in their child’s attachment (Bretherton 2010), but that they may provide unique contributions (Grossmann et al. 2008). Factor analysis was conducted separately for each parent to create the opportunity to arrive at unique factors for each parent. The CDRR was pilot ... Purchase answer to see full attachment