Talk:Attachment measures

Released June 29, 2006

This is part of a modification to the organization of attachment-related pages. kc62301

Other measures

This page could also usefully include the separation and reunion procedure and the Preschool Assessment of Attachment ("PAA", Crittenden 1992), the Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment ("ORCE") and the Attachment Q-sort ("AQ-sort"), the Disturbances of Attachment Interview or "DAI" developed by Smyke and Zeanah, (1999), Achenbachs Child Behavior Checklist and RADQ (Randolph Attachment Disorder Questionnaire). Fainites ^barley 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memo;

Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment (ORCE) National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1996). Characteristics of infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 269-306.
Infant-Toddler Environment Rating scale ITERS Harms, T., & Clifford, R. M. (1980). The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College Press.
Waters and Deane Attachment Q-Set (AQS) Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points in attachment theory and research (pp. 41-65), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2, Serial No. 209).

Fainites ^barley 21:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE;Rejoinder to the Critique of the Strange Situation

This REJOINDER is inappropriate and should be carried in the main body of the text. The Critique of the Strange Situation makes some valid points about the limitations of the Strange Situation Procedure which should be answered in the main text - indeed some of the points are answered - the REJOINDER makes it appear as though somebody has an axe to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 08:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder to the Critique of the Strange Situation

One should consult Behrens, et al., 2007 for a complete discussion of the issue surrouding the meanings that separations and reunions have for different infants, particularly in Japanese cultures. [4] In addition, it should be noted that continuous measures of attachment security have been developed which have demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. These have been used either individually or in conjunction with discrete attachment classifications in many published reports [see Richters et al., 1998; [5] van Ijzendoorn et al., 1990). [6]] The original Richter’s et al. (1998) scale is strongly related to secure versus insecure classifications, correctly predicting about 90% of cases [6]. Readers further interested in the categorical versus continuous nature of attachment classifications (and the debate surrounding this issue) should consult the paper by Fraley and Spieker [7] and the rejoinders in the same issue by many prominent attachment researchers including J. Cassidy, A. Sroufe, E. Waters & T. Beauchaine, and M. Cummings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 08:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE;Rejoinder to the Critique of the Strange Situation - ADDENDUM

The whole thrust of this page is that because of the professional reservations governing the original Strange Situation Protocol there have been many attempts to improve upon it!

KingsleyMiller (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Could you guys work together to produce a section that presents critiques/strengths/weaknesses/improvements in a cohesive and encyclopaedic form. This is all good stuff but need not be presented like an ongoing argument. Attachment is a relatively young field with lots of research left to do. Fainites ^barley 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The limitations of the SSP could be briefly set out, plus a synopsis of the material in the rejoinder so that the reader has an understanding of its strengths, weaknesses and uses now - as up to date as possible - rather than it looking like an on page argument. For example - instead of saying 'readers who are interested could consult Freyn', give as a brief sentence or two of his main conclusions. This will then have a reference which the interested reader can access. Similarly with the 2007 study on SSP in different cultures, what were the findings? Fainites ^barley 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. The REJOINDER is inappropriate. Please see my comments on the SSP DISCUSSION page KingsleyMiller (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope will be okay

Please note I have made a few slight amendments which I hope will be okay.

I think it is important to keep both pages on 'Attachment in Children', which focuses on the Strange Situation Procedure, and the page on 'Attachment Measures'.

They are both important because they show the limitations of these 'tests' and how they have developed. Together they give the reader a basic understanding of the complexity of the subject.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different picture that could be used as this is the same one as appears on Att in Children? A picture of a psychologist carrying out an observation of a caregiver and child would be fantastic if we could find one. Also like you I find some YouTube videos really useful but I have been told that we are not supposed to link to them. Its a real pity as there are two really good ones of attachment therapy in action that would say more than a thousand words on the att. therapy page, here[1] and here, [2]. Fainites ^barley 15:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites & Wikipedia Policy

Who has told you not to link to YouTube? Wikipedia policy states the opposite. Please see my User Discussion page.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its fantastic if you can! Wheres the olicy that says this? Fainites ^barley 21:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites, can you also please look at the Wikipedia page called 'Human bonding'. I would suggest it is removed.

KingsleyMiller (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the whole thing needs to be removed. They haven't got attachment quite right but thats only a couple of paragraphs. I'm not overly impressed with the boiling brain either. The rest of it seems not totally unreasonable though. Bit out of date some of it I thought. Fainites ^barley 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fainites & 'Human bonding'

It flies in the face of everything on this page! It is babel. See the discussion page. You cannot have different theories on attachment and bonding in the same encyclopedia.

The whole thing is rubbish. Ask Marvin.

Who told you there was a blanket ban on connecting to YouTube?

KingsleyMiller (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember now who told me about the YouTube. I'll have a search. As for bonding - I'm not sure bonding is entirely the same as attachment is it? You need to think of it also in terms of what people want to look up. Bonding is a very common term. I would expect the bonding page to give a reasonable synopsis of attachment theory with good links - but there's probably plenty more than just attachment theory to be said on the subject. Fainites ^barley 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find them. The policy page says there's no blanket ban so it looks as if they were wrong, but in the copyright guidelines says This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. How on earth one is supposed to find out if eg the You Tube attachment therapy excerpts are in breach of copyright or not I don't know! Fainites ^barley 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the new piccy by the way. Fainites ^barley 22:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the videos as they were not, as I origanlly assumed, videos of the SSP or similar but YouTube videos made by Kip expressing Kips personal views on attachment theory and the SSP. I'm sorry Kip but Wiki works on notable sources. I don't think you count as a notable source. (No insult intended. Neither do most Wiki editors, including me). Fainites ^barley 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Attachment measures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]