Brief Report: Factor Structure of the Experiences in Close Relationships with Gay and Lesbian Individuals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The mentality of society with regards to same-sex relationships has become more liberal over past few years and this has been reflected in governmental attitudes and actions. For example, Statistics Canada reports that number of self-identified gay men, lesbians and bisexuals has increased by 13% to 20% between 2003 and 2008 (depending on group) to 2.1% for Canadian men and 1.8% for Canadian women (Statistics Canada, 2008). Furthermore, in 2005, Government of Canada redefined civil marriage as the lawful union of two persons to exclusion of all others, thus recognizing union of same-sex couples (Hurley, 2005, p. 4). In United States, National Center for Health Statistics reported lifetime rates of same-sex sexual activity of 11% for women and 6% for men (National Center for Health Statistics, 2008). Although same-sex marriage is not currently accepted under Defense of Marriage Act in United States, both California and Massachusetts have recognized this union. There has also been a renewed interest in same-sex intimate relationships in scientific community but most research to date used measures which have not been validated for this population. The present study takes a first step toward validation of a measure of romantic attachment with same-sex couples by examining factor structure and reliability of Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) using a sample of gay and lesbian individuals. Same-sex couples have same rights to evidence-based treatments as heterosexual couples, and this cannot be achieved without validating instruments used to empirically support treatment interventions. Several legislative bodies have proposed guidelines for working with minority populations. On one hand, psychologists have ethical responsibility of using validated instruments when assessing individuals for both research and clinical purposes. For example, American Psychological Association's Code of Conduct states that psychologists must assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of population tested (American Psychological Association, 2002, p. 13). On other hand, clinicians are encouraged to use validated theoretical frameworks and empirically supported interventions that are relevant to specific needs of their clients (Canadian Psychological Association, 2000). As a number of empirically based therapeutic approaches are founded on concept of attachment, such as Interpersonal Psychotherapy (Teyber, 2006) and Emotionally Focused Therapy (Johnson, 2004) clinicians need a validated measure of adult attachment to assess attachment-related difficulties and to formulate therapeutic objectives when working with a population of gay and lesbian individuals. The attachment theory, developed by Bowlby (1969/1982), explains type of relation formed between an infant and his/her primary caregiver. The theory states that level of consistency at which caregiver is available and able to satisfy child's need for reassurance determines, to a large extent, whether a secure or insecure attachment will be formed, in other words, whether a positive or negative internal model of self and others will be developed. According to Bowlby, attachment system is present over entire lifespan and is manifested by seeking proximity of attachment figures in times of need or threat (Bowlby, 1988). The concept of attachment was empirically supported by Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall's (1978) famous Strange Situation task. Ainsworth et al. (1978) identified three patterns of attachment between infants and caregivers: secure, anxious and avoidant, which were later recognized as an appropriate conceptualization for adolescent and adult attachment by Hazan and Shaver (1987). In 1990, Bartholomew introduced a four-category model of attachment: secure (low anxiety, low avoidance), preoccupied (high anxiety, low avoidance), dismissing (low anxiety, high avoidance), and fearful (high anxiety, high avoidance) based on notion that both attachment anxiety and avoidance can be found in adults in varying degrees. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».