The Relationship between Alliance, Attachment and Outcome in a Child Multi-Modal Treatment Population: Pilot Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This pilot study explored the relationship between parental therapeutic alliance, maternal attachment style and child and family functioning in a sample of families with a child aged five to twelve years receiving child psychiatry day hospital treatment for complex co-morbid disorders. METHOD: Self-report measures of therapeutic alliance, maternal attachment style, child behaviour and family functioning were administered to parents at the end of the assessment period (T1) and at discharge (T2). The original study cohort included 90 families, and 44 families completed all the study measures at T2. Correlational analysis was conducted on these 44 families measuring parental alliance, maternal attachment style with child and family functioning scores. Comparisons were made between participants that completed T1 and T2 of the study with participants that only completed T1. RESULTS: For the 44 families who completed both T1 and T2 measures, the combination of secure maternal attachment style and positive therapeutic alliance at T1 was associated with positive child outcomes, that is, improved scores on both the internalizing and externalizing dimensions as measured by the CBCL between T1 and T2. Significant changes were identified in family functioning with improvement on cohesion and expressiveness, enhanced intellectual-cultural orientation and improved family organization as measured by the FES. CONCLUSIONS: Capacity for secure attachment and positive alliance are associated with improved child and family systems outcomes in a high risk cohort of children with co-morbid disorders from a day and evening multimodal family treatment program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".