Reliability and Validity of an Interview Assessment of Attachment Representations in a Clinical Sample of Adolescents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although several researchers have discussed difficulties when assessing attachment representations in clinical samples, fewhave formally assessed reliability and validity of attachment in clinical samples. In this study, reliability and validity of attachment in a clinical sample of adolescents was assessed. Adolescents (50 females and 77 males; average age 13. 6 years) completed questionnaires to assess interpersonal anxiety and avoidance and were administered the Family Attachment Interview and the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children–III. Interviewcodings of attachment representations were reliable; however, findings highlighted possible limitations of categorical assignments. Consistent with previous research, attachment representations were not associated with cognitive abilities and were associated with latent variables of avoidance and anxiety. Discussion of results focuses on the benefit of using continuous ratings of attachment; the usefulness of attachment theory when counseling distressed youth; and the theoretical importance of understanding attachment representations during adolescence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it