Is the maternal Q-Set a valid measure of preschool child attachment behavior?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to examine preschool-age correlates of the maternal version of the Attachment Q-Set (AQS) (Waters & Deane, 1985) in order to provide validity data. Concurrent associations between the Attachment Q-Set and measures of separation-reunion attachment classifications (Cassidy & Marvin, 1992), quality of mother–child interaction, maternal stress, and child externalizing behavior problems were examined for a low-risk sample of 152 preschool children. Results showed that, even after controlling for maternal stress, ambivalent and disorganized children had lower scores on the AQS when compared with the secure group. However, avoidant and controlling children did not differ from secure children in maternal sorts. Significant associations between the maternal Q-Set and affective quality of mother–child interaction were also maintained, when controlling for maternal stress. The AQS was significantly associated with both mother and teacher reported externalizing behavior problem reports, but the association with teacher reports was not maintained when maternal stress was entered in the equation as a covariate. The discussion focuses on the validity of the maternal Q-Set as a measure of child attachment behavior in preschoolers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".