The efficacy of circle of security on attachment and well-being in preschool children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of Circle of Security (COS) on preschool children's attachment and well-being.48 mothers with children's age 4 to 6 year were randomly selected through cluster sampling and randomly assigned to experimental and control groups (24 mothers and child in each group).Then the experimental group received 20 weekly COS sessions in the center of preschool.The attachment Q-set and Preschool children wellbeing questionnaire (PCWQ) were used as the pretest, post-test and in the course of follow-up.Results of Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) showed that the mean scores of attachment, in the experimental group, was significantly greater than the control group in posttest (P = 0.000) and follow-up (P = 0.002).Results also showed that the scores of well-being in experimental group was significantly greater than the control group in post-test (P = 0.006) and follow-up (P = 0.018).The finding of the study emphasized the importance of training of attachment in improvement of preschool children's attachment and well-being.More studies are suggested to understand better efficacy of maternal behavior on preschool children's well-being.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".