Frequency of RAD diagnosis and attachment disorder in community mental health agency clients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attachment Disorder (AD) in children has been characterized by particularly alarming behaviors, yet the identification of this disorder for clinicians in community mental health agencies is problematic. The only available diagnosis that addresses attachment problems is the DSM-IV diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD), a diagnosis that does not include the more severely disturbed behaviors that have been associated with attachment-disordered children. This dissertation examined the frequency with which CMHA child clients were diagnosed with RAD, as well as the actual occurrence of attachment problems and Attachment Disorder as measured by the Randolph Attachment Disorder Questionnaire (RADA). The Personality Inventory for Children, Second Edition (PIC-2) was used as another measure to explore behavior problems in this population. Results of this study indicated that less than one percent of 662 CMHA child clients had received a diagnosis of RAD. However, a total of 41% of participants in the study had attachment problems (23% with AD) as measured by the RADQ. Additional study results indicated that there was no significant difference in RADQ scores between children currently living with their birth parents and those living in other arrangements. However, as the number of caregivers for children increased, so did RADA scores, indicating there was an increase in attachment-disordered behavior problems. Significant correlations were found between the RADQ scores and the PIC-2 scales of Delinquency, Cognitive Impairment, Impulsivity/Distractibility, Reality Distortion, Psychological Discomfort, and Social Skills Deficits. No relationship was found between RADQ scores and the PIC-2 scale scores of Family Dysfunction, Somatic Concerns, and Social Withdrawal. Interviews of CMHA clinicians revealed confusion and concern regarding the DSM-IV diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder and what specialists in the field refer to as Attachment Disorder. Most of the clinicians reported having had very little exposure to this diagnosis in their graduate schools' programs, and seldom assigned a diagnosis of RAD due to confusion over the criteria and concern over treatment issues.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".