Child attachment and sensory regulation in psychiatric clinic-referred preschoolers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with sensory regulation disorders present with many difficulties in terms of managing emotions, behavior, and motor control. Children with such difficulties are often referred to psychiatric clinics for assessment of their behavioral and emotional problems. Few studies have investigated the role of environmental factors on sensory dysfunctions, and none have specifically studied its association with child attachment in a clinical sample. OBJECTIVE: In this cross-sectional study, we examined the association between sensory regulation and child attachment among preschoolers referred to a psychiatric clinic. METHOD: A sample of 60 preschoolers and their mothers were recruited through a child psychiatric clinic. Child attachment was assessed with the gold standard separation-reunion procedure for preschoolers. Parents completed the sensory profile, which assesses the presence of child hypersensitivity (sensitivity and avoidant scale) and hyposensitivity (sensory seeking and registration scale). RESULTS: Data showed that 57% of the children were presented with clinical symptoms of sensory regulation. In addition, 53% of the children were classified insecure behaviorally disorganized or insecure disorganized controlling. In particular, results revealed that children classified as insecure disorganized controlling were significantly more likely to show hypersensitivity avoidance and sensory-seeking behaviors. CONCLUSION: This study underscores the importance of the parent-child relationship for children with sensory regulation difficulties.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".