An analysis of avoidant and approach coping as mediators of the relationship between paternal and maternal attachment security and outcomes in child victims of sexual abuse.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prior studies have documented the potential role of nonoffending parent support in promoting recovery of adult survivors following sexual abuse (SA). However, few studies have distinguished the maternal and paternal role and the mechanisms by which quality of the parent-child relationship might foster more positive outcomes in child victims. The purpose of this study was to examine coping strategies as mediators of the link between mother-child and father-child relationship and outcomes following child SA. METHOD: A sample of 505 children (339 girls and 166 boys) ages 6-13 years completed measures evaluating perceived attachment security to mother and father (Kerns Security Scale; Kerns, Klepac, & Cole, 1996), as well as coping strategies related to the SA experienced (Self-Reported Coping Scale; Causey & Dubow, 1992). Outcomes evaluated were posttraumatic stress symptoms (PSS; Children's Impact of Traumatic Events Scale-II [CITES-II]; Wolfe, 2002) and self-esteem (Harter, 1985). RESULTS: Results indicated that, in girls, both attachment security to the mother and to the father are associated with lower PSS symptoms and higher self-esteem through a lesser use of avoidant coping. Avoidance coping mediated the link between attachment security to the mother and outcomes in boys. In addition, security in the relationship with the same-sex parent was associated with approach coping, which in turn was associated with both outcomes for girls and with PSS for boys. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the importance of involving both parents in interventions for sexually abused children as mothers and fathers appear to play different, yet complementary roles in sustaining children's recovery. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".