The longitudinal and concurrent relationship between caregiver sensitivity and preschool attachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the concurrent and longitudinal relationship between caregiver sensitivity and preschool attachment measured using the Main and Cassidy (1988) and Cassidy and Marvin (1992) attachment classification systems. This review was pre-registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; Registration Number CRD42017073417) and completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The present review identified 36 studies made up of 21 samples (N = 3, 847) examining the relationship between caregiver sensitivity and preschool attachment. Eight primary meta-analyses were conducted separately according to the proximity of the assessment of sensitivity to attachment (i.e., concurrent versus longitudinal), operationalization of caregiver sensitivity (i.e., unidimensional versus multidimensional) and attachment categorizations (i.e., secure-insecure versus organized-disorganized). Overall, the meta-analyses revealed higher levels of caregiver sensitivity among caregivers with secure and organized preschoolers, relative to insecure and disorganized preschoolers, respectively. Medium effect sizes (g = .46 to .59) were found for both longitudinal and concurrent associations between caregiver sensitivity and preschool attachment when a unidimensional measure of caregiver sensitivity was employed, compared to small to medium effect sizes (g = .34 to .49) when a multidimensional measure of caregiver sensitivity was employed. Child age at attachment measurement was a significant moderator of the longitudinal association between unidimensional caregiver sensitivity and preschool attachment. Future directions for the literature and clinical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".