Attachment in autistic children as measured with the strange situation procedure: a systematic review and a meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the inception of attachment theory, parent-child relationships has been examined in different populations, including autistic children. Attachment in autistic children has been measured using inconsistent separation-reunion procedures, making it difficult to examine whether autistic children are more or less likely to develop a secure attachment compared to non-autistic children. This study aims to meta-analyze data from studies that have assessed attachment in autistic children using a standardized version of the Strange Situation Procedure. Using the CASCADE catalogue, we identified six studies (n = 202). Results revealed that 45.6% were classified as secure, 18.7% as avoidant, 8.5% as resistant, and 27.2% as disorganized, which was statistically similar to the proportions of attachment categories in general population. Moderator analyses revealed a higher proportion of secure attachment among older children and more recently published studies. Future research should focus on unifying methodological approaches to studying attachment in autistic children.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it