Thông tin sản phẩm
In the modern investigation, the newest caregiver parts “Mature awareness” as well as the child part “Man responsiveness to your mature” were utilized. The fresh new EAS Adult sensitivity methods an accessory-built high quality and is the emotional and you can behavioral susceptibility and you may responsiveness toward kid’s demands. The new EAS Boy responsiveness to the mature actions the new kid’s mental and you can public responsiveness into new caregiver and you may reflects accessory defense. Both bills shall be rated from one so you can seven (towards high score a sign from optimum sensitiveness/responsiveness). Results equal otherwise less than 5.0 had been an indication from vulnerable attachment relationships. The new EAS turned-out to own enough reliability and you can validity (Biringen ainsi que al., 2014 ). The programmers (first, second, and you will fifth blogger) done the mandatory on the internet education of the Zeynep Biringen and showed high enough interrater contract with Zeynep Biringen. In total, 11% of circumstances (n = 9) have been twice-coded. The brand new ICC between your programmers in the current investigation try .77 to have Adult sensitivity and you will .87 for Guy responsiveness for the mature.
2.cuatro Analyses
First, the internal structure of the four-factor ARI-CP 2–5 was determined by means of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in R version 3.6.1, using the lavaan-package (Rosseel, 2012 ). Fit indices does minichat work were used to test model fit in the CFA-model. The following cutoff values are indicative of acceptable model fit: RMSEA < .06, CFI > .90, TLI > .95, and GFI > .90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ). Moreover, we have tested three alternative models that have some theoretical basis. The first model was a one-factor overall attachment model, with all the items of the ARI-CP 2–5 loading on one factor. The second alternative model was a two-factor secure/insecure model, with the Secure scale as one factor and the Avoidant, Ambivalent, and Disorganized scales combined in another factor. The third alternative model was a two-factor organized/disorganized model, with the Secure, Avoidant, and Ambivalent scale combined in one factor and the Disorganized scale as the other factor. The last alternative model was a three-factor secure/organized-insecure/disorganized model, with the Secure scale as one factor, the Avoidant and Ambivalent scale combined in the organized-insecure factor, and the Disorganized scale as one factor.
Second, that have multigroup CFA, dimension invariance of your own software are checked across moms and dads, girls and boys, 2- to 3-12 months olds, and you may cuatro- and 5-season olds, and additionally across the parents regarding a broad population attempt and you may a medical take to in the Roentgen variation step 3.6.step one, utilising the semTools-package and you may measEq.syntax (Jorgensen, Pornprasertmanit, Schoemann, & Rosseel, 2018 ). It was basic tested whether or not the popular items of one’s ARI-CP 2–5 was in fact from the same circumstances across the teams (configural invariance; Gregorich, 2006 ). Brand new complement of the configural design try checked utilising the Hu and you may Bentler ( 1999 ) cutoff scores. Next, due to the fact ARI-CP 2–5 produces ordinal data, the fresh new thresholds build try modeled following rules out of Wu and you will Estabrook ( 2016 ). 3rd, it actually was examined whether or not the common affairs have a similar definition all over communities, by the evaluation whether the basis loadings was equal around the teams (metric invariance; Gregorich, 2006 ). Eventually, it actually was tested if or not contrasting out-of class function across the groups was meaningful, from the evaluation whether or not foundation intercepts was indeed equivalent around the groups (scalar invariance; Gregorich, 2006 ). One significant decrease of design match (predicated on a drop inside CFI higher than .005) indicates that the more strict condition out of dimension invariance for the design hasn’t been met.
Towards insecure balances of the ARI-CP dos–5 years, above mediocre and high ratings was known as a sign out-of thought of attachment relationship insecurity
Next, reliability information of the four subscales was examined, by calculating ordinal Cronbach’s alphas for each ARI-CP 2–5 scale in R using the userfriendlyscience package (Peters, 2018 ). Moreover, we examined the concordance on the ARI-CP 2–5 between two caregivers of the same child by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients. We did not expect high correlations between two caregivers of the same child, because they both reported on a different relationship. We further created population-based norms, based on T-score distribution in the general population in the current study. T-scores < 30 were defined as low, between 30 and 40 as below average, between 40 and 60 as average, between 60 and 70 as above average, and scores >70 as high scores. For the secure scale, below average and low scores were labeled as indicative of perceived attachment relationship insecurity.
0922-03-5678
