Missing data is a problem that occurs frequently in many scientific areas. The most sophisticated method for dealing with this problem is multiple imputation. Contrary to other methods, like listwise deletion, this method does not throw away information, and partly repairs the problem of systematic dropout. Although from a theoretical point of view multiple imputation is considered to be the optimal method, many applied researchers are reluctant to use it because of persistent misconceptions about this method. Instead of providing an(other) overview of missing data methods, or extensively explaining how multiple imputation works, this article aims specifically at rebutting these misconceptions, and provides applied researchers with practical arguments supporting them in the use of multiple imputation. ARTICLE HISTORY Goal and intended audienceThis article addresses applied researchers within the field of social and behavioral sciences (but possibly other fields as well) facing the problem of missing data, who have heard of multiple imputation as a method to deal with missing data, but have concerns about actually using this method. These concerns may be based on misconceptions implying that in their specific situation multiple imputation should either not be used at all, or only with much caution. This article collects several of those misconceptions, and provides grounded rebuttal-through theory and practical argumentation-to ultimately support researchers in their deliberations regarding their statistical analyses when faced with missing data.
Introduction: Recent literature has shown that the good outcome of adoption would mostly depend on the quality of adoptive parenting, which is strongly associated with the security of parental internal working models (IWMs) of attachment. Specifically, attachment states-of-mind of adoptive mothers classified as free and autonomous and without lack of resolution of loss or trauma could represent a good protective factor for adopted children, previously maltreated and neglected. While most research on adoptive families focused on pre-school and school-aged children, the aim of this study was to assess the concordance of IWMs of attachment in adoptive dyads during adolescence.Method: Our pilot-study involved 76 participants: 30 adoptive mothers (mean age = 51.5 ± 4.3), and their 46 late-adopted adolescents (mean age = 13.9 ± 1.6), who were all aged 4–9 years old at time of adoption (mean age = 6.3 ± 1.5). Attachment representations of adopted adolescents were assessed by the Friend and Family Interview (FFI), while adoptive mothers’ state-of-mind with respect to attachment was classified by the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). Adolescents’ verbal intelligence was controlled for.Results: Late-adopted adolescents were classified as follows: 67% secure, 26% dismissing, and 7% preoccupied in the FFI, while their adoptive mothers’ AAI classifications were 70% free-autonomous, 7% dismissing, and 23% unresolved. We found a significant concordance of 70% (32 dyads) between the secure–insecure FFI and AAI classifications. Specifically adoptive mothers with high coherence of transcript and low unresolved loss tend to have late-adopted children with high secure attachment, even if the adolescents’ verbal intelligence made a significant contribution to this prediction.Discussion: Our results provides an empirical contribution to the literature concerning the concordance of attachment in adoptive dyads, highlighting the beneficial impact of highly coherent states-of-mind of adoptive mothers on the attachment representations of their late-adopted adolescent children.
ACASM provides a description of the case that, though different from the one provided by the transcripts, enables clinicians to elaborate clinical interpretations of the case which approximate those produced by clinicians working directly on verbatim transcripts.
Internal working models (IWMs) of attachment can moderate the effect of maternal depression on mother–child interactions and child development. Clinical depression pre-dating birthgiving has been found to predict incoherent and less sensitive caregiving. Dysfunctional patterns observed, included interactive modes linked to feeding behaviors which may interfere with hunger–satiation, biological rhythms, and the establishment of children’s autonomy and individuation. Feeding interactions between depressed mothers and their children seem to be characterized by repetitive interactive failures: children refuse food through oppositional behavior or negativity. The aim of this study was to investigate parenting skills in the context of feeding in mothers with major depression from the point of view of attachment theory. This perspective emphasizes parents’ emotion, relational and affective history and personal resources. The sample consisted of 60 mother–child dyads. Mothers were divided into two groups: 30 with Major Depression and 30 without disorders. Children’s age ranged between 12 and 36 months The measures employed were the Adult Attachment Interview and the Scale for the Evaluation of Alimentary Interactions between Mothers and Children. Insecure attachment prevailed in mothers with major depression, with differences on the Subjective Experience and State of Mind Scales. Groups also differed in maternal sensitivity, degrees of interactive conflicts and negative affective states, all of which can hinder the development of adequate interactive patterns during feeding. The results suggest that IWMs can constitute an indicator for the evaluation of the relational quality of the dyad and that evaluations of dyadic interactions should be considered when programming interventions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.