Attachment representations and response to video-feedback intervention for professional caregivers

Abstract

Interventions to improve caregiving may have different effects for persons with autonomous or nonautonomous attachment representations. The current study used the Adult Attachment Interview to investigate attachment representations of professional caregivers who participated in an intervention to improve interaction with children and adults with serious intellectual and visual disabilities. Caregivers (N = 51) completed a video-feedback interaction program. Twice during a baseline period and three times during the intervention period, each caregiver was videotaped during a standard situation with their client. Of the caregivers, 28 were classified as autonomous, 12 as dismissing, and 11 as preoccupied. Unresolved loss or trauma (n = 7) was not included in the analyses. Generally, interaction quality improved from baseline to intervention period as indicated by confirmation of signals, responsiveness to signals, and affective mutuality. Caregivers with dismissing classifications continued to show less confirmation of clients' signals. Caregivers with dismissing or preoccupied classifications improved their responsiveness to the level of caregivers with autonomous classifications. Attachment representations may modify in some ways the impact of interventions to improve caregiving.

Attachment representations of professionals − Influence on intervention and implications for clinical training and supervision

“…The high percentage of insecure IWM in attachment representations among participants in German STEEP trainings indicates a need to address the facilitator as a person, especially in the light of studies that show a significant effect of professionals' attachment on effective intervention (Dozier et al, 1994;StovallMcCloud, & Dozier, 2004;Schuengel et al, 2012). The current study points to the significance of unresolved attachment status.…”

“…Therefore, the negative effect of unresolved status on intervention should be more salient. In the study of Schuengel et al (2012), insecure IWM negatively impacted on the intervention in the beginning, but this effect gradually disappeared as the intervention continued. When we assessed the effect of IWMs on intervention, our professionals had already been practicing STEEP for about one year, so after training and one year of intervention practice, the effect may have already faded too much to reach statistical significance in our rather small sample.…”

“…The influences of facilitators' IWM on their interventions have been studied with psychotherapists (Dozier, Cue, & Barnett, 1994), foster parents (Dozier, Albus, Fisher, & Sepulveda, 2002;StovallMcClough & Dozier, 2004), and professional caregivers in homes for disabled children and young adults (Schuengel et al, 2012). The results indicate significant effects of secure attachment backgrounds regarding successful psychotherapies, security of attachment relationships between foster parents and foster children, and the quality of interactional guidance for children with disabilities.…”

“…The question remains whether this can be accomplished if the professional's own attachment background is insecure. This issue is not only relevant for intervention practice and reducing the repeatedly found variation in delivery of effective intervention programs, but also for learning about the influence of attachment representations in interpersonal contexts outside the Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mhp family, as described in Bowlby's Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969(Bowlby, / 1982(Bowlby, , 1973(Bowlby, , 1980Schuengel, Kef, Damen, & Worm, 2012 ).…”

Observing Women Caregivers’ Everyday Experiences: New Ways of Understanding and Intervening

“…The practitioner then watches key scenes with the client, and they analyze, together, the parent's behavior (Fukkink, 2008). Video feedback has also been used with professional, paid caregivers, with the objective of ameliorating the caregivers' competencies (Damen, Kef, Worm, Janssen, & Schuengel, 2011;Schuengel, Kef, Damen, & Worm, 2012).…”