Is there an elephant in the room? A study of convergences and divergences of adult attachment measures commonly used in clinical studies

Strauß, Bernhard; Altmann, Uwe; Schönherr, Désirée; Schurig, Susan; Singh, Sashi; Petrowski, Katja

doi:10.1080/10503307.2021.2020930

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study is a secondary analysis. The primary study ( Strauss et al, 2022 ) is in accordance with the guidelines for good clinical practice and was approved by the ethics committee of Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany (application ID: 3060-02/11). All participants gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The recruitment was carried out in the cities of Dresden and Jena, Germany. For further details regarding sample calculation and recruitment, also see the primary study ( Strauss et al, 2022 ). In all, N = 174 patients and N = 143 healthy participants were included.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With 36 Likert-scaled items it assesses attachment anxiety (ECR-ANX) and attachment avoidance (ECR-AVO) regarding feelings and behavior in close relationships. Both scales have good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.91/0.92; Ehrenthal et al, 2009) and convergent validity (Strauss et al, 2022).…”

Section: Experiences In Close Relationships Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the instruments differ in regard to the focus on the respective attachment figure (mother, father, current partner) and type of assessment (self-ratings, semi-protective methods, or expert ratings based on interviews). However, the different attachment instruments have no convergent validity or moderate at best ( Shaver et al, 2000 ; Roisman et al, 2007 ; Jewell et al, 2019 ; Strauss et al, 2022 ). It is assumed that convergent validity is higher, the more the two instruments match regarding method, domain, and concept ( Bartholomew and Shaver, 1998 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Factor Structure and Convergent Validity of the Short Version of the Bielefeld Partnership Expectations Questionnaire in Patients With Anxiety Disorder and Healthy Controls

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The short version of the Bielefeld Partnership Expectations Questionnaire (BPEQ-12) assesses the partner-related attachment dimensions fear of rejection, readiness for self-disclosure, and conscious need for care. The presented study investigated the factor structure in two samples and evaluated the convergent validity of scales. The sample included N = 175 patients with panic disorder and/or agoraphobia and N = 143 healthy controls. Besides, the BPEQ, the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire (ECR), and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) were assessed as well, and the Adult Attachment Prototype Rating (AAPR) was conducted. A confirmatory factor analysis of the three factor model (using a WLSMV estimator) revealed an acceptable model fit for the entire sample, patients and controls in terms of low RMSEA and SRMR (< 0.08) and high CFI and TLI (> 0.95). We found metric, scalar, and strict measurement invariance for the presence of anxiety disorder (ΔCFI ≤ –0.01 and ΔRMSEA ≥ 0.01). However, only for fear of rejection and readiness for self-disclosure the reliability was acceptable (Cronbach’s α > 0.7), and convergent validity in terms of large correlations (r > 0.7) with the ECR scales was found in both samples. The scale conscious need for care had a questionable reliability (Cronbach’s α > 0.6) and correlated only slightly with ECR-R scales. We conclude that fear of rejection and readiness for self-disclosure of the BPEQ-12 are reliable and valid scales for measuring partner-related attachment in healthy and clinical samples.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiences In Close Relationships Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Factor Structure and Convergent Validity of the Short Version of the Bielefeld Partnership Expectations Questionnaire in Patients With Anxiety Disorder and Healthy Controls

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Während sich einige Instrumente auf spezifische Beziehungen wie die Partnerschaft beziehen (so der Fragebogen Experiences in Close Relationships [ECR-R]; Brennan et al 1998;Fraley et al 2000), haben andere Fragebogen zum Ziel, Bindung allgemein und unabhängig vom Beziehungskontext zu erfassen (etwa die Adult Attachment Scale [AAS]; Schmidt et al 2004). Eine aktuelle Studie untersuchte diesbezüglich die Konvergenz verschiedener Bindungsfragebogen und fand moderate Zusammenhänge zwischen dem ECR-R und dem AAS (Strauss et al 2022). Dies weist darauf hin, dass globale und beziehungsspezifische Bindungsskalen sowohl überlappende als auch unterschiedliche Aspekte von Bindung erfassen.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Bindungsdimensionen im Erwachsenenalter – beziehungsspezifische Unterschiede und ihre Zusammenhänge mit psychischer Gesundheit

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Empirische Befunde legen nahe, dass Bindung im Erwachsenenalter sowohl globale als auch beziehungsspezifische Aspekte aufweist. Bisher ist jedoch nicht ausreichend geklärt, inwieweit sich globale und spezifische Bindungsdimensionen in ihren Zusammenhängen mit psychischer Gesundheit unterscheiden. Methodik In einer Gelegenheitsstichprobe (n = 622; 86 % weiblich, Altersdurchschnitt 33 Jahre) wurden Bindungsangst und Bindungsvermeidung jeweils in den Beziehungen zu Mutter, Vater, PartnerIn und FreundIn und in einer globalen Form mittels des Selbstbeurteilungsinstruments Experiences in Close Relationships – Relationship Structures (ECR-RS) erhoben. Es wurde angenommen, dass sich die Ausprägungen der Bindungsdimensionen je nach Beziehungskontext voneinander unterscheiden. Mittels multipler Regression wurden die Zusammenhänge der Skalen des ECR-RS mit der Symptom-Checklist-Kurzversion (SCL-K9), dem Inventar Interpersonaler Probleme (IIP-32) und der Level of Personality Functioning Scale – Brief Form (LPFS-BF) untersucht. Ergebnisse Bindungsangst und Bindungsvermeidung wurden je nach Beziehungskontext unterschiedlich hoch eingeschätzt (Bindungsangst: ηp2 = 0,18, Bindungsvermeidung: ηp2 = 0,31). Globale Bindungsangst war der stärkste Prädiktor für aktuelle psychische Beschwerden (β = 0,48, p < 0,001), interpersonale Probleme (β = 0,49, p < 0,001) und Beeinträchtigungen im Persönlichkeitsfunktionsniveau (β = 0,48, p < 0,001). Globale Bindungsvermeidung zeigte keinen wesentlichen inkrementellen Effekt über die beziehungsspezifische Vermeidung hinaus. Hingegen stand insbesondere Bindungsvermeidung in der Partnerschaft mit den 3 Ergebnismaßen im Zusammenhang. Diskussion Die Bindungsdimensionen von Erwachsenen scheinen sich je nach dem Beziehungskontext, in dem sie beurteilt werden, zu unterscheiden. Für die Praxis könnte eine Kombination aus globalen und partnerschaftsbezogenen Bindungsfragebogen am aussagekräftigsten sein, um die unterschiedlichen Zusammenhänge von Bindungsangst und Bindungsvermeidung mit der psychischen Gesundheit ausreichend zu erfassen.

show abstract

Attachment in individuals with eating disorders compared to community controls: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Jewell

Apostolidou

Sadikovic

et al. 2023

Intl J Eating Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Individuals with eating disorders are known to have higher rates of insecure attachment compared to community controls, but the factors underlying this finding are poorly understood. We conducted the first meta-analysis comparing attachment in eating disorder samples compared to community controls that included quality assessment, publication bias and moderation analysis.Method: We pre-registered our meta-analysis (CRD42019146799) and followed PRISMA guidelines. We searched PsychINFO, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and Scopus for publications. Attachment scores were extracted, and Cohen's d calculated for each study using a random effects model. Results:In total, 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis and six studies were summarized in a narrative review. Eating disorder samples showed higher rates of insecure attachment compared to community controls, with a large effect size, across measurement methods and different attachment dimensions. Blinding of assessors moderated effect sizes for attachment interview studies, but no other moderators were significant.Discussion: Risk of insecure attachment is elevated in individuals with eating disorders, albeit heterogeneity is high and largely unexplained. Clinicians may need to take this into account in their work, particularly given the association between attachment insecurity and challenges to therapeutic alliance. Future studies comparing eating disorder samples with community samples should control for general psychopathology.

show abstract

Is there an elephant in the room? A study of convergences and divergences of adult attachment measures commonly used in clinical studies

Cited by 14 publications

References 50 publications

Factor Structure and Convergent Validity of the Short Version of the Bielefeld Partnership Expectations Questionnaire in Patients With Anxiety Disorder and Healthy Controls

Factor Structure and Convergent Validity of the Short Version of the Bielefeld Partnership Expectations Questionnaire in Patients With Anxiety Disorder and Healthy Controls

Bindungsdimensionen im Erwachsenenalter – beziehungsspezifische Unterschiede und ihre Zusammenhänge mit psychischer Gesundheit

Attachment in individuals with eating disorders compared to community controls: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About