Reassessing the validity of the attachment Q‐sort: An updated meta‐analysis

Tim Cadman · Peter R Diamond · Pasco R. M. Fearon

70 citations0/0 files storedInfant and Child Development

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Attachment and Relationship Dynamics Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Q Methodology Applications

Abstract

Abstract A 2004 meta‐analysis reported good validity for the observer attachment Q‐sort (AQS), but poor validity for the parental self‐report version. Despite this, the self‐report AQS is still widely used, with researchers arguing that providing additional training can improve its validity. The aim of this study was to update the 2004 meta‐analysis. Two hundred forty‐five studies from 1987 to 2016 were included (n = 32,426). Separate meta‐analyses were conducted to examine validity and reliability. The observer AQS showed moderate convergent validity with the Strange Situation Procedure (r = .25; r = .39 for long observation periods) and good predictive validity in terms of associations with sensitivity (r = .32). It showed a relatively weak association with infant temperament (r = .21), suggesting some discriminant validity. The self‐report version showed comparable convergent validity with Strange Situation Procedure (r = .18), but significantly weaker correlations with sensitivity (r = .25) and stronger correlations with temperament (r = .33). There was no evidence that providing additional training improved the validity of the self‐report version. This study corroborates the previous finding that the observer AQS is a valid measure of infant attachment, especially after long periods of observation. The self‐report version showed significantly weaker discriminant and predictive validity. Highlights The aim of the study was to update the 2004 meta‐analysis assessing the validity of the attachment Q‐Sort (AQS). This study broadly replicated the findings of the previous meta-analysis, showing that the observer AQS is a valid measure of attachment. Caution should be shown in using the self-report AQS due to its comparatively weaker predictive and discriminate validity.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 70 citations exist upstream.

References

2003Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.1986Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects 2000Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis 1978Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation 2000Practical Meta-Analysis 2009Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications 1982Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect.1997Sensitivity and Attachment: A Meta-Analysis on Parental Antecedents of Infant Attachment

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.