Title |
Infant disorganized attachment: Clarifying levels of analysis
|
---|---|
Published in |
Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, February 2017
|
DOI | 10.1177/1359104516685602 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Robbie Duschinsky, Judith Solomon |
Abstract |
Lack of clarity regarding the infant disorganized attachment classification has caused confusion in the clinical, forensic, and research contexts in which it is used. This article offers distinctions to clarify the concept with the goal of increasing understanding and identifying potential misapplications. In particular, attention is drawn to the fact that there are many indices used to code "disorganized attachment," and that so far they have been validated as a set rather than individually; and it is noted that the construct validation of disorganization in naturalistic settings is partially finished. Clinicians and social workers should be cautious in their interpretations of such behavior. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
India | 2 | 25% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
Scientists | 2 | 25% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 25% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 84 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 17 | 20% |
Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
Other | 7 | 8% |
Researcher | 7 | 8% |
Other | 15 | 18% |
Unknown | 22 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 41 | 48% |
Social Sciences | 8 | 9% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 6% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 5% |
Unknown | 23 | 27% |