CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 133Attachment and Relationship DynamicsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

Attachment measures in middle childhood and adolescence: A systematic review of measurement properties

Open access
Jewell, Tom, Gardner, Tessa, Susi, Karima, Watchorn, Kate, Coopey, Emily, Simic, Mima, Fonagy, Peter, Eisler, Ivan·2019·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.12.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Attachment theory proposes that humans develop representations of self and other in early childhood which are relatively stable across the life-course, and play a key role in psychological adaptation. However, to date, the psychometric properties of attachment measures in middle childhood and adolescence have not been evaluated in a systematic review. METHOD: A systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42017057772) was conducted using COSMIN criteria. Two researchers independently searched MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Embase databases for relevant articles. RESULTS: Fifty-four studies were included in the review. The methodological quality of studies was typically fair or poor, with only a small number of studies being rated as of good or excellent quality. The measurement properties of attachment measures in this age group were frequently rated as inadequate according to COSMIN criteria. The Child Attachment Interview (CAI) has the best psychometric properties of the interview and projective measures, and the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) the best evidence of the self-report measures. Overall, the evidence for the CAI and IPPA included both positive and negative findings relating to adequacy of measurement properties. CONCLUSIONS: Attachment measures in middle childhood and adolescence currently have limited evidence for the adequacy of their psychometric properties.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.12.004

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Jewell et al. see the ECR as an appropriate instrument for the assessment of attachment in young people, but also state that this construct is difficult to measure in adolescence and necessitates the use of developmentally adapted measures.

    “Furthermore, although Jewell et al. [43] see the ECR as an appropriate instrument for the assessment of attachment in young people, they also state that this construct is difficult to measure in adolescence and necessitate the use of developmentally adapted measures.”

    From Get secure soon: attachment in abused adolescents and young adults before and after trauma-focused cognitive processing therapy. (2021) · cites this paper as [43]

    Section 4.1 says the ECR can be used to assess attachment styles in adolescents, but does not endorse it for assessing attachment generally across all young people. Section 1.2 says assessment must account for developmental changes; it does not specifically require the use of developmentally adapted instruments. The citing sentence broadens both points. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3: Loss. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jewell, T., Gardner, T., Susi, K., Watchorn, K., Coopey, E., Simic, M., Fonagy, P., & Eisler, I.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Anna Freud Centre (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust (GB)
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Jewell, Tom
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-03
Volume
68
Pages
71-82
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2018.12.004
OpenAlex
W2906720146
Cited by
133
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9
FWCI
2.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship (CDRF-2014-05-024)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
attachment, psychometric properties, middle childhood, adolescence, Child Attachment Interview, Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, self-report measures, projective techniques
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Object Attachment, Psychological Tests, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review