CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 121Attachment and Relationship DynamicsMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Measuring bonding or attachment in the parent-infant-relationship: A systematic review of parent-report assessment measures, their psychometric properties and clinical utility

Open access
Wittkowski, A., Vatter, S., Muhinyi, A., Garrett, C., Henderson, M.·2020·Clinical Psychology Review
DOI 10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101906PMC PMC7695805
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meaningful, valid and reliable self-report measures can facilitate the identification of important parent-infant-relationship factors, relevant intervention development and subsequent evaluation in community and clinical contexts. We aimed at identifying all available parent-report measures of the parent-infant-relationship or bond and to appraise their psychometric and clinimetric properties. METHOD: A systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42017078512) was conducted using the, 2018 COSMIN criteria. Eight electronic databases were searched. Papers describing the development of self-report measures of the parent-infant-bond, attachment or relationship from pregnancy until two years postpartum or the assessment of their psychometric properties were included. RESULTS: Sixty-five articles evaluating 17 original measures and 13 modified versions were identified and reviewed. The studies' methodological quality (risk of bias) varied between 'very good' and 'inadequate' depending on the measurement property assessed; however, scale development studies were mostly of 'inadequate' quality. Although most measures had good clinical utility, the psychometric evaluation of their properties was largely poor. The original or modified versions of the Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire collectively received the strongest psychometric evaluation ratings with high quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This novel review revealed that only a few antenatal and postnatal measures demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. Further studies are needed to determine the most robust perinatal measures for researchers and clinicians.

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.2020.101906

Cites

122 of 122 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?

  • The PPBS has not yet been validated in men, although good psychometric properties have been demonstrated in women.

    “Although not yet validated in men, good psychometric properties have been demonstrated for both pre- and postnatal administration in women (Cuijlits et al., 2016; Wittkowski et al., 2020).”

    From Mindfulness, Self-compassion, and Psychological Wellbeing as Correlates of Paternal Bonding in Pregnancy. (2025) · cites this paper as Wittkowski et al., 2020

    The Results (Review process and Description of identified measures; page unavailable) identify the PPBS as usable before and after birth and classify it among maternal measures, but do not explicitly state that it has never been validated in men. The Results (Measurement properties assessed; page unavailable) rate its prenatal structural validity and internal consistency as sufficient; they do not give it sufficient ratings for those postnatal properties. Thus the review supports good prenatal psychometric properties in women, but not the claim of good properties for both administrations. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The COSMIN tool has been used in psychological and educational research.

    “While the COSMIN tool was originally devised for the medical field, it has since been used in both psychological66,67 and educational research68.”

    From A systematic review of AI literacy scales (2024) · cites this paper as [67]

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 123 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Antenatal and postnatal mental health: Clinical management and service guidance [CG192] 2014, December 31990493
  2. Cuijlits I. van de Wetering A.P. Potharst E.S. Truijens S.E.M. van Baar A.L. Pop V.J.M. Development of a Pre- and Postnaal Bonding Scale (PPBS) Journal of Psychology & Psychotherapy 6 5 2016 1000282
  3. Hunsley J. Mash E.J. Oxford series in clinical psychology. A guide to assessments that work 2008 Oxford University Press New York, NY, US
  4. Linacre J.M. What do Infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions 16 2 2002 878
  5. Rothstein H.R. Publication bias 2014 Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wittkowski, A., Vatter, S., Muhinyi, A., Garrett, C., & Henderson, M.
Affiliations
  • Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Wittkowski, A.
ORCID
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-12
Volume
82
Pages
101906
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101906
PMC
PMC7695805
OpenAlex
W3083018440
Cited by
121
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 12
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
parent-infant relationship, parent-infant bonding, attachment, parent-report measures, psychometric properties, clinimetric properties, Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire, scale development
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Infant, Object Attachment, Parents, Pregnancy, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Report

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