CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 220

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Selecting the Best Items for a Short-Form of the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire

Lafontaine, Marie-France, Brassard, Audrey, Lussier, Yvan, Valois, Pierre, Shaver, Philip R., Johnson, Susan M.·2016·European Journal of Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1027/1015-5759/a000243
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract. Five studies were conducted to develop a short form of the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) questionnaire with optimal psychometric properties. Study 1 involved Item Response Theory (IRT) analyses of the responses of 2,066 adults, resulting in a 12-item form of the ECR containing the most discriminating items. The psychometric properties of the ECR-12 were further demonstrated in two longitudinal studies of community samples of couples (Studies 2 and 3), in a sample of individuals in same-sex relationships (Study 4), and with couples seeking therapy (Study 5). The psychometric properties of the ECR-12 are as good as those of the original ECR and superior to those of an existing short form. The ECR-12 can confidently be used by researchers and mental health practitioners when a short measure of attachment anxiety and avoidance is required.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/1015-5759/a000243

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Ainsworth M. D. S., 1978, Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation
  2. 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00141.x · DOI
  3. Arbuckle J., 1999, AMOS 4.0 [Computer software]
  4. Baker F. B., 2001, The basics of item response theory
  5. 10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1002/9781118619179 · DOI
  7. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L. & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  8. Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  9. Byrne B. M., 2001, Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming
  10. 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.05.001 · DOI
  11. Collins, N. L. & Allard, L. M. (2001). Cognitive representations of attachment: The content and function of working models. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Vol. 2. Interpersonal processes (pp. 60–85). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
  12. Conradi H. J., 2006, European Journal of Psychiatry, 20, 258
  13. Embretson S. E., 2000, Item response theory for psychologists
  14. 10.1177/0013164405278564 · DOI
  15. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.2466/pr0.1976.39.3f.1215 · DOI
  18. 10.1037/h0087187 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/0013164402238082 · DOI
  20. 10.1037/0022-0167.51.3.368 · DOI
  21. 10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Matte M., 2009, North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 361
  23. 10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.260 · DOI
  24. Mikulincer M., 2007, Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change
  25. 10.4992/jjpsy.75.154 · DOI
  26. Nunnally J. C., 1994, Psychometric theory
  27. Picardi A., 2000, Rivista di Psichiatria, 35, 114
  28. 10.1177/0894845310384593 · DOI
  29. Reeve, B. B. & Fayers, P. (2005). Applying item response theory modelling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In P. Fayers & R. D. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: Methods and practice (2nd ed., pp. 55–73). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  30. 10.1177/0146167201272002 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1037/1040-3590.17.1.15 · DOI
  32. Samejima F., 1969, Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34, 1
  33. Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
  34. 10.1177/0146167205276865 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.2307/350547 · DOI
  36. 10.1016/j.jpain.2004.04.002 · DOI
  37. Thissen, D. & Steinberg, L. (1997). A response model for multiple choice items. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 381–394). New York, NY: Springer.
  38. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.140 · DOI
  39. 10.1080/00223890701268041 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lafontaine, M.-F., Brassard, A., Lussier, Y., Valois, P., Shaver, P. R., & Johnson, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Canada
  • Université de Sherbrooke, Canada
  • Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Canada
  • Université Laval, Canada
  • University of California, Davis, CA, USA
  • University of Ottawa, Ottawa Couple and Family Institute, Canada
Venue
European Journal of Psychological Assessment
Publisher
Hogrefe Publishing Group
Published
2016-04
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
140-154
ISSN
  • 1015-5759
  • 2151-2426
DOI
10.1027/1015-5759/a000243
Cited by
220
References
4
Language
en

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