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

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.

Revisiting the African origins of attachment research—50 years on from Ainsworth: A descriptive review

“…The other study reported a correlation of .31 between the observer's Q‐sort of the dyads studied and the prototypical Q‐sort of dyads that are securely attached (Peterson, Drotar, Olness, Guay, & Kiziri‐Mayengo, ). This correlation coefficient is similar to the mean security score of .35 found by Cadman, Diamond, and Fearon () in their meta‐analysis of 186 samples. Attachment is deemed secure when there is a correlation of .3 or greater between the observer and criterion sorts (Minde et al., ).…”

Development and validation of an observational measure of symptoms of Reactive Attachment Disorder

“…It was also surprising that neither the full AQS nor BAS-16 significantly related to SSP classification of 15-month olds. This is despite the relatively robust associations discerned in meta-analytic reviews (Cadman et al, 2017;Van IJzendoorn et al, 2004). Given that this association was equally weak for the full AQS, it may reflect the particular methodology included in this study (e.g., the 11-month interval of measurement between the AQS and SSP at a time of rapid infant development).…”

“…A security score is calculated by correlating the individual sort with a criterion sort created from an expert consensus on the behaviours of the prototypically securely attached child. Support for the validity of the observer, AQS has been provided by two meta-analyses (Cadman, Diamond, & Fearon, 2017;Van IJzendoorn, Vereijken, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Marianne Riksen-Walraven, 2004).…”

The Brief Attachment Scale (BAS‐16): A short measure of infant attachment

“…It was also surprising that neither the full AQS nor BAS‐16 significantly related to SSP classification of 15‐month olds. This is despite the relatively robust associations discerned in meta‐analytic reviews (Cadman et al, ; Van IJzendoorn et al, ). Given that this association was equally weak for the full AQS, it may reflect the particular methodology included in this study (e.g., the 11‐month interval of measurement between the AQS and SSP at a time of rapid infant development).…”

“…Following observation, raters sort cards describing child behaviour into nine piles ranging from “most descriptive of this child” to “least descriptive of this child.” A security score is calculated by correlating the individual sort with a criterion sort created from an expert consensus on the behaviours of the prototypically securely attached child. Support for the validity of the observer, AQS has been provided by two meta‐analyses (Cadman, Diamond, & Fearon, ; Van IJzendoorn, Vereijken, Bakermans‐Kranenburg, & Marianne Riksen‐Walraven, ).…”