Stability and discriminant validity of the Adult Attachment Interview: A psychometric study in young Israeli adults.

Abstract

Fifty-nine male and female Israeli students were interviewed twice by 2 different interviewers at 3month intervals to assess the Adult Attachment Interview's (AAI; C. George, N. Kaplan, & M. test-retest reliability and the effects of the interviewers on the interview itself as well as its subsequent classification. Various memory measures were used to obtain a wide range of information about subjects' memory abilities. Information was also obtained from the students' records about various intelligence-related skills. Results showed high degree of interjudge and test-retest reliabilities, irrespective of interviewers. The classifications on the AAI were not found to be associated with nonattachment-related memory and intelligence abilities.The Adult Attachment Interview (AAI; George, has recently come into increasing use in connection with the study of intergenerational transmission of attachment. The AAI represents an attempt to assess current mental representation by adults of their childhood attachment experiences (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Even when applied before the birth of a child, the AAI has been found to predict the quality of infant-parent attachment relationships (Benoit & Parker, in press;Fonagy, Steele, & Steele, 1991; Radojevic, 1992; Ward & Carlson, in press). In a meta-analysis of 18 studies involving a total of 854 families, Van Uzendoorn (in press) found that there is a substantial overall effect size for the relation between adult-attachment security and infant-attachment security (combined r = .47).The psychometric properties of the AAI have received much less attention (Bakermans-Kranenburg & Van Uzendoorn, 1993;Waters et al., 1993), although the precise meaning of developmental measures can only be established by psychometric

Ecological Constraints for Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment

“…A fourth category, Unresolved mourning or trauma (U), is conceptually most related to the D-type infant (Main & Goldwyn, 1994). However, the inclusion of the Uand D-categories here is beyond the scope of this paper (Sagi et al, 1994b) and only the Ds, F, and E groups for the AAI, and the ABC Strange Situation categories were analysed in the present study.…”

“…see the meta-analysis by Van IJzendoorn, 1995). Test-retest reliability has been established (Bakermans-Kranenburg & Van IJzendoorn, 1993;Beniot & Parker, 1994;Sagi et al, 1994b), and in studies conducted in the Netherlands, Israel, and the United States, it has been determined that AAI classi cations are not in uenced by the participants' verbal and cognitive abilities and memory skills (BakermansKranenburg & Van IJzendoorn, 1993;Crowell et al, 1993;Sagi et al, 1994b;Waters et al, 1993).…”

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of parenting interventions for children with severe attachment problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…23,147,172 There are also differences in inter-rater reliability (e.g. 0.76 in one study 173 ). These do not invalidate the usefulness of the concept of attachment and the great diversity of insights that this literature affords us, but they do present challenges when we wish to use attachment patterns as markers of children who require intervention or as markers of outcome.…”

Disorganized reasoning in Holocaust survivors.

“…Intercoder reliability for the AAI using a fourway classification system (cannot classify or unresolved in one group, F, Ds, E) reached an agreement of 86% (kappa ϭ .76); reliability of the scales for unresolved loss and trauma was .89. It should be noted that in previous studies in Holland, Israel, and the United States, the psychometric characteristics of the AAI have proven to be excellent (BakermansKranenburg & Van IJzendoorn, 1993;Crowell et al, 1996;Sagi, Van IJzendoorn, Scharf, Koren-Karie, Joels, & Mayseless, 1994;Van IJzendoorn, 1995). The distribution of the main classifications for the AAI (secure-autonomous, insecure-dismissing, insecure-preoccupied, and insecurecannot classify) for the Holocaust and the control groups, respectively, was as follows: secure-autonomous, 16 (33%) versus 23 (46%); insecure-dismissing, 21 (44%) versus 23 (46%); insecure-preoccupied, 4 (8%) versus 2 (4%); and insecure-cannot classify, 7 (15%) versus 2 (4%).…”