Attachment in institutionalized children: A review and meta-analysis
Attachment in institutionalized children: A review and meta-analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.013
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-01
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Barone, Lavinia
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lionetti, Francesca;Pastore, Massimiliano;Barone, Lavinia
在这篇文章中，我们回顾了文献中的依恋模式，在机构设置，然后进行荟萃分析的数据从10个依恋研究涉及399名儿童在机构设置。我们计算了安全、不安全和混乱率的总体依恋分布，并探讨了一组调节变量（即，收容国、实习评估程序、入学年龄和评估年龄）。为了克服与少量研究相关的偏倚，我们进行了经典和贝叶斯荟萃分析，并获得了可比的结果。儿童依恋模式的分布是：18%的安全，28%的不安全，和54%的混乱/无法分类。与家庭抚养的同龄人相比，生活在机构中的儿童被发现有更大的不安全和混乱的依恋风险，两种分布的中等效应量相似（d = 0.77和d = 0.76）。分别）。以下调节变量与不安全的附件：代表性评估程序（d= 0.63）和东欧原籍国（d = 1.13）。混乱的附件的调节因子是：东欧国家的原籍国（d = 1.12），年龄在机构进入前的第一个生日（d = 0.93），并在评估年龄在三岁以下（d= 0.91）。对儿童发展和政策的影响进行了讨论。(c)2015爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有。
In this article we review the literature on attachment patterns in institutionalized children and then perform a meta-analysis on data from 10 attachment studies involving 399 children in institutional settings. We computed the overall attachment distribution of secure, insecure, and disorganized rates and explored the effect of a set of moderating variables (i.e., country of institutionalization, attachment assessment procedure, age at entry, and age at assessment). To overcome bias related to the small number of studies, we conducted both classical and Bayesian meta-analysis and obtained comparable results. Distribution of children's attachment patterns was: 18% secure, 28% insecure, and 54% disorganized/cannot classify. Compared to their family-reared peers, children living in an institution were found to be at greater risk for insecure and disorganized attachment, with a similar medium effect size for both distributions (d = 0.77 and d = 0.76. respectively). The following moderating variables were associated with insecure attachment: representational assessment procedures (d= 0.63) and Eastern European countries of origin (d = 1.13). Moderators for disorganized attachment were: Eastern European countries of origin (d = 1.12), age at institution entry before the first birthday (d = 0.93), and age at assessment under three years of age (d= 0.91). Implications for child development and policies are discussed. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.