The third developer, Gary Diamond no relationship to Guy Diamond lives in Israel and was not available for the interview. In I got my first post-MSW job as a crisis worker for children and adolescents. Our job was to assess youth for suicide risk, coordinate with schools, juvenile detention facilities, emergency shelters, residential treatment facilities and hospital, and provide what we called short-term stabilization therapy.
No, we assumed that working with the family was an essential part of reducing suicide risk and getting the youth and family back to their pre-crisis functioning. Despite the excellent supervision and on-the-job training I received, we were all just flying by the seat of our pants. In there were no published research studies on how to best work with suicidal youth. I share this with you for two reasons: First, many of you listening are working with populations and problems for which there is mostly clinical wisdom.
Find out if there are empirically-supported interventions for the populations, problems, and settings in which you work. Second, you can imagine how excited I was in — 12 years after my first job as a crisis worker - when I found out that someone had developed a family-based intervention for suicidal youth. David Brent, the guy I mentioned a few minutes ago that did the study, told me that Guy Diamond in Philadelphia was doing research on families and suicidal youth.
Fast forward to and I learned that Guy was starting a 5-year clinical trial comparing ABFT to… wait for it… a version of the supportive therapy David Brent developed for his classic study. I was very excited to do an episode on ABFT for several reasons: First, anyone who works with suicidal youth needs to consider the family system. Third, in social work education and practice there is a lot of talk about empirically supported treatments. I wanted to talk to the folks who are on the front lines of developing and testing an empirically supported treatment.
- Please complete our audience survey.
- Treating Trauma in Adolescents?
- A History Of The World In 10 1/2 Chapters?
- American Psychological Association, Division 53.
- Recommended for you;
So, participants in the ABFT study receive top-notch supervised therapy for 16 weeks, and are followed by a research team for a total of a year. I was grateful to be able to schedule a time with Dr. In fact, we spoke in one of the therapy rooms where participants receive either the experimental condition - ABFT, or the control condition - non-directive supportive therapy. If you listen closely you can hear the project staff opening and closing doors, walking up and down the halls, etc.
This is a partial list of publications on ABFT. A full list of publications through March can be downloaded by clicking this link.
Attachment-based therapy (children) - Wikipedia
Posted by Jonathan B. Most of the adolescent mothers of both groups were Italian. The rest were European or Latin American who knew the Italian language and were integrated into the Italian cultural context. In the intervention group 26 mothers were Italian, 2 European and 4 Latin American and in the control group 14 were Italian and 2 Latin American. At infant 3, 6, and 9 months, mother-infant interactions were video-recorded and coded with the Care-Index Crittenden, and a modified version of Infant and Caregiver Engagement Phases Weinberg and Tronick, ; Riva Crugnola et al.
The Adult Attachment Interview George et al. As previously described in the intervention group intervention began at 3 months risk having been identified at 2 months with video intervention sessions every month. The mean number of video intervention sessions was 2. Counseling sessions were also conducted each month. In the intervention group the mean number of counseling sessions was 3. Developmental guidance sessions were also conducted monthly. In the intervention group the mean number of developmental guidance sessions was 3. The control group did not follow the intervention program, but did receive routine postnatal well-woman health visits and well-baby healthcare visits.
The AAI is a semi-structured interview which explores the interviewees' relations with their parents as children, including early separation and means of comfort-seeking. According to the Main coding system Main et al. The interviews were scored by the first author, who is trained and reliable with the AAI coding system. The category Negative RF -1 covers interviewees who are confused or hostile and refuse all attempts on the part of the interviewer to get them to begin any reflection; the category Lacking in RF 1 covers interviewees in whom the reflective function is totally or almost totally absent.
They may mention mental states occasionally with respect to themselves or others, but such mentioning is not connected to feelings underlying the behavior of the interviewee; the category Questionable or Low RF 3 covers interviewees who display some evidence of awareness of mental states, albeit at a fairly rudimentary level.
The category Ordinary RF 5 covers interviewees who possess some type of model of the mind of attachment figures and of their own mind which is relatively consistent if simple; the category Marked RF 7 covers interviewees who demonstrate awareness of the nature of mental states for the entire interview and express efforts to reflect on the mental states underlying behavior; the category Exceptional RF 9 covers interviewees who are exceptionally sophisticated and surprising, adopting causal reasoning in which mental states are used.
Both coders the first and second authors were trained and reliable for the RF scales.
- Attachment-Based Clinical Work with Children and Adolescents.
- A Walk in the Woods: Rediscovering America on the Appalachian Trail (Official Guides to the Appalachian Trail)!
- Module Details;
- Treating Trauma in Adolescents.
- Log in to Wiley Online Library?
- Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology.
The Child-Adult Relationship Experimental Index Care-Index; Crittenden, is a coding instrument for caregiver-infant interaction from 0 to 15 months. There are three scales which measure the behavior of the adult: Sensitivity , covers responsive behavior, involvement which is positive and in harmony with the emotions of the infant and his activities; Controlling , covers directive behavior characterized by open or implicit hostility pseudo-sensitive and interference with the activity of the infant, such as excessive handling of the infant's body, raised tone of voice and hyperstimulation; Unresponsiveness , covers behavior marked by physical and emotional detachment from the infant, such as silence, failure to offer play, little or no involvement.
The infant's behavior is assessed according to four scales: Cooperative , covers behavior associated with the expression of positive emotions, centered on undertaking actions and accepting those offered by the caregiver; Compliant-Compulsive , covers cautious and inhibited behavior with an indirect and compliant approach toward the mother; Difficult , covers behavior which is explicitly resistant to proposals of the mother, such as avoiding gaze, crying, throwing objects and negative vocalization; Passive , covers behavior aimed at reducing physical and emotional contact with the mother, such as failure to vocalize and looking at surroundings.
What to Expect
For all scales the scores vary from 0 to With respect to the scores given to maternal sensitivity and infant cooperativeness, the range of scores 0—4 is considered high risk and indicates poor sensitivity of a problematic type requiring therapeutic intervention, the range of scores 5—6 is the range within which intervention is considered necessary as maternal sensitivity is only marginally adequate, 7—10 indicates adequate sensitivity and 11—14 indicates very good sensitivity.
The two coders were blind to the classification of maternal attachment and reflective function scores. The interactions were also coded by the Infant Caregiver and Engagement Phases ICEP; Weinberg and Tronick, , which we modified to analyze the interaction between mother and infant concerning objects Riva Crugnola et al. This is a system which evaluates the behavior of mother and infant during face-to-face play on the basis of emotions expressed, gaze direction, vocalization, and verbalization.
Since the original coding system was created to evaluate mother and infant interaction in the Still Face paradigm, which does not involve the use of objects, we introduced new categories with the aim of exploring the way in which infants and their mothers direct attention to objects during play.
Attachment Theory Books
Maternal and infant behaviors were analyzed second by second, using the Noldus Observer XT system. Coding was continuous and occurred for every instance of a behavior. Maternal and infant behaviors were analyzed second by second. The codes were mutually exclusive. Infant and maternal behavior was coded separately, and at different times, by the same researcher. It was decided to use the same coder given the interactive characteristic of many codes e.
It was therefore important that in coding one member of the dyad the researcher also bore in mind the behavior of the other.
- Geological Disposal of Carbon Dioxide and Radioactive Waste: A Comparative Assessment.
- Navigation menu?
- About This Program!
- 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created.
The Sleeps, Observes Stranger and Unscorable categories of the infant and the Unscorable category of the mother were not included in the behavior analysis or in the grouping of affective states since they were low frequency and not relevant for the assessment of individual and dyadic emotional regulation. The concept of match and mismatch used by Tronick et al.
Attachment theory in adolescence and its relevance to developmental psychopathology
Total mismatches correspond to the sum of all six different states of mismatch see Table 2. Lastly, we also calculated repair Tronick et al. The coder evaluated the behavior of both mother and infant. Inter-rater agreement in the second-by-second codes calculated by Cohen's Kappa coefficient Cohen, was 0. The two coders were blind to the classification of maternal attachment and the scores of reflective function. Descriptive statistics and comparisons were calculated between intervention and control groups with respect to demographic characteristics and baseline measures to determine the equivalence of the two groups; t -tests for the continuous variables and Chi-square test or Fisher's exact tests for nominal variables were applied.
To evaluate the effects of intervention on mother-infant interaction, Generalized Linear Mixed Models GLMMs with fixed effects including group, time and interaction between group and time and subject level random intercepts were used to analyze group differences and changes in mother-infant interaction from 3 to 9 months between the two different groups. In particular, the effect of interaction between group and time was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, i. GLMM procedure for correlations between repeated measures within subjects allows analyzing both fixed and time-varying covariates and automatically handles missing data.
Maternal attachment representations secure vs. It was decided to use only maternal attachment as a possible moderating factor on the effectiveness of the intervention, given that there was a high multicollinearity relationship between maternal attachment and scores of reflective functioning. Table 3 shows the comparison made of the intervention and control groups with respect to socio-demographic variables and risk factors with the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test and the t -test according to whether the variables were nominal or continuous in order to determine the equivalence of the two groups.
The results did not indicate any significant differences between the intervention and control groups at the baseline stage of infant 3 months. Three mothers In both groups the adolescent mothers also had a low score in reflective functioning. In particular the mothers of the intervention group had an average score of 2.
Interaction styles at 3 months, at the baseline pre-intervention stage, were analyzed first of all to see whether there were any differences between intervention and control groups. Analysis conducted with the t -test did not indicate any significant differences between the two groups at 3 months with regard to either mother or infant styles. At the pre-intervention assessment, following the Care-Index coding scheme, the average scores in the range of sensitivity of the dyads was 5 for the mothers of both groups and 3.
Figure 1. A Differences in Sensitivity style for the mothers who participated in the intervention and for the mothers of the control group from 3 to 9 months. B Differences in Control style for the mothers who participated in the intervention and for the mothers of the control group from 3 to 9 months. C Differences in Cooperative style for the infants who participated in the intervention and for the infants of the control group from 3 to 9 months. D Differences in Passive style for the infants who participated in the intervention and for the infants of the control group from 3 to 9 months.
However, the mothers of the control group differed in that they showed a decrease in Sensitivity style and maintained a high Controlling style from 3 to 9 months. The infants of the control group differed in that Cooperative style at 9 months did not change with respect to 3 months, and there was a decrease at 6 months, and Passive style increased from 3 to 9 months.
At the post-intervention assessment by the Care-Index, the intervention group at 9 months reached an average score of 8. Firstly, we analyzed the individual behaviors of mother and infant in relation to play with objects and affective coordination and repair assessed with ICEP at 3 months at the pre-intervention baseline stage in order to see whether there were any differences between intervention and control groups.
Analysis conducted with the t -test did not indicate any significant differences between the two groups at 3 months. We present hereunder the results for the individual categories of behavior as per ICEP concerning play with objects.