Misplaced Pages

Reactive attachment disorder

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ling.Nut (talk | contribs) at 01:51, 19 December 2007 (References: + journal ''Child Development'' 69(4):1092-106.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:51, 19 December 2007 by Ling.Nut (talk | contribs) (References: + journal ''Child Development'' 69(4):1092-106.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Medical condition
Reactive attachment disorder
SpecialtyPsychology Edit this on Wikidata

Reactive attachment disorder (also known as "RAD") is the broad term used to describe severe and relatively uncommon disorders of attachment which are classified in ICD-10 94.1 and 94.2, and DSM-IV 313.89. RAD is characterised by markedly disturbed and developmentally inappropriate social relatedness in most contexts, beginning before the age of 5 years. It should not be confused with less than ideal attachment 'styles' or attachment difficulties which do not amount to the clinical disorder defined as RAD. RAD should also be differentiated from pervasive developmental disorder or mental retardation, both of which conditions can affect attachment behavior.

RAD arises from a failure to form normal attachments to primary care giving figures in early childhood. Such a failure would result from unusual early experiences of neglect, abuse, abrupt separation from caregivers after about age 6 months but before about age 3 years, frequent change of caregivers, or a lack of caregiver responsiveness to a child's communicative efforts.

RAD was first defined in DSM in 1980. Important modifications have been made, but the core remains the same. The definitions in ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR are similar but not identical and are under constant review in this somewhat controversial area. There has been considerable recent research both on maltreated toddlers and on those from very deprived conditions in East European orphanages following the end of the Cold War. Such research has broadened the understanding of disorders of attachment, and findings have opened up new areas for research. Leading theorists in the field have proposed that a broader range of conditions arising from problems with attachment should be defined.

There is a variety of mainstream treatment and prevention programmes targeting both Reactive Attachment Disorder and other problematic early attachment behaviors. However, there is significant controversy over the diagnosis and treatment of RAD within the field of attachment therapy.

Theoretical framework

Main article: Attachment theory Main article: Attachment in children

A disorder in the clinical sense is a condition requiring treatment, as opposed to risk factors for subsequent disorders. There is a lack of consensus about the precise meaning of the term 'attachment disorder' although there is general agreement that such disorders only arise following early adverse caregiving experiences. There are also a number of attachment 'styles' namely 'secure', 'anxious-ambivalent', 'anxious-avoidant', (all 'organized') and 'disorganized', some of which are more problematical than others, but none constitute a 'disorder' in themselves. Reactive attachment disorder requires one or both of the attachment behaviors of proximity seeking to a specified attachment figure to be missing.

The theoretical framework for reactive attachment disorder is attachment theory, based on work from the 1940s to the 1980s by Bowlby, Ainsworth and Spitz. Attachment theory is an evolutionary theory in which the infant or child seeks proximity to a specified attachment figure in situations of alarm or distress, for the purpose of survival. Attachment is not the same as love and/or affection although they often go together. Attachment and attachment behaviors tend to develop between the age of 6 months and 3 years. Infants become attached to adults who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with the infant, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some time. Parental responses lead to the development of patterns of attachment which in turn lead to 'internal working models' which will guide the individuals feelings thoughts and expectations in later relationships.

Normal attachment develops during the child's first two to three years of life. Problems with the caregiver-child relationship during that time, orphanage experience, or breaks in the consistent caregiver-child relationship, (such as foster or adoptive placements) after the age of 6 months interferes with the normal development of a healthy and secure attachment. There are wide ranges of attachment difficulties that result in varying degrees of emotional disturbance in the child. However, less than ideal attachment styles are not within the criteria for RAD.

Classification

Main article: Attachment disorder

ICD-10 describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Childhood, known as RAD, and Disinhibited Disorder of Childhood, less well known as DAD. DSM-IV-TR also describes Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy or Early Childhood divided into two subtypes, Inhibited Type and Disinhibited Type, both known as RAD. The two classifications are similar and both include:

  • markedly disturbed and developmentally inappropriate social relatedness in most contexts.
  • The disturbance is not accounted for solely by developmental delay and does not meet the criteria for Pervasive Developmental Disorder.
  • Onset before 5 years of age.
  • Requires a history of significant neglect.
  • Implicit lack of identifiable, preferred attachment figure.

There must be a history of 'pathogenic care' defined as disregard of the child's basic emotional or physical needs or repeated changes in primary caregiver that prevents the formation of a discriminatory or selective attachment that is presumed to account for the disorder. For this reason, part of the diagnosis is the child's history of care rather than observation of symptoms.

In DSM-IV-TR the inhibited form is described as:

  • "Persistent failure to initiate or respond in a developmentally appropriate way to most social interactions, as manifest by excessively inhibited, hypervigilant, or highly ambivalent, or contradictory responses, e.g., the child may respond to caregivers with a mixture of approach, avoidance and resistance to comforting, or may exhibit frozen watchfulness.

Such infants do not seek and accept comfort at times of threat, alarm or distress, thus failing to maintain 'proximity', an essential element of attachment behavior.

The disinhibited form shows:

  • "Diffuse attachments as manifest by indiscriminate sociability with marked inability to exhibit appropriate selective attachments, e.g. excessive familiarity with relative strangers or lack of selectivity in choice of attachment figures"

There is therefore a lack of 'specificity', the second basic element of attachment behavior. The ICD-10 descriptions are comparable save that ICD-10 includes in its description several elements not included in DSM-IV-TR as follows:

  • psychological and physical abuse and injury in addition to neglect. This somewhat controversial, being a commission rather than omission and because abuse of itself does not lead to attachment disorder.
  • associated emotional disturbance.
  • poor social interaction with peers.

'Disinhibited' and 'inhibited' are not opposites in terms of attachment disorder and can co-exist in the same child. The inhibited form has a greater tendency to ameliorate with an appropriate caregiver, whilst the disinhibited form is more enduring. However, the disinhibited form can endure alongside structured attachment behavior (of any category) towards the child's permanent caregivers.

Some authors have proposed a broader continuum of definitions of attachment disorders ranging from RAD through various attachment difficulties to the more problematic attachment styles, but there is as yet no consensus on this issue. In particular, Zeanah and Boris, building on the earlier work of Leiberman, propose three categories of attachment disorder. The first of these is "disorder of attachment, " in which a young child has no preferred adult caregiver. This is parallel to RAD in its inhibited and disinhibited forms, as defined in DSM and ICD. The second is "secure base distortion" where the child has a preferred familiar caregiver, but the relationship is such that the child cannot use the adult for safety while gradually exploring the environment. Such children may endanger themselves, may cling to the adult, may be excessively compliant, or may show role reversals in which they care for or punish the adult. The third type is "disrupted attachment". Disrupted attachment is not covered under other approaches to disordered attachment, and results from an abrupt separation or loss of a familiar caregiver to whom attachment has developed.

RAD should be differentiated from pervasive developmental disorder or mental retardation, both of which conditions can affect attachment.

Incidence

RAD is considered to be "very uncommon" under the DSM-IV-TR criteria although there is an estimate of prevalence amongst children freed for adoption within the USA foster care system of 10%. There has been considerable recent research into prevalence amongst children cared for in orphanages, particularly in Romania, where conditions of extreme deprivation were not uncommon.

There are no precise statistics on prevalence. According to the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children (APSAC) Taskforce Report (2006), some have suggested that RAD may be quite prevalent because severe child maltreatment, which is known to increase risk for RAD, is prevalent. The Taskforce did not agree with this view, as severely abused children may exhibit similar behaviors to RAD behaviors, and there are several far more common and demonstrably treatable diagnoses which may better account for these difficulties. Many children experience severe maltreatment but do not develop clinical disorders. The Taskforce states that it should not be assumed that RAD underlies all or even most of the behavioral and emotional problems seen in foster children, adoptive children, or children who are maltreated. Rates of child abuse and/or neglect or problem behaviors should not serve as a benchmark for estimates of RAD. The Taskforce further point out that according to the DSM, RAD is presumed to be a “very uncommon” disorder.

Whilst RAD is likely to occur in relation to neglectful and abusive childcare, there should be no automatic diagnosis on this basis alone as children can form stable attachments and social relationships despite marked abuse and neglect. Abuse can occur alongside the required factors, but on its own does not explain attachment disorder. It is associated with developed, albeit disorganized attachment. Within official classifications, attachment disorganization is a risk factor for a range of psychological disorders including RAD, but is not in itself an attachment disorder. In addition, although attachment disorders tend to occur in a definable set of contexts (such as within some types of institutions, in the presence of repeated changes of primary caregiver or of extremely neglectful identifiable primary caregivers who show persistent disregard for the child's basic attachment needs), not all children raised in these conditions develop an attachment disorder.

According to Prior and Glaser (2006), in the absence of available and responsive caregivers it appears that some children are particularly vulnerable to developing attachment disorders. "The prevalence is unclear but is probably quite rare, other than in populations of children being reared in the most extreme, deprived settings such as some orphanages." Many children who have experienced serious maltreatment at the hands of their primary caregiver may have formed a disorganized attachment which manifests itself in difficult behaviors, but they would not fulfill the current criteria for RAD. There is a lack of clarity about the presentation of attachment disorders over the age of 5 years and difficulty in distinguishing between aspects of attachment disorders, disorganized attachment or the sequalae of maltreatment.

Diagnosis

Main article: Attachment measures

According to the APSAC Taskforce Report (2006), RAD is one of the least researched and most poorly understood disorders in the DSM. They make the point that there is little systematically gathered epidemiologic information on RAD, its "course" is not well established and it appears difficult to diagnose RAD accurately. Several other disorders, such as conduct disorders, oppositional defiant disorder, anxiety disorders, PTSD and social phobia share many symptoms and are often comorbid with or confused with RAD leading to over and under diagnosis. RAD can also be confused with neuropsychiatric disorders such as autism spectrum disorders, pervasive developmental disorder, childhood schizophrenia and some genetic syndromes. Some children simply have very different temperamental dispositions. The Taskforce specifically state "Because of these diagnostic complexities, careful diagnostic evaluation by a trained mental health expert with particular expertise in differential diagnosis is a must."

In the absence of a standardised diagnosis system, many popular, informal classification systems or 'checklists', outside the DSM and ICD, were created out of clinical and parental experience. These are unvalidated and critics state they are inaccurate, too broadly defined or applied by unqualified persons. Many are found on the websites of attachment therapists. Common features of these lists such as lying, lack of remorse or conscience and cruelty do not form part of the diagnostic criteria under DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10.

The Randolph Attachment Disorder Questionnaire or "RADQ" is one of the better known checklists and is used by attachment therapists and others. Critics assert that it lacks specificity and is unvalidated. The checklist includes 93 discrete behaviours, many of which either overlap with other disorders, like Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder or are not related to attachment difficulties.

Recognised assessment methods of attachment styles, difficulties or disorders include the Strange Situation procedure (Mary Ainsworth), the separation and reunion procedure and the Preschool Assessment of Attachment ("PAA"), the Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment ("ORCE") and the Attachment Q-sort ("AQ-sort"). More recent research also uses the Disturbances of Attachment Interview or "DAI" developed by Smyke and Zeanah, (1999). This is a semi-structured interview designed to be administered by clinicians to caregivers. It covers 12 items, namely having a discriminated, preferred adult, seeking comfort when distressed, responding to comfort when offered, social and emotional reciprocity, emotional regulation, checking back after venturing away from the care giver, reticence with unfamiliar adults, willingness to go off with relative strangers, self endangering behavior, excessive clinging, vigilance/hypercompliance and role reversal.

Treatment

Main article: Child therapy Main article: Attachment therapy

There is a variety of effective, mainstream prevention programs and treatment approaches for attachment disorder based on attachment theory. All such approaches for infants and younger children concentrate on increasing the responsiveness and sensitivity of the caregiver, or if that is not possible, changing the caregiver. Such approaches include 'Watch, wait and wonder,' manipulation of sensitive responsiveness, modified 'Interaction Guidance,'. 'Preschool Parent Psychotherapy,'. 'Circle of Security'., Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up (ABC),, the New Orleans Intervention, and Parent-Child psychotherapy. Other known treatment methods include Developmental, Individual-difference, Relationship-based therapy (DIR) (also referred to as Floor Time) by Stanley Greenspan, although DIR is primarily directed to treatment of pervasive developmental disorders

There is considerable controversy over the diagnosis and treatment of attachment disorders including reactive attachment disorder, by attachment therapy, a form of diagnosis and treatment that is largely unvalidated and has developed outside the scientific mainstream. These therapies have little or no evidence base and vary from non-coercive therapeutic work to more extreme forms of physical and coercive techniques, of which the best known are holding therapy, rebirthing, rage-reduction and the Evergreen model. In general these therapies are aimed at adopted or fostered children with a view to creating attachment in these children to their new caregivers. The theoretical base is broadly a combination of regression and catharsis, accompanied by parenting methods which emphasise obedience and parental control. Critics maintain that these therapies are not within the attachment paradigm and are potentially abusive. The APSAC Taskforce Report of 2006 notes that many of these therapies concentrate on changing the child rather than the caregiver.

Recent research on deprived populations

A 1998 study showed that children adopted from poorly run Romanian orphanages had a higher frequency of insecure patterns of attachment than control groups, although this difference improved in the follow-up study 3 years later. However they continued to show significantly higher levels of indiscriminate friendliness.

A later study looked at children adopted in the UK who had suffered early severe deprivation in Romania, some 'early placed' and some 'late placed'. The 'late-placed' children showed a far higher incidence of atypical insecure patterns such as displaying both strong avoidant and strong dependent attachment behavior patterns.

A 2002 study of children in residential nurseries in Bucharest, using the DAI, challenged the current DSM and ICD conceptualisations of disordered attachment and showed that inhibited and disinhibited disorders could co-exist in the same child. It also showed higher incidence of RAD in the standard care group in the institution than in the 'pilot group' receiving more consistent care, or in the non-institutionalised group.

A 2005 study comparing institutionalised and community children in Bucharest, using the DAI, again showed significantly higher levels of both forms of RAD in the institutionalised children, regardless of how long they had been there. Further, only 22% of the institutionalised children had organised attachments, as opposed to 78% of the community children, and all the children in the community group showed clear attachment patterns as opposed to only 3% in the institutionalised group. It would appear that children in institutions like these are unable to form selective attachments to their caregivers. The study also concluded the signs of RAD-related to how fully developed and expressed attachment behaviors are rather than the organisation of a particular pattern.

There are two important studies relating to high risk and maltreated children in the USA. The first, in 2004, compared ill-treated children in foster care, children in a homeless shelter with their mothers and low income children in the Head Start programme. The children were assessed using DSM and ICD and Zeanah and Boris' alternative proposed criteria. The study reports that children from the maltreatment sample were significantly more likely to meet criteria for one or more attachment disorders than children from the other groups, however this was mainly disrupted attachment disorder rather than DSM or ICD classified disorder. Under DSM and ICD classifications there was little difference between the foster care and homeless shelter groups.

The second study, also in 2004, was for the purposes of ascertaining prevalence of RAD, whether RAD could be reliably identified in maltreated rather than neglected toddlers and whether the two types of RAD were independent. The DAI and DSM and ICD were used. 35% were identified as having ICD RAD and 22% as having ICD DAD. 38% fulfilled the DSM criteria for RAD. The study found that RAD could be reliably identified and also that the inhibited and disinhibited forms were not independent. However, there are some methodological concerns with this study. A number of the children identified as fulfilling the criteria did in fact have a preferred attachment figure. This study also showed that mothers with a history of psychiatric problems were more likely to have children exhibiting signs of inhibited/emotionally withdrawn RAD but mothers with a history of psychiatric problems and substance misuse had children more likely to exhibit signs of disinhibited/indiscriminate RAD.

Studies of children who were reared in institutions have suggested that they are inattentive and overactive, no matter what quality of care they received. In one investigation, some institution-reared boys were reported to be inattentive, overactive, and markedly unselective in their social relationships, while girls, foster-reared children, and some institution-reared children were not. It is not yet clear whether these behaviors should be considered as part of disordered attachment.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ O'Connor & Zeanah 2003, pp.219-220.
  2. AACAP 2005, p. 1208.
  3. Bowlby (1999) p. 225-227.
  4. Bowlby (1999) p. 313-317.
  5. Bretherton & Munholland 1999, p.89
  6. Bowlby (1999) p. 354.
  7. Prior & Glaser 2006, p. 220-221.
  8. Prior & Glaser 2006, p. 216.
  9. Boris et al. 1998, pp.295-297.
  10. DSM-IV American Psychiatric Association 1994, as discussed in Chaffin et al. 2006, p. 81
  11. Prior & Glaser 2006, p. 218-219
  12. Prior & Glaser 2006, p. 219.
  13. Prior & Glaser 2006, p. 228
  14. Hanson & Spratt, 2000, p. 137; Wilson, 2001, p. 49. Comment quoted from Chaffin et al. 2006, p. 81
  15. Chaffin et al. 2006, p. 82-83. The APSAC Taskforce Report
  16. Randolph 1996.
  17. "The findings showed that children in foster care have reported symptoms within the range typical of children not involved in foster care. The conclusion is that the RADQ has limited usefulness due to its lack of specificity with implications for treatment of children in foster care". Cappelletty et al. 2005, pp.71-84.
  18. Ainsworth 1978,
  19. Main & Solomon 1986, pp.95-124.
  20. Main & Solomon 1990, pp. 121-160.
  21. Crittenden 1992
  22. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development(1996)
  23. Waters and Deane 1985
  24. Smyke and Zeanah (1999)
  25. Prior & Glaser 2006, p. 231.
  26. AACAP 2005 p. 17-18.
  27. BakermansKranenburg et al. (2003) A meta-analysis of early interventions.
  28. Cohen et al. 1999
  29. van den Boom 1994
  30. van den Boom 1995
  31. Benoit et al.
  32. Toth et al. (2002)
  33. Marvin et al (2002)
  34. Cooper et al (2005)
  35. Dozier et al (2005)
  36. Larrieu & Zeanah
  37. Larrieu & Zeannah (2004)
  38. Zeannah & Smyke
  39. Leiberman et al. 2000, p. 432.
  40. Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental & Learning Disorders. (2007). Dir/floortime model.
  41. Chaffin et al. 2006, p. 85. The APSAC Taskforce Report
  42. Chaffin et al. 2006, p. 79-80. The APSAC Taskforce Report.
  43. Prior & Glaser 2006, p. 267.
  44. Chaffin et al. 2006, p. 79. The APSAC Taskforce Report.
  45. Chisholm et al. (1995)
  46. Chisholm (1998)
  47. O'Connor et al.(2003)
  48. Smyke et al.(2002)
  49. Zeanah & Smyke et al.(2005)
  50. Boris et al.(2004)
  51. Zeanah et al.(2004)
  52. Prior & Glaser 2006, p. 215
  53. Roy et al.(2004)

References

  • Ainsworth. Mary D., Blehar, M., Waters, E., &b Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-89859-461-8.
  • American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP)(2005). Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Reactive Attachment Disorder of Infancy and Early Childhood.(PDF) Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Nov; 44:
  • Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., van IJzendoorn, M. and Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. (PDF) Psychological Bulletin 129, 195-215
  • Benoit, D., Madigan, S., Lecce, S., Shea, B. and Goldberg, S. (2001). Atypical maternal behaviour toward feeding disordered infants before and after intervention. Infant mental health journal 22, 611-626.
  • Boris N. W, Zeanah C. & Larrieu, A. et al. (1998). Attachment Disorders in Infancy and Early Childhood: A Preliminary Investigation of Diagnostic Criteria. American Journal of Psychiatry February 1998, 295-297.
  • Boris, N., Hinshaw-Fuselier, S., Smyke, A., Scheeringa, M., Heller, S., and Zeanah, C. (2004). Comparing criteria for attachment disorders: establishing reliability and validity in high risk samples. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent psychiatry 43, 568-577.
  • Bowlby J 2nd edition (1999). Attachment, Attachment and Loss (vol. 1), New York: Basic Books. LCCN 00266879; NLM 8412414. ISBN 0-465-00543-8 (pbk). OCLC 11442968.
  • Bowlby J (1973). Separation: Anxiety & Anger, Attachment and Loss (vol. 2). (International psycho-analytical library no.95). London: Hogarth Press. ISBN 0712666214 (pbk). ISBN 0-70120-301-3. OCLC 8353942.
  • Bowlby J (1980). Loss: Sadness & Depression, Attachment and Loss (vol. 3). (International psycho-analytical library no.109). London: Hogarth Press. ISBN 0-465-04238-4 (pbk). ISBN 0-70120-350-1. OCLC 59246032.
  • Bretherton, I. and Munholland, K., A. (1999). Internal Working Models in Attachment Relationships: A Construct Revisited. In Cassidy, J. and Shaver, P., R. (Eds.) Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications..pp.89-111. Guilford Press ISBN 1-57230-087-6.
  • Cappelletty, G., Brown, M., Shumate, S. (2005). Correlates of the Randolph Attachment Disorder Questionnaire (RADQ) in a Sample of Children in Foster Placement. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, Volume 22, Number 1, pp. 71-84 (14).
  • Chaffin M; et al. (Feb 2006). Report of the APSAC Task Force on Attachment Therapy, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and Attachment Problems. Child Maltreatment 11 (1): 76-89. doi:10.1177/1077559505283699. ISSN 1552-6119.
  • Chisholm K. (1998). 'A three year follow-up of attachment and indiscriminate friendliness in children adopted from Romanian orphanages.' Child Development 69(4):1092-106.
  • Chisholm K. Carter M., Ames E., and Morison S., (1995). Attachment Security and indiscriminately friendly behavior in children adopted from Romanian orphanages. Development and psychopathology 7, 283-294.
  • Cohen, N., Muir, E., Lojkasek, M., Muir, R., Parker, C., Barwick, M. and Brown, M. (1999) 'Watch, wait and wonder: testing the effectiveness of a new approach to mother-infant psychotherapy.' Infant Mental health Journal 20, 429-451.
  • Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Powell, B. and Marvin, R. (2007). The Circle of Security Intervention; differential diagnosis and differential treatment. In Berlin, L.J., Ziv, Y., Amaya-Jackson, L. and Greenberg, M.T. (Eds.) Enhancing Early Attachments; Theory, research, intervention, and policy. The Guilford Press. Duke series in Child Development and Public Policy. pp 127-151. ISBN 1593854706.
  • Crittenden, P. M. (1992). Quality of attachment in the preschool years. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 209-241.
  • Dozier, M., Lindheim, O. and Ackerman, J., P. 'Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up: An intervention targeting empirically identified needs of foster infants'. In Berlin, L.J., Ziv, Y., Amaya-Jackson, L. and Greenberg, M.T. (Eds.) Enhancing Early Attachments; Theory, research, intervention, and policy The Guilford press. Duke series in Child Development and Public Policy. pp 178 - 194. (2005)ISBN 1593854706 (pbk)
  • Hanson, R. F., &Spratt, E. G. (2000). Reactive attachment disorder: What we know about the disorder and implications for treatment. Child Maltreatment, 5(2), 137-145.
  • Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental & Learning Disorders. (2007). Dir/floortime model.
  • Larrieu, J. A. and Zeanah, C.H. (1998) Intensive intervention for maltreated infants and toddlers in foster care. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 7, 357-371.
  • Larrieu, J.A. & Zeanah, C.H. (2004). Treating infant-parent relationships in the context of maltreatment: An integrated, systems approach. In A.Saner, S. McDonagh, & K. Roesenblaum (Eds.) Treating parent-infant relationship problems (pp. 243-264). New York: Guilford Press IBSN 1593852452
  • Lieberman, A.F., Silverman, R., Pawl, J.H. (2000). Infant-parent psychotherapy. In C.H. Zeanah, Jr. (Ed.) Handbook of infant mental health (2nd ed.) (p. 432). New York: Guilford Press. ISBN 1593851715
  • Main, M. and Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern: procedures, findings and implications for the classification of behavior. In T. Braxelton and M.Yogman (Eds.) Affective development in infancy, (pp. 95-124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex IBSN 0893913456
  • Main, M. and Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti and E. Cummings (Eds.) Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research and intervention, (pp. 121-160). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226306305.
  • Marvin, R., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K. and Powell, B. The Circle of Security project: Attachment-based intervention with caregiver – pre-school child dyads. (PDF) Attachment & Human Development Vol 4 No 1 April 2002 107–124.
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1996). Characteristics of infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 269-306
  • O'Connor T., Marvin R., Rutter M., Olrick J., Britner P. and the English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team (2003). Child-parent attachment following early institutional deprivation. Development and Psychopathology 15, 19-38.
  • O'Connor T.G. & Zeanah CH (2003). Attachment disorders: Assessment strategies and treatment approaches. Attachment & Human Development 5 (3): 223-244. doi:10.1080/14616730310001593974. ISSN 1461-6734. .
  • Prior V., Glaser D. (2006). Understanding Attachment and Attachment Disorders. Theory, Evidence and Practice. Child and Adolescent Mental health series, RCPRTU, Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN-13: 978-1-84310-245-8 (pbk)
  • Randolph, Elizabeth Marie. (1996). Randolph Attachment Disorder Questionnaire. Institute for Attachment, Evergreen CO.
  • Roy, P., Rutter, M., & Pickles, A. (2004). Institutional care: Associations between overactivity and lack of selectivity in social relationships. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (4), 866-873.
  • Smyke, A. and Zeanah, C. (1999). Disturbances of Attachment Interview. Available on the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry website at www.jaacap.com.
  • Smyke, A., Dumitrescu, A. and Zeanah, C (2002). Attachment disturbances in young children: The continuum of caretaking casualty. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 41, 972-982.
  • Toth, S., Maughan, A., Manly, J., Spagnola, M. and Cicchetti, D. (2002) The relative efficacy of two in altering maltreated preschool children's representational models: implications for attachment theory. Development and psychopathology 14, 877-908.
  • van den Boom, D. (1994). The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and exploration: an experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class mothers with irritable infants. Child Development 65, 1457-1477.
  • van den Boom, D. (1995). Do first year intervention effects endure? Follow-up during toddlerhood of a sample of Dutch irritable infants. Child development 66, 1798-1816.
  • Waters, E. and Deane, K (1985). Defining and assessing individual differences in attachment relationships: Q-methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In I. Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds) Growing pains of attachment theory and research: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 50, Serial No. 209 (1-2), 41-65
  • Wilson, S. L. (2001). Attachment disorders: Review and current status. Journal of Psychology, 135, 37-51.
  • Zeanah, C., H. and Smyke, A., T. "Building Attachment Relationships Following Maltreatment and Severe Deprivation" In Berlin, L., J., Ziv, Y., Amaya-Jackson, L. and Greenberg, M., T. Enhancing Early Attachments; Theory, research, intervention, and policy The Guilford Press, 2005 pps 195-216 ISBN 1593854706 (pbk)
  • Zeanah, C., Scheeringa, M., Boris, N., Heller, S., Smyke, A. & Trapani, J. (2004). Reactive Attachment Disorder in Maltreated Toddlers. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, 2004-28-8. Retrieved on April 25, 2007.
  • Zeanah, C., Smyke, A., Koga, S., and Carlson, E. (2005). Attachments in institutionalised and Community Children in Romania. Child Development 76, 1015-1028.
Mental disorders (Classification)
Adult personality and behavior
Sexual
Other
Childhood and learning
Emotional and behavioral
Intellectual disability
Psychological development
(developmental disabilities)
Mood (affective)
Neurological and symptomatic
Autism spectrum
Dementia
Other
Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform
Adjustment
Anxiety
Phobia
Other
Dissociative
Somatic symptom
Physiological and physical behavior
Eating
Nonorganic sleep
Postnatal
Sexual desire
Psychoactive substances, substance abuse and substance-related
Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional
Delusional
Psychosis and
schizophrenia-like
Schizophrenia
Other
Symptoms and uncategorized
Attachment theory
Theory
Notable theorists
Controversy
Clinical applications
Others
Categories: