ABSTRACT

Scholarly discussion suggests prevalent, overconfident use of attachment classifications in child protection (CP) investigations but no systematic research has examined actual prevalence, the methods used to derive such classifications, or their interpretations. We aimed to cover this gap using survey data from a nationally representative sample of Swedish CP workers (N = 191). Three key findings emerged. First, the vast majority formed an opinion about young children’s attachment quality in all or most investigations. Second, most did not employ systematic assessments, and none employed well-validated attachment methods. Third, there was overconfidence in the perceived implications of attachment classifications. For example, many believed that insecure attachment is a valid indicator of insufficient care. Our findings illustrate a wide researcher-practitioner gap. This gap is presumably due to inherent difficulties translating group-based research to the level of the individual, poor dissemination of attachment theory and research, and infrastructural pressures adversely influencing the quality of CP investigations.

摘要

学术讨论表明，在儿童保护 (CP) 调查中普遍、过度自信地使用依恋分类，但没有系统的研究检查实际流行、用于推导此类分类的方法或其解释。我们的目标是使用来自具有全国代表性的瑞典 CP 工人样本的调查数据来弥补这一差距 ( N = 191）。出现了三个关键发现。首先，绝大多数人在所有或大部分调查中形成了对幼儿依恋质量的看法。其次，大多数人没有采用系统的评估，也没有人采用经过充分验证的依恋方法。第三，对依恋分类的感知影响过于自信。例如，许多人认为不安全的依恋是照顾不足的有效指标。我们的研究结果说明了研究人员与从业者之间的广泛差距。这种差距可能是由于将基于群体的研究转化为个人水平的固有困难、依恋理论和研究的传播不畅，以及对 CP 调查质量产生不利影响的基础设施压力。