↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of attachment disorder symptoms in foster children: comparing diagnostic assessment tools

Overview of attention for article published in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of attachment disorder symptoms in foster children: comparing diagnostic assessment tools
Published in
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13034-018-0250-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josephine D. Kliewer-Neumann, Janin Zimmermann, Ina Bovenschen, Sandra Gabler, Katrin Lang, Gottfried Spangler, Katja Nowacki

Abstract

Standardized methods for assessing attachment disorders are scarce but needed for research and practice. In the current study, several assessments for attachment disorder symptoms are used within a German sample of foster children after being exposed to neglect and maltreatment in their biological families. The symptoms were assessed with four established assessment methods based on both parents' report and behavioral observation: The Rating for Infant Stranger Engagement, the Stranger at the Door, the Disturbances of Attachment Interview and the Reactive Attachment Disorder Questionnaire. The foster care sample showed symptoms of both the inhibited and the disinhibited attachment disorder. The degree of symptoms is comparable to previous findings. The results of the different tools investigating the disinhibited type of attachment disorder are correlated to each other, but do not overlap. Although all approaches are based on the clinical criteria of the DSM-IV, the assessments do not coincide. Each tool provides a different point of view on the symptoms, so a multi methodical approach for assessing attachment disorder symptoms should be implemented. Furthermore, the inhibited and the disinhibited symptoms represent separate categories, as reflected in the DSM-5, requiring separate assessment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 19 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 45%
Social Sciences 8 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2020.
All research outputs
#3,144,873
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
#146
of 666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,790
of 333,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.