ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.

22166 25

DIMENSIONALITY AND PSYCHOMETRIC

PROPERTIES OF A NEW CHILD
ATTACHMENT ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT

DIMENSIONALIDAD Y PROPIEDADES
PSICOMÉTRICAS DE UN NUEVO
INSTRUMENTO DE EVALUACIÓN DEL
APEGO EN NIÑOS

JOSÉ JAVIER MOYA ARROYO1, MIGUEL ÁNGEL CARRASCO1 Y

PURIFICACIÓN SIERRA1

Cómo referenciar este artículo/How to reference this article:

Moya Arroyo, J. J., Carrasco, M. A. y Sierra, P. (2018). Dimensionality and Psychometric Properties of a
New Child Attachment Assessment Instrument [ D i m e ns i on a l i da d y p r o p i e da de s
p s ic o mé t r i c a s de u n nu e v o i ns t r u me n t o de e v a l u a c ió n de l a pe go ] . Acción Psicológica,
15(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap. 15.1.22166

to obtain criterial validity. Findings reveal a multi-internal

Abstract structure composed of four factors that refer to children´s
reactions (positive, trustful, negative and mistrustful) and
The Children Attachment Interview (EAN) is a new five factors that refer to child-attachment figure
instrument based on story telling reports. The main interactions (empathic, trustful, positive, rivalry and pro-
purpose of this study is to analyze the structure and basic arousal). Scales demonstrated adequate internal
psychometric properties of the EAN through exploratory consistency. The comparison of scales between general
factor analyses based on a sample of 115 Spanish children and criterial groups, and correlations with related
aged 8 to 13 years (63 % boys). Another two matched constructs indicate good construct validity.
samples from the risk social population and clinical Keywords: Telling stories; Children; Assessment;
population were compared with the main sample in order Working internal model; Attachment.

Correspondencia: Miguel Ángel Carrasco Ortiz. Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
(UNED). Email: [email protected]

ORCID: José Javier Moya Arroyo (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7369-7468), Miguel Ángel Carrasco Ortiz
(https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3282-818X) y Purificación Sierra García (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3774-2975).
1
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, España.

Recibido: 02 de abril de 2018.

Aceptado: 03 de mayo de 2018.
 26 ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166

tions for significant events that elicit their need for protec-
tion and security. These expectations arise directly from
Resumen learning situations that are affectively meaningful over
their history of interaction. Secondly, strategic and open-
La Entrevista de Apego para Niños (EAN) es un nuevo ended questions encourage the spontaneous account of the
instrumento de evaluación del apego basado en un proce- child, and also follow the course of their thinking. Using
dimiento de completar historias. El objetivo principal de these responses, the evaluator has access not only to the
este estudio se basa en el análisis de la estructura y las pro- content of the mental representation of the emotional rela-
piedades psicométricas del EAN a través de análisis fac- tionship but also the way it is structured in the child's
toriales exploratorios sobre una muestra constituida por mind. Finally, the child feels confident and secure in ad-
115 niños y niñas españoles de entre 8 y 13 años (63 % dressing the different emotions that can arise during this
niños). Otras dos muestras procedentes de una población friendly and playful method of administration.
en situación de riesgo psicosocial y de una población clí-
nica fueron comparadas con la muestra principal con el fin In most cases children respond to the TSI in a categor-
de obtener evidencias de validez criterial. Los resultados ical manner quite consistent with the traditional patterns
obtenidos revelan una estructura interna compuesta de 4 of behavioral attachment proposed by Ainsworth, Blehar,
factores que se refieren a reacciones del niño (positiva, Waters and Wall (1978). In recent years, however, authors
confiada, negativa y desconfiada) y cinco factores referi- such as Fraley & Splieker (2003) have proposed a differ-
dos a interacciones niño-figura de apego (empática, con- ent vision for attachment strategies and a method of their
fiada, positiva, negativa y desconfiada). Las escalas han analysis from a dimensional perspective.
demostrada una adecuada consistencia interna. La compa-
ración de las escalas entre el grupo general y los grupos In Spain, there is little tradition in developing instru-
criteriales, y las correlaciones con los constructos relacio- ments that are able to assess children´s representations of
nados indicaron una buena validez de constructo. attachment that lend sufficient scientific credence to sup-
port their use based on psychometric criteria of validity
Palabras clave: Tareas narrativas; Niños; Evalua- and reliability. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge,
ción; Modelo interno de trabajo; Apego. neither does there exist any study of the Spanish popula-
tion that uses a methodology that allows for the evaluation
of attachment representations from a dimensional perspec-
tive. The main aim of this study is to analyze the psycho-
Introduction metric properties of the Child Attachment Interview (Si-
erra, Carrasco, Moya, & Del Valle, 2011) (hereafter EAN
Internal working models (IWM, hereafter) as an indi- for its Spanish acronym, Entrevista de Apego para Niños)
vidual´s representation of the world, and himself in it re- from a dimensional perspective.
fers to structures that organize mental activity and behav-
ior (Bowlby, 1973). Assessment of IWM uses multiple ap- The contribution of this instrument includes several is-
proaches to inferring its content and organization. One of sues, challenges and features. On the one hand, the use of
the most commonly used from an early age is called the this instrument has increased the number of stories relative
Story Completion Task or the Telling Story Interview (TSI to those elicited from the use of other instruments. It has
forward) (e.g., Target, Fonagy, & Shmueli-Goetz, 2003). also included new everyday situations that may be experi-
This methodology is based on utterances that follow the enced by the child as threatening from the standpoint of
presentation of stressful events relevant to attachment, and attachment. Another novel aspect of EAN is that it, in each
allow for validly and reliably analyzing the IWM of the of the stories, explicitly asks the child how s/he represents
relationship. Its use has a number of advantages. Firstly, it him or herself as well as how s/he represents his/her at-
operates on explicit and bounded situations in response to tachment figure. With other instruments, although the
specific objectives. This can deepen children's expecta- child identifies with the doll, the evaluator’s questions are
ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166 27

posed by appealing to the child and/or mother in abstract the general sample. All children were from the European
or general terms. Caucasian ethnic background.

The analysis of the responses of children are made ac- The general sample was randomly selected from a
cording to a dimensional perspective that takes into ac- private school (publically supported/financially supported
count key issues such as: (a) the fitness and adequacy of by the Government). All of the children attended school,
the child's responses to the situation; (b) the consistency live in two-parent households, and represent the middle-
of the responses; (c) the child’s prediction about his or her high socioeconomic level.
own feelings, cognitions and behaviors given the situa-
tion; and, (d) predicting the sensitivity of their attachment The maltreated risk social sample was recruited from a
figure when facing the situation in terms of contingency, foster care center associated with the public Department
affective involvement and consistency in relation to the of Social Services (DSS). According to the DSS, these
situation (traditional items associated with sensitivity). children have been identified as having experienced sub-
stantial maltreatment (87 % emotional and neglect mal-
So far, few instruments have combined into a single treatment, 3 % sexual abuse, 10 % physical abuse). Risk-
assessment tool both traditional patterns of attachment as social families come from a low socioeconomic level.
well as the basic behavioral, emotional and cognitive com-
ponents. The clinical sample was recruited from the public
Health Psychological Service (HPS). Children were re-
The EAN incorporates this set of qualities that are an- ferred to the Children´s Department of HPS for emotional
alyzed in relation to three distinct elements from the and behavioral problems. Families of referred children
child's verbal responses to the evocative situation: the chil- come from a low-middle socioeconomic level.
dren themselves, their attachment figure, and their inter-
action. Previous studies (Sierra et al., 2011; Sierra, Car- For the purposes of this study these various samples
rasco, Moya, & Del Valle, 2009) with this instrument have (maltreated/risk social, clinical and general) were consid-
an exploratory nature with promising properties. How- ered as a whole. No specific types of child maltreatment
ever, its dimensionality and psychometric analysis in or child psychological problems were analyzed. These two
larger samples has not yet been analyzed, and these are the additional samples were used to compare the data with two
challenges proposed in the present study. matched sub-samples extracted from the general sample.

Method Instruments
Sample Children Attachment Interview (EAN): description and
scoring
The total sample was composed of 147 subjects. The
participants were grouped into three samples: a general The instrument is composed of the following materials:
sample (n = 115; 63 % boys; mean age, M = 9.7; standard pictures that represent the different stories, neutral wooden
deviation, SD = 1.64), a maltreated-risk social sample figures (i.e., man, woman, girl, boy), and a score sheet to
(n = 13; 62 % boys; Mage = 6.88; SD = .77), and a take notes. Each story is presented with its subsequent pic-
clinical sample (n = 19; 63 % boys; Mage = 10.78, ture and figures. At the beginning of the evaluation, the
SD = 1.76). child selects a figure that represents him or herself, and
selects another figure that represents his or her attachment
Maltreated/risk social sample and clinical sample were figure. The attachment figures employed in the evaluation
matched by age and sex with two samples extracted from is designated by a preliminary questionnaire that serves to
determine who fulfills the role of primary caregiver to the
 28 ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166

child. The EAN has a total of nine stories. An initial and tions (e.g., positive or negative emotions, coping, attribu-
neutral story, called “birthday party”, is presented as an tions, expectations, disruptive behaviors); and (b) child-
introduction to the train participants about the interview attachment figure interactions (e.g., warmth, hostility,
procedure. The rest of the stories are eight attachment-re- friendliness, punishment, abandon, sensitive reactions, in-
lated situations. In the first situation (discipline story), the duction strategies). All of these categories are operation-
child accidentally breaks a vase while playing at home; in alized including a description according to real examples.
the second (jealous story) while the child plays in his room
with a friend, the attachment figure enters and offers a The Children´s Behavior Check-list (CBCL/4-18;
snack that, when received, is followed by the attachment Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1993).
figure playing with his friend. In the third story (abandon
story), the child has to go to hospital because he feels sick. We focus on the checklist of the inventory that assesses
Hospital rules mean no parent can stay with their children children´s behavioral and emotional problems. For this
overnight. The fourth story (reunion story) refers to the study we only consider the broader dimensions: inter-
arrival of the child’s attachment figure in the morning. In nalizing problems (e.g., emotionally reactive, anx-
the fifth story (pain story), the boy goes with his family to ious/depressed, somatic complaints, withdrawn) and ex-
spend a day in the field and suddenly experiences a strong ternalizing problems (e.g., behavioral problems, aggres-
stomach ache. The sixth situation (delayed reunion) takes sive behavior). The scales have shown good psychometric
place after school (“Every day their attachment figure properties in different populations. In this study
picks up the child but today all children have been picked Cronbach´s alpha was .89 for internalizing problems (anx-
up by their parents except him”). The seventh story (com- ious/depressed, withdrawn and somatic complaints), and
petitiveness story) takes place in the classroom and the .91 for externalizing problems (rule breaking behavior and
teacher asks children to make a dictation. The children ha- aggressive behavior). Internalizing and externalizing
ven´t passed and the teacher put a note in the agenda. He scales were correlated .68. Cronbach´s Alpha ranges from
must show the dictation results to his attachment figure. In .51 to .83 for general sample and risk/maltreated sample.
the eighth story (frightening story), the child is playing in
his room while his attachment figure is making dinner and Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire, Short
suddenly the lights go out. Form (PARQ: Mother and Father; Rohner, 2005).

Evaluators ask a set of questions and the children must This questionnaire was given to children (about
provide an answer. All stories are followed by the same mothers and fathers, separately) and also to parents (moth-
questions about expectations and attributions of ers and fathers separately). Scores on the PARQ (short
themselves and their attachment figure. Specifically, the form) spread from a low of 24 (maximum perceived pa-
questions are: What do you think happens then? What do rental acceptance) to a high of 96 (maximum perceived
you think/behave/feel when you… (action included the parental rejection). Scores at or above 60 reveal the per-
script of the story)? What do you think your attachment ception of qualitatively more rejection than acceptance.
figure thinks/does/feels when you… (action included the The PARQ has been used in over 500 studies worldwide,
script of the story)? Finally, What do you think the end of and is known to have outstanding reliability and validity
the story is about? At the end of the interview, the inter- for use in cross-cultural research (Rohner, 2005). Coeffi-
viewer rewards and thanks the child for his or her partici- cient alphas in this study were .79 for mothers and .86 for
pation. After that, they spend a while playing in order to fathers when children report the questionnaires, and .82
decrease any potential tension and to promote a relaxing for mothers and .83 for fathers when parents filled them
atmosphere. The time to conduct the interview is about 25- in.
35 minutes.

Two groups of categories are extracted from the chil-

dren´s answers to the different stories: (a) children´s reac-
ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166 29

Procedure Results

To recruit participants for this study, a random selec- Exploratory Factor Analysis
tion was requested from a primary public school. We re-
ceived authorization from the parents of all children and Four EFAs were performed, two per each kind of in-
the Departments of Social Services and HPS gave consent strument record: children´s reactions (part 1), and child-
for an examination of records. Participation of each child attachment figure interactions (part 2). The four explora-
in the study was voluntary and contingent on the informed tory factor analyses had identical statistic characteristics
consent of his or her parents. The parents of the general (see data analysis section).
sample were asked to complete the CBCL and the PARQ
(mother version and father version) and children reported Regarding part 1 (the reported children´s reactions)
information about attachment (EAN) and perceived paren- one factor analysis was conducted for the positive reac-
tal acceptance-rejection (PARQ-C for mothers and tions and another one for the negative reactions (Table 1).
PARQ-C for fathers). In the risk-social/maltreatment sam- For the positive reactions two factors were extracted: Pos-
ple and clinical sample the main caregiver of the child was itive Reaction (Factor 1a, loaded items related to compet-
asked to complete the CBCL and children were inter- itiveness, discipline, pain and frightening situations) and
viewed according to the EAN. The completed question- Trustful Reaction (Factor 2a, loaded items from abandon,
naire for parents and caregivers were returned to the re- jealous and reunion after being abandoned). The Kaiser-
searchers for correction and analysis. At the end of the Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .59, and
study, parents and caregivers received feedback regarding the Barlett test of sphericity was χ2 (120) = 4999,
the main outcomes of their children. p < .0000.

Data analysis Also, two factors were extracted as far as children´s

negative reactions are concerned: Negative Reaction (Fac-
The exploration of the instrument’s internal structure tor 1b, loaded items related to abandon, jealous, discipline
was conducted through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and competitiveness situations) and Mistrustful Reaction
using principal component analysis and Varimax (i.e., or- (Factor 2, loaded items from delayed reunion with attach-
thogonal rotation) with Kaiser´s normalization. No a priori ment figure, frightening situations, and reunion after being
factor structure was hypothesized and all of the item abandoned). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sam-
scores had equal or higher loads of .30. Both the eigen- pling adequacy was .51, and the Barlett test of sphericity
value one criterion (Kaiser, 1961) and the Scree test (Cat- was χ2 (120) = 1197, p < .0000.
tell, 1966) were used for factor extraction.
In relation to the child-attachment figure interactions
The data were analyzed to obtain descriptive charac- (part 2) and following the same statistical plan, two differ-
teristics of the general sample, and the resulting factors ent factor analyses were performed: one for positive inter-
and the psychometric properties of the instrument. Fur- actions and one for negative interaction (Table 2). From
thermore, these factors were studied in two other different the positive child-attachment figure interactions emerged
samples (clinical sample and risk-social sample) in order three factors: Factor 1c, Empathic Interaction that includes
to obtain some validity evidences. Both univariate and predominantly empathic answers from the attachment fig-
multivariate analyses were used by SPSS 19.0. ure and friendly reconciliation between child and attach-
ment figure when they cope/manage/handle different
threatening situations; Factor 2c, Trustful Interaction, in-
cluding predominantly answers of trust and confidence
from abandon/reunion and discipline situations; and Fac-
tor 3c, Positive Interaction in which loaded the items that
 30 ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166

Table 1

Structure matrix of children´s reactions (Principal component analysis with varimax rotation of Children´s reactions)

Child´s positive reactions Child´s negative reactions

Factor 1a Factor 2a Factor 1b Factor 2b
PRS7 .67 -.03 DRS3 .67 -.05
TRS7 .65 .04 DRS7 .65 .08
PRS1 .59 .37 ARS3 .62 -.10
TRS1 .56 .48 DRS2 .58 .21
TRS8 .50 -.06 CRS7 .58 .02
PRS5 .43 .01 CRS2 .53 .40
PRS8 .32 -.08 DRS1 .50 .09
PRS2 .01 .70 CRS1 .42 .10
TRS2 .05 .67 CRS8 -.23 .70
TRS3 -.14 .67 DRS8 -.27 .67
PRS3 .02 .60 DRS6 .10 .66
TRS4 .03 .37 CRS6 .15 .63
TRS6 .17 .17 DRS4 .23 .54
-- -- -- CRS4 .12 .52
Eigenvalue 2.82 1.87 3.23 20.23
%Variance 17.63 11.71 2.34 14.65
Factor 1 1 .18 1 .15
Factor 2 -- 1 -- 1
Note. PRS = Positive Reaction to Story; TRS = Trustful Reaction to Story; DRS = Disruptive Reaction to Story; ARS/CRS
= Contradictory Reaction to Story. Item loads lower than .30 over all factors have been excluded.

refer to positive interactions in rivalry and jealous situa- The eigenvalues of factors and the percentage of its ex-
tions. In this factor there was no specific type of predomi- plained variance are included in the tables. No significant
nant interactions. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of inter-correlations were found for one factorial structure
sampling adequacy was .51, and the Barlett test of sphe- except for the positive interaction´s structure. This sug-
ricity was χ2 (496) = 1414.87, p < .0000. gests the relative independence of factors for the negative
reactions´ structure, for the positive reactions´ structure,
Finally, two factors were extracted from the negative and the negative interactions´ structure. However, the Em-
child-attachment figure interactions. Factor 1d, Rivalry pathic Interaction factor showed a moderate correlation
Interaction, including negative interactions to rivalry and with the other positive interaction factors (Trustful Inter-
abandonment situations, that groups disruptive and con- action, Positive Interaction). This might indicate a higher
tradictory or ambivalent interactions over rivalry and second order structure for the three positive interaction´s
abandon situations; and Factor 2d, Pro-arousal Interaction, factors.´
that groups negative interactions to threatening situations
including disruptive and contradictory child-adult interac-
tions from delayed reunion, fear and pain situations. For
this analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sam-
pling adequacy was .52, and the Barlett test of sphericity
was χ2 (120) = 1368, p < .0000.
ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166 31

Table 2

Structure matrix or child-figure attachment interactions (Principal component analysis with varimax rotation of Child-figure
interactions)

Positive interactions Negative interactions

Factor 1c Factor 2c Factor 3c Factor 1d Factor 2d
FIS8 .72 -.25 .14 DIS2 .74 .02
FIS5 .62 .31 -.19 CIS2 .71 -.08
PIS8 .56 -.16 .19 DIS1 .61 -.06
PIS5 .54 .28 -.20 DIS7 .60 -.12
TIS8 .50 -.03 -.02 CIS1 .58 .03
EIS3 .49 .00 .10 CIS7 .50 -.05
EIS1 .48 .43 .19 DIS3 .44 .20
EIS8 .44 -.13 .01 DIS4 .43 .19
EIS4 .42 .00 .07 CIS3 .42 .22
FIS4 .39 -.02 .18 CIS4 .42 .23
TIS5 .37 .13 -.01 CIS6 .10 .69
EIS5 .36 .20 .10 DIS6 .13 .68
FIS3 .36 .30 .16 CIS8 -.05 .64
FIS6 .06 .62 -.16 CIS5 .09 .63
FIS1 .42 .61 .15 DIS8 -.06 .62
PIS6 -.15 .60 -.21 DIS5 .08 .61
TIS1 .05 .57 .22 -- -- --
TIS6 .14 .53 .03 -- -- --
PIS1 .28 .53 .08 -- -- --
TIS4 -.08 .44 .14 -- -- --
TIS3 .04 .43 .03 -- -- --
PIS3 -.12 .37 .02 -- -- --
FIS7 .14 .01 .81 -- -- --
PIS7 .12 -.00 .74 -- -- --
TIS7 .12 -.00 .72 -- -- --
PIS2 .00 .26 .55 -- -- --
FIS2 -.03 .27 .54 -- -- --
TIS2 .15 .21 .35 -- -- --
EIS7 .14 -.05 .30 -- -- --
EIS2 -.13 -.16 .30 -- -- --
Eigenvalue 4.85 2.83 2.52 3.47 2.46
% variance 15.17 8.86 24.04 21.74 15.41
Factor 1 1 .23* .25* Factor 1 1 .14
Factor 2 -- 1 .18 Factor 2 -- 1
Factor 3 -- -- 1 -- -- --
Note. Item loads lower than .30 over all factors have been excluded; EIS = Empathic Interaction to Story; FIS = Friendly
Interaction to Story; PIS = Positive Interaction to Story; TIS = Trustful Interaction to Story; DIS = Disruptive Interaction to
Story; CIS = Contradictory Interaction to Story.
*p <.05.
 32 ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166

Table 3

Basic psychometric properties of factors

Mean SD Cronbach’s α Mean Discrepancy

A. Positive Reactions
F1a-Positive Reaction 11.57 3.96 .64 .36
F2a-Trustful Reaction 8.92 3.45 .57 .38
B. Negative Reactions
F1b-Negative Reaction 10.58 4.37 .73 .43
F2b-Mistrustful Reaction 3.72 2.43 .71 .36
C. Positive Interactions
F1c-Empathic Int. 12.80 4.27 .73 .37
F2c-Trustful Int. 11.81 4.02 .69 .40
F3c-Positive Int. 4.45 2.99 .69 .44
D. Negative Interactions
F1d-Rivalry Int. 18.34 6.67 .75 .41
F2d-Pro arousal Int. 5.89 3.06 .74 .48
Note. F = factor; int. = interaction.

Basic psychometric characteristics relations between children´s behavioral problems and at-
tachment factors were explored (Table 4).
Table 3 shows the basic psychometric properties of the
factors for the different factorial structures. Correlation analysis showed that positive reactions and
positive interactions were negatively related to children´s
The internal consistency coefficients, as measured by behavioral problems. On the other hand, negative reac-
Cronbach’s alpha, varied between .57 (Trustful Reaction) tions and negative interactions were positively related to
and .75 (Rivalry Interaction). Most of these alphas children´s problems. It was true for the general sample, the
rounded to .70. The average discrepancy (item-factor cor- risk sample and the clinical sample.
relation) varied between the .36 and .48.
It is interesting to notice that the attachment problems
Inter-rater reliability were more (mainly) related to internalized problems (i.e.,
withdrawn/depression, somatic complaints, thought prob-
lems) in the general and clinical samples. However in the
To determine inter-rater reliability the percentage of
risk sample, the attachment problems were more associ-
agreement between testers was calculated for each item of
ated to externalized problems (i.e., rule breaking behavior,
the factor on 19 subjects of the general sample and 15 sub-
aggressive behavior, externalizing behavior). The factors
jects of the social risk sample. Percentages of agreement
associated with a higher number of children´s behavioral
on the items range from 62.83 % to 97.14 %. The global
problems were: The Mistrustful Reaction in the general
percentage of agreement was on the clinical sample
sample; the Rilvary Interaction in the risk sample; and the
87.74 %, and on the risk sample 70%.
Pro-arousal Interaction in the clinical sample. In addition,
the factor Empathic Interaction was not significantly re-
Evidences of external validity lated to any kind of children´s behavioral problems.

In order to obtain evidences of validity we analyze cor- We also analyzed relations between the children´s per-
relations between attachment factors and different dimen- ceived parental acceptance-rejection (as a measure of the
sions of children´s psychological adjustment. Particularly, quality of parent-child relationship) and attachment fac-
tors in the general sample. These relations were explored
ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166 33

Table 4

Pearson´s correlations between children´s behavioral problems and attachment factors

Positive Negative Positive Negative

reactions reactions interactions interactions
CBCL F1a F2a F1b F2b F1c F2c F3c F1d F2d
a -.01* .00* .11 -.16** .03* 08* .18* .13* -.01**
Anxious/Depressed b .00* -.36* 45 -.00** -.04* -.52* -.17* .58* .03**
c -.31* -.14* .30 .33** -.05* -.12* -.25* .28* 65**
a .02* .02* .03 -.24** .12* .05* .20* -.01* -.09**
Withdrawn/Depressed b .53* .53* -.07 -.25** -.41* -.38* .14* -.04* -.48**
c -.26* -.31* .27 .45** -.06* -.25* -.03* .33* .70**
a -.12* -.11* -.00 -.20** -.02* .03* .11* -.03* -.16**
Somatic Complaints b -.56* -.28* .25 -.00** -.22* .02* -.15* .29* .03**
c -.16* -.06* .19 .38** .01* .02* -.01* .08* .48**
a -.01* -.10* .21* -.13** .02* -.03* .12* .18* -.02**
Social Problems b .07* -.11* .39 -.23** -.40* -.35* .05* .54* -.08**
c -.44* -.10* .29 .33** -.05* -.14* -.36* .11* .63**
a -.13* -.09* .17 -.20** -.06* .02* .14* .11* -.13**
Thought Problems b -.06* -.53* .50 -.08** -.43* -.44* -.15* .55* -.11**
c -.12* -.12* .21 .06** -.46* -.15* .04* .22* .38**
a -.04* -.11* .17 -.06** .02* .00* .03* .23* .04**
Attention Problems b -.17* -.18* .41 .69** -.41* -.34* -.10* .51* .54**
c -.32* -.44* .09 .53** -.27* -.40* -.25* .21* .62**
a -.04* -.21* .07 -.05** -.05* -.07* .13* .04* -.06**
Rule-Breaking Behavior b -.35* -.14* .63* .24** -.54* -.22* -.29* .60* .31**
c -.33* -.34* -.37 -.02** -.06* -.15* -.02* -.03* .34**
a -.17* -.15* .06 -.07** -.11* -.21* .03* .10* -.01**
Aggressive Behavior b -.04* -.44* .38 .12** .04* -.61* -.25* .47* .25**
c -.21* -.30* .11 .42** .04* -.18* -.29* .32* .51**
a -.04* -.03* .07 -.23** .05* .07* .21* .05* -.09**
Internalizing Scale b -.11* -.41* .32 -.09** -.46* -.36* -.11* .41* -.12**
c -.24* -.18* .22 .33** -.14* -.11* -.10* .20* .69**
a -.14* -.18* .07 -.07** -.10* -.18* .07* .09* -.03**
Externalizing Scale b -.18* -.44* .59* .21** -.18* -.61* -.34* .66* .35**
c -.38* -.37* -.05 .27** -.00* -.31* -.40* .27* .45**
a -.09* -.16* .15 -.17** -.02* -.02* .12* .16* .05**
Total b -.09* -.43* .55* .06** -.42* -.52* -.18* .65* .10**
c -.38* -.31* .21 .37** -.16* -.25* -.28* .33* .71**
Note. a = general sample; b = risk/maltreated sample; c = clinical sample; F1a = Positive Reaction; F2a = Trustful Reaction;
F1b = Negative Reaction; F2b = Mistrustful Reaction; F1c = Empathic Interaction; F2c = Trustful Interaction; F3c = Positive
Interaction; F1d = Rivalry Interaction; F2d=Pro arousal Interaction.
*p < .05
** p < .01

separately for the children´s report and for the parent´s re- (rxy = -.28). Regarding the father´s questions, Positive Re-
port about the parent-child relationships. According to the action was significantly related with paternal warmth
children´s report, Positive Reaction significantly (p < .05) (rxy = .24), Trustful Interaction was associated with pater-
and negatively correlated with maternal hostility (rxy = - nal hostility/aggression (rxy = -.34), and negative interac-
.25), maternal indifference/neglect (rxy = -.24), undiffer- tions; Rivalry Interaction and Pro-arousal Interaction were
ence rejection (rxy = -.22) and the total rejection score
 34 ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166

respectively correlated with overcontrol (rxy = -.28; More evidence of construct validity was provided by
rxy = -.23). tests that use the independent samples t-test as well as the
effect size by Cohen´s d. The mean differences between
Similar results were found considering the parent´s re- groups, general versus clinical, and general versus risk-
ports. According to the mothers´ answers, Positive Reac- maltreated (see Table 5), were also analyzed for each fac-
tion was significantly (p < .05) correlated to maternal un- tor of attachment. A t-Student with a bootstrap confidence
differentiated rejection (rxy = -.26) and Trustful Reaction interval (95%) based on 5,000 bootstrap samples were
was significantly associated with maternal hostility conducted to test the group differences. As you can see in
(rxy = -.24); Negative Reaction was related to both the Table 5, the clinical group showed significantly lower
maternal hostility (rxy = .21) and maternal levels of positive reactions (Positive Reaction, Trustful
undifferentiated rejection (rxy = .29); Positive Interaction Reaction) and interactions (Empathic Interaction, Trustful
was associated to maternal hostility (rxy = -.21) and Interaction, Positive Interaction), as well as higher levels
maternal indifference/neglect (rxy = .29); finally, Rivalry of negative reactions (Negative Reaction, Mistrustful Re-
Interaction was correlated to maternal hostility (rxy = .30) action) and negative interactions (Rivalry Interaction)
and maternal total rejection (rxy = .21). According to the than the general group. Likewise, we found significantly
fathers´ answers, only two correlations were significant lower levels of positive reaction (Positive Reaction, Trust-
(p < .05): Trustful Reaction with paternal ful Reaction) and positive interactions (Trustful Interac-
indifference/neglect (rxy = .35), and Rivalry Interaction tion, Positive Interaction) in the risk-maltreated group
with paternal warmth (rxy = -.23). compared to the general group. On the other hand, risk-
maltreated group showed higher levels of Negative Reac-
tion and Rivalry Interaction.

Table 5

Mean differences between groups in the attachment factors

M (SD) t d M (SD) t d
Clinical-G 5.58 (3.50) Risk-G 2.31 (1.60)
Positive React. -5.80** -1.88 -2.38** -0.93
General-G 12.79 (4.13) General-G 4.00 (2.00)
Clinical-G 4.84 (2.29) Risk-G 4.92 (2.98)
Trusful React. -5.14** -1.67 -0.13** -0.05
General-G 9.89 (3.61) General-G 5.08 (2.62)
Clinical-G 14.21 (4.10) Risk-G 6.85 (4.45)
Negative React. 2.93** 0.95 2.31** 0.91
General-G 10.11 (4.52) General-G 3.46 (2.81)
Clinical-G 4.32 (2.49) Risk-G 3.85 (1.81)
Mistrusful React. 1.75** 0.57 1.67** 0.66
General-G 3.05 (1.90) General-G 2.46 (2.36)
Clinical-G 9.63 (3.71) Risk-G 5.38 (3.04)
Empathic Int. -3.12** -1.01 1.52** 0.59
General-G 13.95 (4.73) General-G 3.77 (2.31)
Clinical-G 8.37 (3.33) Risk-G 4.31 (2.35)
Trustful Int. -3.95** -1.28 0.12** 0.05
General-G 13.95 (5.15) General-G 4.15 (3.65)
Clinical-G 2.26 (2.05) Risk-G 1.46 (1.33)
Positive Int. -3.91** -1.26 -0.55** -0.22
General-G 5.68 (3.21) General-G 1.77 (1.48)
Clinical-G 21.89 (7.43) Risk-G 15.23 (8.48)
Rivalry Int. 2.46** 0.79 3.22** 1.26
General-G 16.42 (6.22) General-G 6.62 (4.53)
Clinical-G 6.95 (4.87) Risk-G 7.77 (2.92)
Pro-arousal Int. 1.18** 0.38 4.62** 1.81
General-G 5.37 (3.18) General-G 2.77 (2.58)
Note. React. = reaction; int. = interaction; G = group; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; t-Student has been conducted with
a bootstrap confidence interval (95%) based on 5.000 samples.
*p <.05
**p <.01
ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166 35

Discussion Evidences of Validity and reliability

The structure of the EAN based on a sample of Spanish Correlations between children´s behavioral problems
children demonstrates a factor structure that is psychomet- (externalizing and internalizing) and attachment dimen-
rically valid and conceptually compatible with previous sions, as well as the differences between children from the
studies on attachment measures (e.g., Target et al., 2003). general population and risk/maltreated children or clinical
The present findings reveal a multi-internal structure or- children (criterial groups) provided strong evidence of
ganized in two parts: children´s reactions and child-attach- construct validity. Regarding children´s behavioral prob-
ment figure interactions. Four factors were identified in lems, the more negative reactions and interactions children
the first part from children´s reactions, two positive (Pos- showed to the threatening stories, the more externalizing
itive Reaction and Trustful Reaction) and two negative re- and internalizing behavioral problems children had. Simi-
actions (Negative Reaction and Mistrustful Reaction); and larly, the more positive reactions and interactions children
five factors in the second part, three factors from the pos- reported to the stories, the less behavioral problems chil-
itive interactions (Empathetic Interaction, Trustful Inter- dren had. These significant relations were found for all
action, Positive Interaction) and three factors from the samples (general, risk/maltreated and clinical). However,
negative interactions (Rivalry Interaction and Pro-arousal attachment problems were mainly associated with inter-
Interaction). Each group of factors was obtained from a nalized problems in the general and clinical samples, and
different factor analysis. the externalized problems were mainly associated with the
attachment problems in the risk (e.g., Finzi, Cohen, Sapir,
Positive reactions (Trustful Reaction and Positive Re- & Weizman 2000). A possible explanation for these re-
action factors) reveal the trust and confidence of a child´s sults is that children who have been abandoned or whose
response to threatening situations including positive at- parents are negligent tend to show more disruptive behav-
tributions and positive expectations. By the contrary, neg- iors and conduct problems because of socializations defi-
ative reactions (Mistrustful Reaction and Negative Reac- cits (i.e., lack of parental supervision or monitoring, poor
tion factors) show the child´s tendency to behave in a mis- control).
trustful and negative way (i.e., showing disruptive behav-
iors, negative emotions) to the stressful situations. Regard- Furthermore, interaction problems in jealous, compet-
ing interaction factors, the positive interactions (Empa- itiveness or abandonment situations (Rivalry interaction
thetic Interaction, Trustful Interaction and Positive Inter- factor) were associated with a higher number of behavioral
action) were related to the friendly, sensitive, empathetic problems among risk/maltreated children. Among clinical
child-attachment figure relationship in the threatening sit- children, frightening situations (i.e., pain, fear) were asso-
uations; and the negative interactions (Mistrustful Interac- ciated with more behavioral problems. Finally, among
tion and Negative Interaction) were associated with dis- children from the general population, mistrustful reaction
ruptive, aggressive, hostile, and frightening child-attach- in the delayed or abandon-reunion situations was the di-
ment figure relationships. mension associated with more behavioral problems. This
suggests how sensitive children may be to specific kinds
This new structure is consistent with two basic and of threatening situations depending on their affective an-
broad structures of attachment, secure and insecure (e.g., tecedents and biography.
Ainsworth et al., 1978; Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg,
1998). High positive signs and low negative signs of at- Consistently with Gracia, Lila, and Musitu (2005), re-
tachment dimensions (children´s reactions and child-at- lations between the children´s perceived maternal and pa-
tachment figure interactions) are compatible with a secure ternal acceptance-rejection (children and parents´ reports)
attachment structure; on the other hand, low positive signs and attachment factors in the general sample showed chil-
and high negative signs of attachment dimensions indicate dren´s perceived parental love and warmth was related to
a possible insecure attachment. the children´s secure attachment and positives personal
and social attitudes.
 36 ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166

Concerning the differences between groups in the at- Referencias

tachment dimensions, children from the clinical (i.e., all
factors except for pro-arousal) and risk-maltreated sam- Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. (1993). Manual for
ples (i.e., positive and negative reactions, rivalry and pro- the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child
arousal interactions) tended to show lower levels of se- Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT.: Department of
cure- attachment signs and higher levels of insecure-at- Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
tachment sings. It is consistent with previous studies that
find a higher proportion of insecure-attachment in risky Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.
populations (e.g., Dienner & Kim, 2004; Moore & Pepler, (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological
2006) and more signs of insecure mental representations Study of the Strange Situation. Oxford: Lawrence
(e.g., Nowacki & Schoelmerich, 2010). Erlbaum.

In terms of reliability, although the reliability of tests Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2:
with a situational base tends to show a lower reliability Separation. New York: Basic Books.
(Picard, Allsopp, & Campbell, 2012), all the scales of
EAN demonstrated adequate internal consistency, with the Cattell, R. B. (1966). Handbook of Multivariate
majority of values being close to or greater than .70. The experimental psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand
inter-judge reliability was also acceptable. McNally.

This study has some limitations that should be consid- Diener, M. & Kim, D. Y. (2004). Maternal and child
ered. First, we acknowledge the absence of test-retest Predictors of Children’s social competence.
measures to estimate the stability of the results and the Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25,
evolution of the dimensions over time. In addition, our 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2003.11.006
analyses were based solely on information provided by
self-reports (children and parents or caregivers) without Finzi, R. Cohen, O., Sapir, Y., & Weizman, A. (2000).
comparisons with naturalistic observation measures. Attachment Styles in maltreated children: a
However, the evaluation by story-telling interview has comparative study. Child Psychiatry and Human
demonstrated good reliability and tends to be highly cor- Development, 31, 113-128. https://doi.org/
related with other measures of security (e.g., Granot & 10.1023/a:1001944509409
Mayseless, 2001; Kerns et al., 2000). Future research with
children should attempt to address these aspects. Fraley, R. C. & Spieker, S. J. (2003). Are Infant
Attachment Patterns Continuously or Categorically
In conclusion, this analysis of the structure of the Span- Distributed? A Taxometric Analysis of Strange
ish EAN reveals a comprehensive structure of the chil- Situation Behavior. Developmental Psychology,
dren´s attachment representations based on the children´s 39, 387-404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
reactions and child-figure attachment interactions through 1649.39.3.387
different everyday stories. This instrument provides a
measure of the internal working model that allows us to Gracia, E., Lila, M., & Musitu, G. (2005). Rechazo
explore the quality of child-attachment figure relation- parental y ajuste psicológico y social de los hijos
ships in different threatening situations. The results from [Parental Rejection and Children's Psychological
these inputs could help us to prevent future psychological and Social Adjustment]. Salud Mental, 28, 73-81.
problems. The strong reliability, fundamental consistency
and the net of significant relations with different criterial Granot, D. & Mayseless, O. (2001). Attachment Security
groups of children, children´s psychological problems, and Adjustment to School in Middle Childhood.
and perceived parental acceptance-rejection indicate good International Journal of Behavioral Development,
construct validity.
ACCIÓN PSICOLÓGICA, junio 2018, vol. 15, nº. 1, 25-38. ISSN: 2255-1271 https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.1.22166 37

25, 530-541. attachment in children. International Attachment

https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000366 Network. IAN Iberoamericana, Madrid, Spain.

IBM Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Sierra, P., Carrasco, M. A., Moya, J. J., & Del Valle, C.
Version 19.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. (2011). Entrevista de Apego para Niños (EAN). Un
estudio exploratorio de un nuevo instrumento de
Kaiser, H. F. (1961). A note on Guttman´s Lower Bound evaluación del apego en niños de 3 a 7 años [Child
for the Number of Common Factors. British Attachment Interview (EAN): Exploratory study of
Journal of Statistical Psychology, 14, 1-2. a New Method to Assess Attachment in Children
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044- from 3 to 7 years]. Acción Psicológica, 8(2), 39-53.
8317.1961.tb00061.x https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.8.2.189

Kerns, K., Tomich, P., Aspelmeier, K., & Contreras, J. Target, M., Fonagy, P., & Schmueli-Goetz, Y. (2003).
(2000). Attachment-Based Assessment of Parent- Attachment Representations in School-Age
child Relationxhips in Middle Childhood. Children: The Development of the Child
Developmental Psychology, 36, 614-626. Attachment Interview (CAI). Journal of Child
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.614 Psychotherapy 29, 171-186.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0075417031000138433
Moore, T. E. & Pepler, D. J. (2006). Wounding words:
Maternal verbal aggression and children’s Van Ijzendoorn, M. H. & Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988).
adjustment. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 89-93. Cross-cultural Patterns of Attachment: A Meta-
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-9007-x Analyses of Strange Situation. Child Development,
59, 147-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
Nowacki, K. & Schoelmerich, A. (2010). Growing up in 8624.1988.tb03202.x
Foster Families or Institutions: Attachment
Representation and Psychological Adjustment of
Young Adults. Attachment & Human Development,
12, 551-566.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2010.504547

Picard, O., Allsopp, G., & Campbell, L. (2012).

Foundation Programme. 250 SJTs (Situational
Judgement Test Questions) for foundation year
entry. London, UK: ISC Medical.

Rohner, R. P. (2005). Parental acceptance-rejection

questionnaire (PARQ): Test Manual. In R. P.
Rohner & A. Khaleque (Eds.), Handbook for the
study of parental acceptance and rejection (4th ed.,
pp. 43-106). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research
Publications.

Sierra, P., Carrasco, M. A., Moya, J. J., & Del Valle, C.

(2009, October). The children attachment interview
by evocative stories supported with pictures.
Exploratory study of a new method to assess
Copyright of Acción Psicológica is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.