7.1.1 Strengths of the study
A number of strengths related to the methodology of the study were identified concerning the overall design of the research, including the development of the technique, and aspects of the sampling.
7.1.1.1Overall design of the study
The emphasis in the design of the research on having the CEAT technique grounded in attachment theory and empirical findings was a clear strength of the
study. The comprehensive investigation of other techniques of attachment assessment and empirical findings provided a strong base of knowledge to draw on in the creation of both the technique and the Coding Scheme. Rather than restricting the new technique to mere imitation of other techniques, it inspired a different approach. This was further strengthened by the inclusion in the study of an extended Design Phase. This allowed sufficient time for the design and refinement of the technique without the necessity for organizing a preliminary evaluation of its ability to discern a difference on security of attachment between two groups that could be expected to differ.
A lack of refinement in coding has been cited as a difficulty with many of the techniques available for middle childhood (Solomon & George, 1999). The Design Phase strengthened the development of the Coding Scheme by permitting it to emerge from a combination of exposure to the trial data, simultaneously with a review of literature on assessment of attachment. This contributed directly to the method of coding developed being unique to the technique rather than a product of a purely theoretical exercise, or the adoption of a coding method that had been designed for another technique.
Further, the inclusion of a Design Phase with a trial of the technique created an opportunity for the researcher to practise administering the technique, thereby gaining skill in administering and coding the CEAT prior to commencement of the Pilot Phase. This familiarity with administration and coding also probably enabled the researcher, in the collection of the Pilot Phase data, to give more attention to the building of rapport with the participants prior to administration, thus contributing positively to the eager participation of the children and to the high quality of the data collected.
7.1.1.2Aspects of sampling
Techniques available for research in middle childhood have been criticized because they have all been developed using normative populations. The inclusion of a clinical group in the study was an obvious strength. It afforded both an early indication of the CEAT’s clinical usefulness, and an opportunity to make refinements to the technique that could make it more useful in a clinical context.
Another aspect of the sample that added strength to the study was the matching of non-clinical participants with the clinical participants. A number of factors have been associated with attachment insecurity, as noted in Chapter 2, Section 2.3. It was decided to match participants from the larger pool of non-clinical participants with participants in the clinical sample. Matching was done across the sample as closely as possible, as a way of controlling for the influence of factors previously associated with attachment insecurity. This added strength to the findings of group differences in security of attachment being related to psychopathology rather than for example socio-economic or family structure.
7.1.2 Limitations of the study
A number of limitations were identified in relation to the Pilot Phase of the study. They also concern sampling and the design of the study.
7.1.2.1 Aspects of sampling
While the inclusion of the clinical sample is considered a strength of the study, the fact that all of its participants were male is considered a limitation. Given the differences in participation by girls compared with boys in the non-clinical sample, it is possible that there would also be differences found between clinical samples of girls and boys. It is therefore necessary to be cautious about generalizing the findings of the study. Further, given the small size of the overall sample and the limitations of power associated with this, it is necessary to be careful in generalizing the findings of this study to wider populations.
Also related to sampling is the limitation posed by these samples being predominantly middle-classed and English-speaking. Although the relative homogeneity of the samples made it possible to draw conclusions about these samples more clearly than otherwise, strengthening internal validity, it certainly limited generalizability and external validity.
7.1.2.2 Aspects of design
Another obvious factor limiting the study was the lack of comparison of results with those of another, validated measure of attachment in middle childhood, or of a measure of known correlates of attachment security. While several existing measures have shown promise as valid measures of attachment in middle childhood none has become universally accepted in the way that the Adult Attachment Interview and the Strange Situation procedure have for adult and infant assessment. As a result
direct testing of the validity of the CEAT was not possible. Further, none of the existing measures cover the age group 6 to 12 years as does the CEAT.
Another possible confounding variable may impact upon the study, as no data were collected in relation to the Clinical sample’s prior exposure to other projective techniques. While it is possible that such prior experience (for example of the Children’s Apperception Test) may have influenced the Clinical participants’ responses, this was not controlled for. On the other hand, as storytelling is a process that was familiar to all primary school aged children in both the Clinical and Non- Clinical samples, prior experience with story telling techniques would not be expected to have been a factor that would contribute to the differences between the two groups.
This means that even though the CEAT did discriminate between two groups that could be expected to differ on security of attachment, more research is needed to determine whether this finding was indeed reflective of participants’ IWMs of attachment, or if CEAT scores represent a measure of some other, related constructs.
Findings related to the coherence of narrative measure should also probably be considered cautiously, given the observed differences in assessment of the younger children in the group. As no measure of intellectual development was included in the design of the study, it is not possible to determine whether or not potential differences in cognitive or even in maturational verbal IQ had an influence on participants’ coherence of narrative scores, which formed part of the coding of attachment styles. Results of the inclusion of the assessment of coherence are discussed further in Section 7.2.2.6 below.