3.1 Inner structure

The assumed four-factor model of the ARI-CP 2–5 was tested in the survey dataset (N = 446), by means of a CFA (see Figure 1). All fit indices of the tested model-? 2 (df) = 2, (1,074), RMSEA = 0.057, CFI = 0.960, TLI = 0.958, and GFI = 0.962-indicate sufficient model fit according to the guidelines of Hu and Bentler ( 1999 ). We did not allow for any error terms to covary. Some items have factor loading of <.30. Removal of these items resulted in a worse model fit, therefore, these items were kept.

Moreover, we checked about three choice design formations. The original solution design are a one-basis build, with points included in that overall connection factor. The one-foundation design resulted in an even worse design complement as compared to thought four-foundation model, ? 2 (1,080) = 2,, RMSEA = 0.074, CFI = 0.933, TLI = 0.930, and you may GFI = 0.946. The second alternative model are the 2-grounds safer/insecure model, and therefore put another complement indicator: ? 2 (1,079) = 2,, RMSEA = 0.065, CFI = 0.948, TLI = 0.946, and you can GFI = 0.955. The third option model try the two-factor arranged/unpleasant model, and this brought another fit indices: ? 2 (1,079) = 2,, RMSEA = 0.071, CFI = 0.938, TLI = 0.935, and you will GFI = 0.950. The final choice factor is actually the three-basis safer/organized-insecure/sloppy, having ? dos (1,077) = dos,, RMSEA = 0.063, CFI = 0.951, TLI = 0.949, and you may GFI = 0.957. All choice habits got an even worse match compared to thought five-foundation model. Therefore, we went on towards five-factor design.

step 3.dos Dimensions invariance

Second, we checked out getting measurement invariance anywhere between dads (Letter = 211) and you can parents (Letter = 235), males (Letter = mingle2 225) and you will people (Letter = 221), 2-3-seasons olds (Letter = 259), and you can 4- to 5-year olds (Letter = 186), also round the parents out of a general population shot (Letter = 378) and a clinical sample (Letter = 68). We come having review whether or not the configural models for every multigroup CFA would have sufficient model fit. Each step of the process a short while later (thresholds model, loadings, and you will intercepts design) got so much more strict standards getting dimensions invariance. Dining table step one gift ideas the outcome of your own measurement invariance analyses.

• good Normgroup contained N = 378 caregivers about standard people attempt.

The fresh new configural model testing dimensions invariance to possess sex of caregiver showed sufficient design match, showing that preferred things of your ARI-CP 2–5 have been on the exact same issues all over parents. For each and every adopting the action triggered a decrease from inside the CFI regarding quicker than .005, showing that the so much more stringent criteria were met. It indicates an average products of your ARI-CP dos–5 have the same meaning all over moms and dads (metric invariance), and this classification function shall be meaningfully opposed round the parents and you may dads (scalar invariance). Simultaneously, the outcome suggest configural, metric, and you may scalar invariance to possess sex of your son, chronilogical age of the child, and you will inhabitants types of.

step 3.3 Precision

I have checked-out the latest ordinal alphas toward ARI-CP 2–5 balances. Ordinal leader was .78 for Avoidant attachment, .89 to have Secure attachment, .85 to own Ambivalent accessory, and you can .89 to possess Dirty accessory. The interior feel of your ARI-CP 2–5 bills is hence sufficient.

The brand new concordance between caregivers of the same child are looked at when you look at the a good subgroup off 63 caregiver sets that completed the new ARI-CP dos–5 comparable son. The fresh correlations ranging from caregivers of the identical boy toward Safe, Avoidant, and you will Ambivalent measure was in fact high, r = .42, p = .001; roentgen = .42, p = .001; and you can r = .39, p = .002, respectively. This new relationship between the caregivers of the identical son of your own Messy size was not high, r = .08, p = .557.