Attachment Questionnaire for Children ( AQC )
Overview
Acronym:
AQC Author Contact:
Peter Muris, Ph.D.
Department of Medical, Clinical, and Experimental Psychology
Maastricht University
PO BOX 616
Maastricht, Netherlands, 6200 MD
Citation:
Muris, P., Meesters, C., van Melick, M., Zwambag, L. (2001). Self-reported attachment style, attachment quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depression in young adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 809-818.
To Obtain:
Contact author for a Dutch version. The three descriptive items are also presented in their entirety on page 812 of Muris et al. (2001) and under "Sample Items" below.
Email:
p.muris@dep.unimaas.nl
Cost:
$0.00
Copyright:
No Description:
The AQC is a 1-item self-report measure of children's attachment style that is based on Hazan & Shaver's (1987) single-item measure of adult attachment style. Children are given three descriptions of feelings and perceptions about relationships with other children and are asked to choose the description that best fits them.
The measure classifies children according to one of three attachment styles: Secure, Avoidant, or Ambivalent.
Theoretical Orientation Summary:
The AQC is adapted from Hazan & Shaver's (1987) Attachment Questionnaire (AQ) for adults. The AQ and AQC are theoretically grounded in attachment theory and the work of Bowlby and Ainsworth (Muris et al., 2001).
Domains Assessed:
Attachment
Languages:
Dutch
English (USA)
Age Range:
9-18 Years
Measure Type:
Screening
Number of Items:
1 Measure Format:
Questionnaire
Time to Complete:
3
Reporter:
Self
Score Time:
1
Education Level:
4
Periodicity:
Not Provided Response Format:
1-answer format (i.e., chose one description that best describes you).
Materials Needed:
Paper and pencil
Materials Notes:
Age range, time to complete, and time to score are estimates, given the length of the measure, the data provided in articles, and consultation with the author. The author reported that a 9-year-old with normal intelligence can complete this measure. Given this statement, we estimated a 4th-grade education level.
Information Provided:
Areas of concern/risks
Clinician friendly output
Strengths
Training
Training to Administrator:
Not Available
Training to Interpret:
Not Available
Training Notes:
No training information was noted in any article, but, given that the measure consists of 1 item, the administration and interpretation are very straightforward.
Psychometrics
Norms:
None
Psychometric Norm Notes:
Not applicable, only 1 item.
Clinical Cutoffs:
Not applicable, only 1 item
Pros & Cons
Pros:
1. Studies that have paired the AQC with other measures assessing attachment, psychopathology, and at-risk behaviors seem to show that the AQC is tapping into meaningful categories.
2. Attachment and relationships are important domains for the field of child trauma. The AQC is a quick, easy, and economical measure that assesses attachment styles in children.
3. It is impressive that a 1-item measure can yield a score that apparently relates to many important domains.
4. The measure is free and easily available.
5. There is a parent and educator version that teachers and parents can complete.
Cons:
1. Test-retest reliability has not been examined but is important because attachment styles are said to be stable.
2. Much of the research has been conducted with predominantly Caucasian children in the Netherlands. More research is needed with more diverse populations.
THESE ARE NOT CONS, JUST INFORMATION:
1. The AQC taps attachment with regard to peer but not parent-child relationships.
2. The measure is appropriate for use with adolescents; however, the wording refers to relationships with "children." Adolescents may not think of themselves as "children."
3. The AQC uses a single categorical classification rather than providing a more detailed or multidimensional assessment of attachment. The AQC is extremely economical in terms of time and burden to participants, especially given that it appears to yield good information; however, if a clinician/researcher is looking for an indicator of change this most likely would not be a good choice, given that there is limited potential for statistical variance.
Author Comments
Author Comments:
The author read the review and stated that "it looked fine!" No changes were made.
Citation for Review:
Deborah Augenbraun, Ph.D.
Editor of Review:
Chandra Ghosh Ippen, Ph.D.
Last Updated:
Mon, 07/18/2005
PDF Available:
Yes
Full Reviews
Full Reviews:
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Stay Connected
