Nur Aishah Hanun Azizi

Developing a methodology:

A Study of Resilience and Attachment

in the Early Years.

A multimethod study of resiliency protective factors and

attachment for children age between 6 to 8 years.

• “Attachment theory and resilience theory have developed as

two separate bodies of knowledge with their own genealogy.

…the concepts of attachment and resilience should be

regarded as complementary and that each is strengthened by

such an approach.” (Atwool, 2006, p. 315)

• “There are clear links in many of these characteristics ( of

positive behavioral exchanges between child-parent dyads) to

predictions made from attachment theory about secure

attachments as a principal source of resilience” (Rolfe, 2004, p. 78)

Why resilience and attachment ?

What is resilience?

Resiliency Protective factors:

• ~ it is dynamic: NOT a set of permanent and inherent characteristics.

• ~ the process of resiliency maps the individual’s journey to triumph

over adversity in a way that makes the individual better than prior to the

disruptive event. #1

(Richardson, et al., 1990; Rutter, 1985)

• ~ they are factors that exist within oneself (INTERNAL) and

within ones environment (EXTERNAL). They assist the individual

to overcome adverse situations and promote resilience.

(Anthony, 1974; Garmezy, 1991)

Resiliency Research:

Examples of Resiliency Protective Factors:

Protective Factors Researcher

Anthony Garmezy Rutter Werner

Sense of personal worthiness x x x x

Positive social orientation x x x x

Believes in her or his self-efficacy

x x x x

Delays gratification x x x x

Internal locus of control x x x x

Manages range of emotions x

Sense of personal worthiness x x x x

Communicates effectively x x

Ability to have close relationships

x x x

Interpersonal sensitivity x

Citation for resiliency researchers:

Anthony E.J. (1974); Garmezy, N. (1991); Rutter, M. (1985, 1987); Werner, E.E. (1982, 1992) #1

What is Attachment Theory ?

1. Definition: ~ is the bond between an individual and an attachment figure.

2. Attachment theory is an evolutionary theory (ethology):

Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA) – Bowlby (1969)

~ a survival mechanism to ensure survival, growth and reproduction

Control systems theory – governs behaviours to guarantee close proximity to the caregiver

3. Attachment theory (to a lesser extent) has psychoanalytic elements:

Internal working model – predictions of oneself and others and the responses of significant others to one’s attachment needs.

Development of attachment ▫ Phase 1 – from 0 to 2 months

▫ Phase 2 – from 2 to 6 months

▫ Phase 3 – from 6/7 months to 2/3 years (separation & stranger anxiety)

▫ Phase 4 – from 2/3 years and over

Attachment Theory

1. Pioneered by John Bowlby – trilogy: • Attachment and loss, Volume 1: Attachment (1969/1982)

• Attachment and loss, Volume 2: Separation: Anxiety and anger (1973)

• Attachment and Loss, Volume 3: Loss: Sadness and Depression (1980)

2. Tripartite Classification of attachment by Mary Ainsworth and Wittig (1969); Ainsworth et al. (1978):

• Secure (Type B)

• Insecure-avoidant (Type A)

• Insecure-resistant/ambivalent (Type C)

3. Classification of Disorganised/disoriented attachment style by Main and Solomon (1986, 1990). (Type D)

4. Controlling attachment behaviour by Main and Cassidy (1988) – (Type D) : onset at 6 years.

• Controlling-punitive

• Controlling-overbright /caregiving

◄

Attachment in early childhood:

Early attachment forms the basis for positive social and emotional

development for many psychosocial competencies.

Among the consequences to insecure attachment:

• Negative self-concept

• Low Self-esteem

• Low self-confidence & beliefs in self-competency

• Poor Emotional self-regulation

• Low interpersonal communication skills

• Negative internal working model

(Berk, 2005; Hoffnung et al., 2010; Santrock, 2008)

#

2

Prevalence of insecure attachment:

1. Australian’s first born at age of

12 months:

59% secure, 41% insecure

2. 93% are Caucasian of European

origin, 7% are non-European.

3. This distribution is reported to be

consistent with other Australian

studies.

(Harrison & Ungerer, 2002; Radojevic, 1996)

1. Distribution of attachment

classifications in other countries:

(a) United States:

67% secure, 33% insecure

(b) Western Europe:

66% secure, 34% insecure

(c) Africa:

57-69% secure, 43-31% insecure

(d) China:

68% secure, 32% insecure

(e) Japan:

61-68% secure, 39-32% insecure

(van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999)

Theoretical Framework Conceptual Framework

• Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological

Systems Theory #

(Urie bronfenbrenner,1979)

• The Resiliency Model (1990) #2 (Richardson et al, 1990)

• Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1962, 1973, 1980; Ainsworth, 1998)

• The Transmission Model # (van Ijzendoorn, 1995)

Foundations of a Research Design:

Where does the processes of

resilience and attachment overlap ?

#

A

B

C

The COMMON denominator:

BOTH RESILIENCE AND ATTACHMENT REQUIRES

POSITIVE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS FROM

ONE’S SIGNIFICANT OTHER/S.

A research design of 2 genealogically different constructs:

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological

Systems

Theoretical Framework Conceptual Framework

• Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological

Systems Theory #

(Urie bronfenbrenner,1979)

• The Resiliency Model (1990) #2 (Richardson et al, 1990)

• Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1962, 1973, 1980; Ainsworth, 1998)

• The Transmission Model # (van Ijzendoorn, 1995)

Foundations of a Research Design:

Quality of Attachment

Internal Resiliency

Protective Factors

Strength/challenge to 10

Resiliency Factors

External Resiliency

Protective Factors

Quality of social &

emotional development

#

Purpose of the study:

1. To develop EYR: ADS for children 6 – 8 years. #

2. To explore the resiliency aspects of the respondents

within the context of an attachment intervention

program.

3. To identify points of convergence between the

resiliency process and the attachment intervention.

4. To identify gender influences to the resiliency process.

5. To explore the mesosystem of the respondents from

the aspects of resiliency and attachment processes.

Research Questions:

1. How to develop the EYR:ADS instrument?

2. How do the external protective factors change with

intervention?

3. How do the internal protective factors change with

intervention?

4. What elements of intervention impacted upon the specific

points of the resiliency process?

5. How does gender impact upon respondents’ interaction

with their attachment figure?

6. What are the elements within the mesosystem of

respondents that are sensitive to intervention?

The Research Design

8 respondents

age 6-8 years

Qualitative

Quantitative

Attachment

intervention

Semi-

structured

interviews

Unstructured

interviews &

field notes

Resiliency

questionnaire

Resiliency

scores

Method of data collection

RESPONDENTS:

Purposive sampling – a type of non-probability or

non-random sampling (Creswell, 2005;

Neuman, 2007).

a) Children with insecure attachment.

b) Age between 6 to 8 years*.

c) 4 female and 4 male respondents

d) Able to verbally communicate their feelings and

experiences.

1 quantitative and 3 qualitative instruments

for data collection

One Quantitative Instrument:

a) Procedure to adapt the 62 items CR:ADS

questionnaire to EYR:ADS i. Simplify the language in CR:ADS to 6 – 8 years.

ii. Validation by 5 experts early childhood literacy and

5 in child development: ▫ Face validity

▫ Content validity

▫ Construct validity

iii. Rasch Model for construct validity to ensure level

of language suitable for children 6 – 8 years: pilot

this EYR:ADS to 15 children (5 in each age level).

To develop the EYR:ADS instrument

CR:ADS EYR:ADS

CR:ADS to EYR:ADS

EYR:ADS (version 1) EYR:ADS (version 2)

Aesthetical considerations for EYR:ADS

Early Years Resiliency: Assessing Developmental Strengths Questionnaire (EYR: ADS) for children 6 to 8 years

Individual resiliency profile

#

Quantitative analysis of CRADS

P4

P2 L1 L2

P3 P1

L3

L4

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

NegligibleStigma

NegligibleStigma

Mild Stigma Mild Stigma Mild Stigma High Stigma High Stigma High Stigma

Internal

External

TYPE OF DISABILITY Visible Disability Category Invisible Disability Category

Figure 1: Orientation of Protective Factors in Relation to Stigma

SAMPLE: Output from CRADS

Three main qualitative Approaches:

1. Multiple case study approach of - 8 respondents : 4 male

and 4 female.

2. Semi-structured interviews: a) guided by resiliency scores generated by EYR:ADS

b) guided by attachment intervention protocol.

3. Unstructured interviews and field observations.

4. Participant observation – researcher attends/assists in

attachment intervention, but do not participate in other phases of

research (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1998).

Research Design

QUAL [AIP]

Initial screening of sample:

N = 12

QUAL [AIP]

Interview based on

attachment style:

Nx = 4 and Ny = 4

QUAN [EYR:ADS]

Nx = 4 and Ny = 4

QUAL [AIP]

Interview based on

EYR:ADS profile

Nx = 4 and Ny = 4

QUAL [AIP]

Interview based on

experience with

intervention:

Nx = 4 and Ny = 4

QUAN

[EYR:ADS]

Nx = 4 and Ny = 4

QUAL

Interview based on

EYR:ADS profile

Nx = 4 and Ny = 4

Interpretation of all QUAN and

QUAL findings

1.

2.

3.

4.

7.

8.

9.

10.

POSTMEASURE PREMEASURE

QUAL

Field notes and

unstructured

interviews

6.

5.

An embedded multi-method research design.

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007)

Data collection

1. Procedure for data collection will be done in four

phases:

(a) Phase 1: Initial screening and subsequently

final set of respondents

(b) Phase 2: Pre-intervention phase:

• EYR:ADS measurements and semi-

structured interviews based on resiliency

profile.

• Field observations

• All data will be collected by the researcher

while being aware of bias.

Data collection

(c) Phase 3: Intervention phase:

• Participant observation

• Using unstructured interviews

(b) Phase 4: Post-intervention phase:

• Semi-structured interviews based on

experiences during intervention.

• EYR:ADS measurements and semi-

structured interviews based on resiliency

profile.

• Field observations

(e) Analysis of data

Analysis of Data

1. Quantitative analysis of Resiliency scores from EYR:ADS

a) Generate 8 individual resiliency profiles.

b) Generate resiliency orientation output for all respondents

from aggregated scores of internal and external protective

factors.

Analysis of Data

2. Qualitative analysis of all qualitative data:

a) Stage 1(a): Initial open coding begins with purposive coding based on existing variables in the resiliency questionnaire and known elements in the attachment intervention.

b) Stage 1(b): Initial open coding also include emergent themes that may be useful for further analysis.

c) Stage 2: Axial coding and the development of categories. d) Stage 3: pattern matching and formation of emergent concepts.

(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1998)

3. Triangulation of all quantitative and qualitative data. (Creswell, 2005)

4. Attempts for additional stage 4 and 5 of axial coding will be

made to produce a hypothesis (conceptual proposition) concerning the possible merging of both attachment and resiliency processes.

(Whetten, 1989)

The Process of Resilience & Elements of Attachment (Adapted from Richardson, Neiger, Jensen, & Kumpfer, 1990)

Stressor

Internal

protective

factors

Internal

protective

factors

Internal

protective

factors

Internal

protective

factors

Internal

protective

factors

Internal

protective

factors

Internal

protective

factors

Reintegration Disruption

causing

Disorganization

Reintegration

back to

homeostasis

Resilient

Reintegration

Maladaptive

Reintegration

Dysfunctional

Reintegration

Envirosocial

protective

processes

Envirosocial

enhancing

processes

Envirosocial

supportive

processes

Envirosocial

reintegrating

processes

AIP

AIP

AIP

AIP

AIP = Attachment Intervention Program

Ethics Considerations

1. Permission will be obtained from the Research Ethics

Committee.

2. The issues of sensitivities among respondents will include:

Direct dealing with respondents and their legal guardians to

avoid misinterpretations of intentions and expectations.

Disclosure of sensitive findings may need to be tapered down

unless there are funds to provide additional support after this

study.

3. Full confidentiality will be adhered to protect the well being

and privacy of the respondents and their family.

4. Observer bias – researcher will be aware and consciously

control and reduce any bias or prejudice pertaining to the

observations and analysis of the research.

5. Hawthorn effect – researcher will be aware that behaviors

can change and as a result of the respondent being aware

that he/she is being observed.

Thank you

Pioneers in

the field of

resiliency

research.

Emmy Werner Garmezy, N.

Rutter, M. Luthar, S. Hammond, W.

INTERNAL

1. Self-concept

2. Self-control

3. Empowerment

4. Cultural sensitivity

5. Social sensitivity

EXTERNAL

1. Family

2. Peers

3. Community

4. School

5. Commitment to

learning

(Donnon & Hammond, 2007)

PROTECTIVE FACTORS:

Theoretical Framework: Dimensions of Resilience

(Donnon & Hammond, 2007)

◄1

#

2

Fewer protective factors, more

at-risk behaviors.

(Donnon & Hammond, 2007)

◄

A/Y/C/EY~ Resiliency: Assessing Developmental Strengths:

(to measure resiliency protective factors) #

• Adult

AR:ADS

• Youth (grades 7 to 9)

YR:ADS

• Child ( 8 – 11 years)

CR:ADS

• Early years (6 – 8 years)

EYR:ADS