Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34072158›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Universality and Normativity of the Attachment Theory in Non-Western Psychiatric and Non-Psychiatric Samples: Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Naser Abdulhafeeth Alareqe, Samsilah Roslan, Sahar Mohammed Taresh, Mohamad Sahari Nordin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Naser Abdulhafeeth AlareqeDepartment of Psychology and Counseling, Taiz University (TU), Taiz 6803, Yemen.
Samsilah RoslanDepartment of Foundations of Education, Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Selangor 43400, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0003-1795-1606
Sahar Mohammed TareshDepartment of Foundations of Education, Faculty of Educational Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Selangor 43400, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-6541-0110
Mohamad Sahari NordinDepartment of Educational Psychology and Counseling, International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM), Selangor 53100, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study tests for the first time the validity of universality and normativity assumptions related to the attachment theory in a non-Western culture, using a novel design including psychiatric and non-psychiatric samples as part of a comprehensive exploratory and advanced confirmatory framework. Three attachment assessments were distributed to 212 psychiatric outpatients and 300 non-psychiatric samples in Yemen. The results of the fourteen approaches of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) produce a similar result and assertion that the psychiatric outpatients tend to explore attachment outcomes based on multi-methods, while the non-psychiatric samples suggest an attachment orientation based on multi-traits (self-other). The multiple group-confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) demonstrates that the multi-method model fits the psychiatric samples better than the non-psychiatric samples. Equally, the MG-CFA suggests that the multi-traits model also fits the psychiatric samples better than the non-psychiatric samples. Implications of the results are discussed.

Indexed as

OutpatientsFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansPsychometricsYemenattachment orientationsattachment psychosismultiple group CFA

Identifiers

PMID34072158
PMCPMC8198184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.