| Literature DB >> 22359149 |
Fenna E A M van Eijck1, Susan J T Branje, William W Hale, Wim H J Meeus.
Abstract
This longitudinal study examined the direction of effects between adolescents' generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) symptoms and perceived parent-adolescent attachment relationship quality, as well as the moderating role of gender and age. 1,313 Dutch adolescents (48.5% boys) from two age cohorts of early (n = 923, M(age) = 12 at W1) and middle (n = 390, M(age) = 16 at W1) adolescents completed questionnaires regarding their attachment relationship to parents and GAD symptoms in four waves. Cross-lagged path analyses demonstrated that adolescents' GAD symptoms and perceived father-adolescent attachment relationship quality bidirectionally negatively affected each other over time. For mothers, adolescents' GAD symptoms negatively predicted perceived mother-adolescent attachment relationship quality over time. The within-wave correlated residuals between perceived attachment relationship quality with fathers and GAD symptoms were stronger for boys than for girls and stronger for the cohort of middle adolescents than for the cohort of early adolescents. This study demonstrates that both the parents' and the adolescents' gender as well as the adolescents' age affects the relation between adolescents' GAD symptoms and perceived parent-adolescent attachment relationship quality.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22359149 PMCID: PMC3383948 DOI: 10.1007/s10802-012-9613-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Abnorm Child Psychol ISSN: 0091-0627
Mean age and gender differences in perceived attachment relationship quality with fathers and mothers and GAD symptoms
| Variable source | Attachment quality fathers | Attachment quality mothers | GAD symptoms | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Wave 1 | ||||||
| Boys ( | 4.07 | 0.82 | 4.26 | 0.91 | 1.31 | 0.39 |
| Girls ( | 4.15 | 0.81 | 4.58 | 0.85 | 1.43 | 0.41 |
| Early cohort ( | 4.20 | 0.83 | 4.46 | 0.91 | 1.34 | 0.39 |
| Middle cohort ( | 3.95 | 0.77 | 4.35 | 0.85 | 1.43 | 0.41 |
| Wave 3 | ||||||
| Boys ( | 4.07 | 0.76 | 4.25 | 0.73 | 1.29 | 0.35 |
| Girls ( | 4.13 | 0.84 | 4.52 | 0.79 | 1.46 | 0.43 |
| Early cohort ( | 4.08 | 0.81 | 4.36 | 0.78 | 1.35 | 0.39 |
| Middle cohort ( | 4.14 | 0.79 | 4.47 | 0.75 | 1.44 | 0.42 |
| Wave 4 | ||||||
| Boys ( | 4.13 | 0.76 | 4.33 | 0.75 | 1.27 | 0.33 |
| Girls ( | 4.16 | 0.86 | 4.49 | 0.81 | 1.49 | 0.44 |
| Early cohort ( | 4.13 | 0.82 | 4.38 | 0.79 | 1.35 | 0.40 |
| Middle cohort ( | 4.18 | 0.80 | 4.50 | 0.76 | 1.44 | 0.43 |
| Wave 5 | ||||||
| Boys ( | 4.18 | 0.76 | 4.38 | 0.71 | 1.25 | 0.32 |
| Girls ( | 4.20 | 0.85 | 4.54 | 0.78 | 1.49 | 0.45 |
| Early cohort ( | 4.18 | 0.82 | 4.44 | 0.76 | 1.35 | 0.39 |
| Middle cohort ( | 4.21 | 0.76 | 4.53 | 0.74 | 1.44 | 0.45 |
|
| 1.23 | 28.14** | 82.23** | |||
|
| 1.62 | 0.12 | 8.31** | |||
|
| 4.79** | 2.83* | 0.37 | |||
|
| 13.99** | 9.53** | 0.21 | |||
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01
Correlation coefficients between perceived attachment relationship quality with fathers and mothers and GAD symptoms
| Attachment quality fathers | Attachment quality mothers | GAD symptoms | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wave 1 | Wave 3 | Wave 4 | Wave 5 | Wave 1 | Wave 3 | Wave 4 | Wave 5 | Wave 1 | Wave 3 | Wave 4 | Wave 5 | |
| Attachment quality fathers | ||||||||||||
| Wave 1 | ||||||||||||
| Wave 3 | 0.47** | |||||||||||
| Wave 4 | 0.41** | 0.65** | ||||||||||
| Wave 5 | 0.34** | 0.58** | 0.68** | |||||||||
| Attachment quality mothers | ||||||||||||
| Wave 1 | 0.64** | 0.25** | 0.20** | 0.16** | ||||||||
| Wave 3 | 0.32** | 0.55** | 0.41** | 0.36** | 0.46** | |||||||
| Wave 4 | 0.24** | 0.40** | 0.59** | 0.42** | 0.34** | 0.61** | ||||||
| Wave 5 | 0.21** | 0.35** | 0.45** | 0.58** | 0.29** | 0.54** | 0.68** | |||||
| GAD symptoms | ||||||||||||
| Wave 1 | −0.18** | −0.15** | −0.20** | −0.19** | −0.13** | −0.14** | −0.20** | −0.16** | ||||
| Wave 3 | −0.15** | −0.23** | −0.23** | −0.22** | −0.12** | −0.19** | −0.19** | −0.20** | 0.49** | |||
| Wave 4 | −0.11** | −0.17** | −0.22** | −0.24** | −0.08* | −0.13** | −0.18** | −0.18** | 0.42** | 0.67** | ||
| Wave 5 | −0.10** | −0.18** | −0.19** | −0.24** | −0.04 | −0.10** | −0.15** | −0.19** | 0.45** | 0.61** | 0.72** | |
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Model comparisons of cross-lagged path analysis of GAD symptoms and perceived attachment relationship quality with fathers and mothers
| Model fit indices | Model comparison test | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| χSB² |
| CFI | RMSEA | Δ | Δ | ||
| Fathers | |||||||
| Model 1. Baseline model | 228.17 | 18 | 0.92 | 0.09 | |||
| Model 2. Baseline+paths GAD symptoms → attachment quality | 186.70 | 15 | 0.94 | 0.09 | 2 vs. 1 | 40.93** | 3 |
| Model 3. Baseline+paths attachment quality → GAD symptoms | 214.35 | 15 | 0.93 | 0.10 | 3 vs. 1 | 18.07** | 3 |
| Model 4. Baseline+bidirectional paths | 173.28 | 12 | 0.94 | 0.10 | 4 vs. 1 | 54.89** | 6 |
| 4 vs. 2 | 9.13* | 3 | |||||
| 4 vs. 3 | 40.69** | 3 | |||||
| Mothers | |||||||
| Model 1. Baseline model | 189.33 | 18 | 0.94 | 0.09 | |||
| Model 2. Baseline+paths GAD symptoms → attachment quality | 168.04 | 15 | 0.94 | 0.09 | 2 vs. 1 | 20.32** | 3 |
| Model 3. Baseline+paths attachment quality → GAD symptoms | 181.97 | 15 | 0.94 | 0.09 | 3 vs. 1 | 4.39 | 3 |
| Model 4. Baseline+bidirectional paths | 160.45 | 12 | 0.94 | 0.10 | 4 vs. 1 | 24.29** | 6 |
| 4 vs. 2 | 3.79 | 3 | |||||
| 4 vs. 3 | 19.72** | 3 | |||||
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01
Cross-lagged path analyses of perceived attachment relationship quality with fathers and mothers and GAD symptoms
| Parent | Fathers | Mothers | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B¹ | ß | B | ß | |
| Stability paths | ||||
| GAD symptoms W1→W3 | 0.49 (0.42, 0.56) | 0.49** | 0.49 (0.42, 0.56) | 0.50** |
| GAD symptoms W3→W4 | 0.68 (0.62, 0.73) | 0.66** | 0.68 (0.63, 0.73) | 0.67** |
| GAD symptoms W4→W5 | 0.72 (0.66, 0.77) | 0.71** | 0.73 (0.68, 0.78) | 0.72** |
| Attachment quality W1→W3 | 0.44 (0.38, 0.51) | 0.45** | 0.39 (0.34, 0.44) | 0.45** |
| Attachment quality W3→W4 | 0.64 (0.59, 0.70) | 0.63** | 0.61 (0.56, 0.67) | 0.60** |
| Attachment quality W4→W5 | 0.67 (0.62, 0.72) | 0.67** | 0.65 (0.61, 0.70) | 0.68** |
| Initial correlation | ||||
| Attachment quality W1 – GAD symptoms W1 | −0.06 (−0.08, −0.04) | −0.18** | −0.05 (−0.07, -0.02) | −0.13** |
| Within-wave correlated residuals | ||||
| Attachment quality W3 – GAD symptoms W3 | −0.04 (−0.06,−0.02) | −0.17** | −0.02 (−0.03, -0.01) | −0.09** |
| Attachment quality W4 – GAD symptoms W4 | −0.02 (−0.03, -0.00) | −0.09** | −0.02 (−0.03, -0.01) | −0.11** |
| Attachment quality W5 – GAD symptoms W5 | −0.01 (−0.03, -0.00) | −0.08* | −0.02 (−0.03, -0.01) | −0.14** |
| Cross-lagged effects | ||||
| GAD symptoms W1 → Attachment quality W3 | −0.18 (−0.24, -0.12) | −0.09** | −0.12 (−0.18, -0.07) | −0.06** |
| GAD symptoms W3 → Attachment quality W4 | −0.18 (−0.24, -0.12) | −0.09** | −0.12 (−0.18, -0.07) | −0.06** |
| GAD symptoms W4 → Attachment quality W5 | −0.18 (−0.24, -0.12) | −0.09** | −0.12 (−0.18, -0.07) | −0.07** |
| Attachment quality W1 → GAD symptoms W3 | −0.02 (−0.03, -0.01) | −0.04** | – | – |
| Attachment quality W3 → GAD symptoms W4 | −0.02 (−0.03, -0.01) | −0.04** | – | – |
| Attachment quality W4 → GAD symptoms W5 | −0.02 (−0.03, -0.01) | −0.04** | – | – |
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01
¹Confidence intervals for B’s are displayed between brackets
Fig. 1Relation between Perceived Atachment Relationship Quality with Fathers and GAD Symptoms. Note. For the cross-lagged paths, the range of ß’s is shown for gender and age cohort (these paths could be constrained to be equal). For the within-wave correlated residuals, the ß’s are shown separately for each group. Bold = boys, italic = girls, between brackets = early adolescent cohort, normal = middle adolescent cohort. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01
Fig. 2Relation between Perceived Attachment Relationship Quality with Mothers and GAD Symptoms. Note. For the cross-lagged paths, the range of ß’s is shown for gender and age cohort (these paths could be constrained to be equal). For the within-wave correlated residuals, the ß’s are shown separately for each group. Bold = boys, italic = girls, between brackets = early adolescent cohort, normal = middle adolescent cohort. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01