Feasibility of training service providers on the AMBIANCE-Brief measure for use in community settings

Evaluating the use of the AMBIANCE-Brief measure in clinical settings: Assessing acceptability, feasibility, and utility of the AMBIANCE-Brief

Community agencies and practitioners around the globe seek opportunities to learn various assessment tools and interventions rooted in attachment theory. However, information regarding the feasibility of implementation and sustainability of these tools once participants have been trained to use them, is limited. This study investigated the perceived acceptability, feasibility, utility, relevance, fidelity, and sustainability of the Atypical Maternal Behavior Instrument for Assessment and Classification-Brief (AMBIANCE-Brief) among practitioners who had taken a training. Practitioners (N = 59) who attended a virtual AMBIANCE-Brief training originating from Canada between June 2020 and November 2021 completed an online follow-up survey. Practitioners reported that they primarily used the AMBIANCE-Brief for case conceptualization (68%). Additionally, 95% agreed that the AMBIANCE-Brief was relevant to their clinical practice, 98% agreed it was useful for their clinical work, 76% agreed that it was feasible to implement into their clinical work, and 59% found it easy to incorporate into their treatment planning with clients. Findings suggest that the AMBIANCE-Brief may be acceptable, feasible, and useful for practitioners. Avenues for continuing to evaluate the AMBIANCE-Brief include cross-cultural validity, coder drift, and booster sessions. Additional work clarifying how practitioners integrate the measure into practice would be valuable.

Testing reliability and validity of practitioner-rated parental sensitivity: A novel tool for practice

Improving parental sensitivity is an important objective of interventions to support families. This study examined reliability and validity of parental sensitivity ratings using a novel package of an e-learning tool and an interactive decision tree provided through a mobile application, called the OK! package. Independent raters assessed parental sensitivity using the OK! package (N = 11 raters) and the NICHD Parental Sensitivity rating scales (N = 22 raters) on the basis of videotaped mother-child interactions at 10- or 12-months-old (N = 294) and at 24-months-old (N = 204) from the Dutch longitudinal cohort study Generation2 . Mothers reported on children's externalizing and internalizing problems and social competence when children were 4 and 7 years old. Results showed excellent single interrater reliability for raters using the OK! package (mean ICC = .79), and strong evidence for convergent validity at 10- or 12-month-old (r = .57) and 24-month-old (r = .65). Prospective associations of neither parental sensitivity rated using the OK! package or the NICHD Parental Sensitivity rating scales with child developmental outcomes were statistically significant (p > .05), with overlapping 95% confidence intervals for both measures. The OK! package provides a promising direction for testing alternatives to current training and instruction modalities.

Does coding internal working models of attachment have to be so hard?

The Child Attachment Interview (CAI) has demonstrated promise in youth, yet widespread use is thwarted by the need for interview transcription, face-to-face training, and reliability certification. The present study sought to examine the empirical basis for these barriers. Thirty-five archival CAIs were re-coded by: (1) expert coders (i.e., trained and reliable) without access to transcripts, (2) trained coders who had not completed reliability training, and (3) novice coders who had no formal training. Agreement with consensus classifications was computed with the expectation of moderate agreement. Results supported coding by experts without transcription of the interview. Near-moderate agreement preliminarily supported the use of trained coders who have not attempted reliability certification with appropriate caveats. While moderate agreement was not achieved for novice raters, findings suggest that self-paced training options for the CAI may hold future promise. These contributions erode a number of significant barriers to the current use of the CAI.

Systemic and Individual Factors That Shape Mental Health Service Usage Among Visible Minority Immigrants and Refugees in Canada: A Scoping Review

There exists considerable research which reports that mental health disparities persist among visible minority immigrants and refugees within Canada. Accessing mental health care services becomes a concern which contributes to this, as visible minority migrants are regarded as an at-risk group that are clinically underserved. Thus, the purpose of this review is to explore the following research question: "what are the barriers and facilitators for accessing mental health care services among visible immigrants and refugees in Canada?". A scoping review following guidelines proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19-32, 2005) was conducted. A total of 45 articles published from 2000 to 2020 were selected through the review process, and data from the retrieved articles was thematically analyzed. Wide range of barriers and facilitators were identified at both the systemic and individual levels. Unique differences rooted within landing and legal statuses were also highlighted within the findings to provide nuance amongst immigrants and refugees. With the main layered identity of being a considered a visible minority, this yielded unique challenges patterned by other identities and statuses. The interplay of structural issues rooted in Canadian health policies and immigration laws coupled with individual factors produce complex barriers and facilitators when seeking mental health services. Through employing a combined and multifaceted approach which address the identified factors, the findings also provide suggestions for mental health care providers, resettlement agencies, policy recommendations, and future directions for research are discussed as actionable points of departure.

Admissibility of attachment theory, research and assessments in child custody decision-making? Yes and No!

Attachment theory, research, and assessments have become increasingly applied to settle child custody cases. We discuss such applications in relation to admissibility criteria for scientific evidence and testimony proposed by Faigman et al. (2014). We argue that attachment theory and research can provide valid "framework evidence"; group-based attachment research has yielded general principles suitable as a frame of reference for pertinent court decisions. In particular, child custody decision-making should generally be guided by research indicating that children benefit from attachment networks. In contrast, assessments of attachment quality fall short of providing valid "diagnostic evidence"; information that a specific individual/dyad is a "true" instance of a general group-level principle. In particular, such assessments do not yield valid information about whether a particular caregiver has better caregiving skills than another caregiver and will better support child development. We conclude that attachment theory and research should be admissible for framework but not for diagnostic testimony.