Refine
Document Type
- Article (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- sensitivity (3) (remove)
Methods for standard meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies are well established and understood. For the more complex case in which studies report test accuracy across multiple thresholds, several approaches have recently been proposed. These are based on similar ideas, but make different assumptions. In this article, we apply four different approaches to data from a recent systematic review in the area of nephrology and compare the results. The four approaches use: a linear mixed effects model, a Bayesian multinomial random effects model, a time-to-event model and a nonparametric model, respectively. In the case study data, the accuracy of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin for the diagnosis of acute kidney injury was assessed in different scenarios, with sensitivity and specificity estimates available for three thresholds in each primary study. All approaches led to plausible and mostly similar summary results. However, we found considerable differences in results for some scenarios, for example, differences in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of up to 0.13. The Bayesian approach tended to lead to the highest values of the AUC, and the nonparametric approach tended to produce the lowest values across the different scenarios. Though we recommend using these approaches, our findings motivate the need for a simulation study to explore optimal choice of method in various scenarios.
Family risks are known to be detrimental to children’s attachment development. This study investigated whether parental sensitivity plays different roles in early attachment development in the context of risk: Sensitivity was hypothesized to mediate risk effects on attachment, as well as a moderator that shapes the relation between risk and attachment. Multiple family risks, parental sensitivity (defined as responsivity and supportive presence), and children’s attachment security of 197 infants and toddlers (Mage = 15.25 months) and their caregivers were assessed in a prospective study with a cohort-sequential-design in Germany. Caregivers’ sensitivity served as a mediator of risk effects on attachment as well as a moderator that buffers adverse consequences of risk. Early sensitivity might be relevant in setting the stage for attachment development supporting resilience.
Growing up in high-risk environments is detrimental to children’s development of attachment security. Parenting behavior is hypothesized to be the mechanism through which risks exert their influence. However, risk influences can vary between individuals by gender. Aim of this study was to explore specific pathways of family risk on early attachment security and additionally examine the transmission via parenting behavior. The sample consisted of 197 children and their primary caregivers. Children’s age ranged between 10 and 21 months (M = 15.25, SD = 3.59). Data assessment included 21 distal and proximal family risk factors, children’s attachment security, and parental responsivity and supportive presence. Whereas distal risk factors had an adverse effect only on girls’ attachment security, proximal risks negatively affected only boys’ attachment security. Additionally, patterns of risk factors occurring in our sample were analyzed using an exploratory principal component analysis. Regardless of the child’s gender, a low socio-economic status was negatively related to attachment security of all children. Migration and crowding and a high emotional load of the primary caregiver both negatively predicted girls’ but not boys’ attachment security. However, the attachment security of boys was affected by a negative family climate. Most of the adverse risk effects on attachment security were mediated by parental responsivity and supportive presence so that the transmission of risk occurs through parenting behavior. Results revealed a different susceptibility of family risks for girls and boys. The consideration of a gender-sensitive approach in developmental psychopathology and interventions of developmental child welfare services is recommended.