Misperceptions of reactive attachment disorder persist: Poor methods and unsupported conclusions

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) is an often discussed, but misunderstood, diagnostic presentation. A growing body of well-designed prospective studies is providing a wealth of information about the condition; however, misconceptions of RAD abound in both clinical and research arenas. As such, it can be difficult for reviewers to critically evaluate papers pertaining to RAD that are submitted to academic journals and even more difficult for practicing clinicians operating under the time constraints of community-based practice. Papers continue to appear that promote RAD as a form of conduct disorder (CD) or callous/unemotional (CU) presentation among maltreated children, although this conceptualization is directly at odds with the diagnostic criteria found in the DSM-5 and ICD-10 as well as a significant body of well-conducted research. Studies attempting to promote this understanding of RAD typically suffer from significant and multiple methodological flaws. This paper reviews these concerns and provides 5 questions that must be sufficiently answered when evaluating a paper purportedly examining RAD. A recently published paper promoting the CD/CU-conceptualization of RAD is critiqued as an exemplar of applying these 5 questions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)24-29
Number of pages6
JournalResearch in Developmental Disabilities
Volume77
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2018

Fingerprint

Reactive Attachment Disorder
Conduct Disorder
International Classification of Diseases
Research
Prospective Studies

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology

Cite this

@article{0de72d1dff484c29989753bbdea23d31,
title = "Misperceptions of reactive attachment disorder persist: Poor methods and unsupported conclusions",
abstract = "Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) is an often discussed, but misunderstood, diagnostic presentation. A growing body of well-designed prospective studies is providing a wealth of information about the condition; however, misconceptions of RAD abound in both clinical and research arenas. As such, it can be difficult for reviewers to critically evaluate papers pertaining to RAD that are submitted to academic journals and even more difficult for practicing clinicians operating under the time constraints of community-based practice. Papers continue to appear that promote RAD as a form of conduct disorder (CD) or callous/unemotional (CU) presentation among maltreated children, although this conceptualization is directly at odds with the diagnostic criteria found in the DSM-5 and ICD-10 as well as a significant body of well-conducted research. Studies attempting to promote this understanding of RAD typically suffer from significant and multiple methodological flaws. This paper reviews these concerns and provides 5 questions that must be sufficiently answered when evaluating a paper purportedly examining RAD. A recently published paper promoting the CD/CU-conceptualization of RAD is critiqued as an exemplar of applying these 5 questions.",
author = "Brian Allen",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ridd.2018.03.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "77",
pages = "24--29",
journal = "Research in Developmental Disabilities",
issn = "0891-4222",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

Misperceptions of reactive attachment disorder persist : Poor methods and unsupported conclusions. / Allen, Brian.

In: Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 77, 01.06.2018, p. 24-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Misperceptions of reactive attachment disorder persist

T2 - Poor methods and unsupported conclusions

AU - Allen, Brian

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) is an often discussed, but misunderstood, diagnostic presentation. A growing body of well-designed prospective studies is providing a wealth of information about the condition; however, misconceptions of RAD abound in both clinical and research arenas. As such, it can be difficult for reviewers to critically evaluate papers pertaining to RAD that are submitted to academic journals and even more difficult for practicing clinicians operating under the time constraints of community-based practice. Papers continue to appear that promote RAD as a form of conduct disorder (CD) or callous/unemotional (CU) presentation among maltreated children, although this conceptualization is directly at odds with the diagnostic criteria found in the DSM-5 and ICD-10 as well as a significant body of well-conducted research. Studies attempting to promote this understanding of RAD typically suffer from significant and multiple methodological flaws. This paper reviews these concerns and provides 5 questions that must be sufficiently answered when evaluating a paper purportedly examining RAD. A recently published paper promoting the CD/CU-conceptualization of RAD is critiqued as an exemplar of applying these 5 questions.

AB - Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) is an often discussed, but misunderstood, diagnostic presentation. A growing body of well-designed prospective studies is providing a wealth of information about the condition; however, misconceptions of RAD abound in both clinical and research arenas. As such, it can be difficult for reviewers to critically evaluate papers pertaining to RAD that are submitted to academic journals and even more difficult for practicing clinicians operating under the time constraints of community-based practice. Papers continue to appear that promote RAD as a form of conduct disorder (CD) or callous/unemotional (CU) presentation among maltreated children, although this conceptualization is directly at odds with the diagnostic criteria found in the DSM-5 and ICD-10 as well as a significant body of well-conducted research. Studies attempting to promote this understanding of RAD typically suffer from significant and multiple methodological flaws. This paper reviews these concerns and provides 5 questions that must be sufficiently answered when evaluating a paper purportedly examining RAD. A recently published paper promoting the CD/CU-conceptualization of RAD is critiqued as an exemplar of applying these 5 questions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044947825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044947825&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.03.012

DO - 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.03.012

M3 - Review article

C2 - 29626664

AN - SCOPUS:85044947825

VL - 77

SP - 24

EP - 29

JO - Research in Developmental Disabilities

JF - Research in Developmental Disabilities

SN - 0891-4222

ER -