Skip to main content
. 2018 Jul 10;9:1189. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01189

Table 1.

Characteristics of studies included in review.

Reference Adoption subsample Comparison group(s) Assessment times and measures Research type Theoretical perspective
Barone and Lionetti, 2012 N = 20 (age range = 3–5 y, M age = 3.9 y, SD = 1.4; 16 boys) and their adoptive mothers (M age = 39.9 y, SD = 4.2) and fathers (M age = 41.9 y, SD = 3.5) N/A 12–18 mos after adoption: MCAST 12 mos after MCAST: TEC Within first mo of adoption: AAI Quan Att – Cat
Heller et al., 2006a Fraternal twins aged 8, boy and girl N/A NSST largely based on ASCT and MSSB Qual Att – Fine
Hodges and Steele, 2000b Multiple case examples, mostly from boy aged 7 N/A SSAP Qual Att – Fine
Hodges et al., 2003b N = 33 late-adopted (placed between 4 and 8 y 8 mos of age, M age = 6 y 1 mo; 14 boys and 19 girls) 31 early-adopted (placed below 12 mos of age, M age = 3.73 mos; 15 boys and 16 girls) Immediately after adoption (M age = 6 y 5 mos for late-adopted group; 5 y 9 mos for early-adopted group) and 1-y follow-up: SSAP Quan Att – Fine
Hodges et al., 2005b N = 63 late-adopted (placed between 4 and 8 y 8 mos of age, M age = 6 y; just over half were boys) 48 early-adopted (placed below 12 mos of age, M age = 3.73 mos; half were boys) Immediately after adoption (M age = 6 y 4 mos for late-adopted group; 5 y 9 mos for early-adopted group), 1- and 2-y follow-up: SSAP Immediately after adoption: SDQ Quan Att – Dim/ Fine
Hodges et al., 2009b Multiple case examples (girl aged 7, girl aged 5.5, boy aged 8, boy aged 7) N/A SSAP Qual Att – Dim/ Fine
Kocovska et al., 2012 N = 34 referred with symptoms of indiscriminate friendliness and history of severe maltreatment in early childhood (age range = 5–12 y, M age = 9.4 y, SD = 1.8; 18 boys and 16 girls) 32 typically developing age- and gender-matched comparisons with no history of maltreatment (M age = 8.7 y, SD = 2.4; 17 boys and 15 girls) MCAST at M of 51.3 (SD = 26.8) mos in adoptive family for referred group Quan Att – Cat
Pace et al., 2014c N = 61 late-placed (age range = 4.5–8.3 y, M age = 6.2 y, SD = 1.1; 34 boys and 27 girls) N/A MCAST at M of 13.7 mos (SD = 6.6, range = 7-28) after placement Quan Att – Cat/ Dim Mz
Pace and Zavattini, 2011c N = 20 late-placed (age range = 4–7 y, M age = 71.7 mos, SD = 12.4; 9 boys and 11 girls) and their (15) adoptive mothers (M age = 44.1 y, SD = 4.1) N/A 6 mos after placement: MCAST At placement: AAI Quan Att – Cat
Pace et al., 2012c N = 28 late-placed (age range = 4-7 y, M age = 70.0 mos, SD = 12.8; 13 boys and 15 girls) and their (20) adoptive mothers (age range = 38–52 y, M age = 44.5 y, SD = 4.4) N/A 7-8 mos after placement: MCAST 40 days after placement: AAI 40 days after placement: LIPS-R 7–8 mos after placement: PPT Quan Att – Cat/ Fine
Page et al., 2008a See (Heller et al., 2006) See (Heller et al., 2006) See (Heller et al., 2006) Qual Att – Fine Aff
Román et al., 2012 N = 40 (age range = 4–8 y, M age = 76.0 mos, SD = 14.2; 72.5% boys) 50 institutionalized (age range = 4–8 y, M age = 78 mos, SD = 17.9; 48% boys) and 58 biological comparisons (age range = 4–8 y, M age = 75 mos, SD = 14.6) SSAP BDI, CEG Quan Att – Dim
Steele et al., 2007ab See (Steele et al., 2003) See (Steele et al., 2003) Immediately after adoption: SSAP Immediately before adoption: AAI 3 mos after adoption: PDI Quan Att – Fine
Steele et al., 2003b N = 61 late-adopted maltreated (age range = 4–8 y, M age = 6; 43% boys) and their (43) adoptive mothers (M age = 40 y) N/A SSAP AAI Mix Att – Fine
Steele et al., 2010b Case example (boy aged 4.5) N/A At and 2 y into placement: SSAP AAI Qual Att – Fine Aff Mz
Steele et al., 2009b Two case examples (girl aged 7 and girl aged 6.5) N/A Within 3 mos of and 2 y into placement: SSAP Prior to adoption: AAI Qual Att – Fine
Steele et al., 2008b N = 58 late-adopted maltreated (age range = 4–8 y, M age = 5.5, SD = 1.4; 43% boys) and their (41) adoptive mothers (M age = 40 y, SD = 6) and fathers (M age = 43 y, SD = 7) 47 biological comparisons and their (32) parental couples 2 y after adoption: SSAP Prior to adoption: AAI Mix Att – Fine
Vorria et al., 2006 N = 61 (age range = 3.8–4.8 y, M age = 4.2; 32 boys and 29 girls) 39 comparisons (age range = 3.8–4.8y, M age = 4.2, SD = 0.2; 20 boys and 19 girls) ASCT MSCA Quan Att – Fine

References with the same superscript report on the same study;

N/A, Not Applicable;

MCAST, Manchester Child Attachment Story Task; TEC, Test of Emotion Comprehension; AAI, Adult Attachment Interview; ASCT, Attachment Story Completion Task; MSSB, MacArthur Story Stem Battery; SSAP, Story Stem Assessment Profile; SDQ, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; LIPS-R, Leiter International Performance Scale – Revised; PPT, Peabody Picture Test; BDI, Battelle Development Inventory; CEG, Comprensiòn de Estructuras Gramaticales; PDI, Parent Development Interview; MSCA, McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities;

Quan, primary quantitative study; Qual, primary qualitative study, Mix, primary mixed-methods study;

Att, attachment perspective; Cat, attachment categories; Dim, attachment dimensions; Fine, fine-grained aspects of attachment; Aff, affect-regulatory perspective; Mz, mentalizing perspective.