I hope you find this move acceptable and I am happy to work with you on developing the arguments further. I will put a link to this article in the etiology section of the RAD article. cheers Dr Joe Kiff 16:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who does not know the area well I have some questions I would like to see answered her.

  • Is there a model we could use or propose to explain this link. Given the development of DA is it a case of further conditioning being likely enough to escalate the behaviour to the level of RAD.
  • Can the aspects of DA be seen as logical precursors of RAD in the sense they are scaled down versions of the latter
  • What exactly are the features of DA
  • Whats the advantage of proposing the link? Does it lead to preventative agenda? Do approaches to DA inform us about how to approach RAD?
  • What clinical experiences might support the link?
  • Given the low numbers of RAD how could we design a study to test the hypothesis more clearly. How many people with DA go on to develop RAD through examination of recorder? On the face of it it would be difficult to design such a study.

What do you think?

I think we should write this as exploring a reasonable theoretical hypothesis for which there is no directly applicable evidence but for which a logical sensible case can be made. I am with you in feeling that the references you cite might be reasonably interpreted, at least some of them, as supportive of the theory, But I am also with Fainities in that it is not definitive chapter and verse. I think it is an interesting position which could be strengthened by evidence from clinical practise. Because this is not just an encyclodedia of proven facts we can thoroughly discuss things from a theoretical perspective and do it in such a way that readers can make up their own minds.Dr Joe Kiff 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hooray! Its actually a really interesting and developing area. It very much segues into the whole business of the discussion about redefining what is meant by attachment disorders and classifications. I think we ought to cite clearly what research there is. Then set out notable theories and contributions to the subject - and then perhaps broaden out to the wider discussion.Fainites 21:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way - I think most would agree that disorganised attachment brings an increased risk of RAD as it does of a huge range of psychopathologies. I suppose this aspect needs to be set out clearly on a disorganised attachemnt page which could then lead on to not only RAD but the other psychopathologies. Fainites 21:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Likely to develop RAD[edit source]

This statement now carries a third citation, that of "Howes, P., & Cicchetti, D., (1995). In Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S., (Eds.) (1995), Child Abuse, Child Development and Social Policy: Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology, volume 8, Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp.249-299".I have looked in "Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology: Child Abuse, Child Development, Social Policy v. 8 (Advances in Applied Developmental Psychology) by Sheree L. Toth (Editor), Dante Cicchetti (Editor)and can find no reference to reactive attachment disorder at all. It contains all the usual material already noted on the prevalence of insecure, and in particular disorganized/disoriented attachment but no statement as to the likelihood of this leading to RAD. Neither does the book contain the phrase "trauma-attachment". Please can you post here the precise page number and passages on which you rely to support both parts of this statement. Fainites 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime I have removed it. Fainites 07:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you've put it back. This Ciccetti and Toth chapter does not mention Reactive attachment disorder. What is so difficult about providing the exact page numbers and passages where you say it does if you say I am wrong? You have been repeatedly asked for this in relation to both your Cicchetti citations claiming support for your statements about RAD and never replied. It is for the person putting in the citation to justify its inclusion when requested. Fainites 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I continue to add citations to support the statement. While the specific words, "Reactive" "Attachment" "Disorder" may not be used, the implication seems clear. Dr. Becker-Weidman Talk 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I am grateful that you accept that these citations do not actually mention RAD. Its not at all clear that papers about disorganized attachment that do not even mention Reactive attachment disorder can be used to support the statement that 'these children are likely to develop RAD'. If that is a justifiable implication or conclusion surely you can find a source that says as much? I would have thought it was important not to confuse RAD and disorganized attachment. Disorganized attachement is a risk factor for a whole range of pathologies. In fact Lyons-Ruth describe many of these without ever mentioning RAD.In relation to trauma attachment, why don't we have a separate paragraph that describes what this is? There could also be a paragraph on the proposed new category.Fainites 20:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
While the specific words, "Reactive" "Attachment" "Disorder" may not be used, the implication is clear, based on clinical and other perspectives. The two terms are not being confused; at least not among clinicians and researchers. cheersDr. Becker-Weidman Talk 20:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.