Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale (MIBS) is among the most popular measurement tools to evaluate caregiver-infant attachment. We carried out a meta-analysis study to explore the generalizability of the reliability coefficients for the MIBS in different studies. The literature review yielded a total of 702 studies investigating caregiver-infant attachment. After removing duplicate studies, we also excluded compilations, meta-analyses, qualitative studies, those using different measurement tools, studies published in a language other than English, citations, and those whose full texts could not be accessed. Eventually, we considered a total of 26 studies with 33 Cronbach’s alpha coefficients that satisfied the inclusion criteria. We normalized the alpha coefficients using Bonett’s transformation, and the analyses were performed using a 95% confidence interval. The findings revealed a Cronbach’s alpha (n = 33) coefficient of 0.73 (CI = 0.68–0.77); hence, the present reliability generalization study provides evidence that the reliability scores produced after measurements with the MIBS in previous studies are acceptable across samples. Overall, further studies may reliably utilize the MIBS to evaluate mother-infant attachment.

Keywords

attachment reliability generalization meta-analysis internal consistency

Introduction

An infant’s interest in and attachment to a human figure, particularly their mother as a primary caregiver, occurs when the mother satisfies their physiological needs, which leads the infant to perceive their mother as a source of satisfaction (Bowlby, 1958). According to Bowlby, infants’ experience with their primary caregivers leads to generalized expectations and beliefs (working model) about the self, the world, and relationships (Bowlby, 1973, 1980). In other words, infants inevitably learn what to expect from their caregivers based on repeated mutual interactions and can regulate their behavior accordingly (Hazan & Shaver, 1994), which is conceived of as “attachment.” Maternal emotional involvement with the baby in the perinatal period is recognized and called “bonding” (Yoshida et al., 2012), which is a process in which the infant “attaches” to their mother. An early, positive mother-newborn relationship is considered to be essential in the mother’s establishing unconditional love toward the infant, as well as the infant’s developing security and trust in the mother. In the subsequent stages of development, bonding also initiates friendship and trust (APA, 2022). In general, attachment is a kind of emotional bond with caregivers developed throughout infancy. The quality and timing of attachment are more likely to govern the quality of later development (Malekpour, 2007). The previous research already clarified the importance of the quality of mother-infant attachment in development and psychological well-being (Deans et al., 2016; Fuchs et al., 2016; Karakaş & Dağlı, 2019; Malekpour, 2007; Winston & Chicot, 2016; Young, 2013).

The mother-infant attachment is always under the spotlight (Brockington et al., 2001) since diverse factors may affect the secure mother-infant attachment (Tichelman et al., 2019). Therefore, to investigate their attachment types, 12-24 month-old infants are often recruited to the “Strange Situation Test” by exploring their separation from and reunion with their primary caregivers (Ainsworth et al., 1981). Apart from this experimental method, several measurement tools have been developed with different features and reliability so far to evaluate mother-infant attachment (Brockington et al., 2001, 2006; Condon & Corkindale, 1998; Fleming et al., 1988; Kumar, 1997; Mathews et al., 2019; Nagata et al., 2000; Perrelli et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2005; Yoshida et al., 2012; Zeanah & Benoit, 1995). Ensuring the validity and reliability of such instruments in different countries may help uncover mother-infant attachment issues, design early interventions for such problems, and compare the results between studies (Garcia-Esteve et al., 2016).

The Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale (MIBS) (Taylor et al., 2005) is a practical tool that aims to measure mother-infant bonding through self-report postpartum feelings toward the baby with one-word descriptors. It is often administered at regular intervals from the first days after delivery and has been utilized by many studies so far. The four-point Likert-type scale consists of 8 items, is convenient to use, and shows links with early mood. It may aid future research into the causes and consequences of the mother’s failure to bond with her child (Taylor et al., 2005). The scale was developed primarily based on the utterances “absent affection, sometimes hate, rejection, neglect or impulses to harm,” emerging in a qualitative study by Kumar (1997). Kumar (1997) described them as evidence of a disorder of mother-to-infant bonding (Taylor et al., 2005). Taylor et al. (2005) used the term “bonding” when developing the MIBS to describe how the mother feels toward her infant and indicated that bonding includes the infant’s behavior toward the mother, which differentiates it from attachment. The scale was also used to evaluate father-infant attachment in research on fathers’ involvement in the delivery and postpartum processes and their sense of parenthood (Brandao & Figueiredo, 2012; Suchy et al., 2020). In the relevant literature, the scale was administered to mothers (Coktay & Turk, 2020; Eapen et al., 2014; Ertan et al., 2021; Escasa, 2012; Handelzalts et al., 2016; Horsch et al., 2017; Lim, 2013; López-Fernández et al., 2021; Mayopoulos et al., 2021; Mendelson et al., 2018; Roth et al., 2021; Shreffler et al., 2021; Tichelman et al., 2021; Wittkowski et al., 2007) fathers (Shorey et al., 2019; Stuijfzand et al., 2020; Suchy et al., 2020), and caregivers (Foli et al., 2012; South et al., 2012) in the prenatal and postnatal periods. In addition, the scale has already been adapted into different cultures in several countries (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Australia, Singapore, Turkey, Indonesia, and Israel) (Karakulak & Alparslan, 2016; Mörelius et al., 2021; Ohara et al., 2016; Wiguna & Ismail, 2019). A review study, covering the Mother-Child Bonding Assessment Tools, pointed out various measurement tools designed to assess the variable, yet some require cultural adaptation (Perrelli et al., 2014). In addition, it is noteworthy that scholars recommend performing cross-cultural studies using the same scale to close the gap in the literature (Wiguna & Ismail, 2019). In this context, the frequent utilization of the MIBS on different groups in different countries calls forth a need to generalize the reliability coefficients calculated for the scale.

Reliability generalization (RG) is a psychometric, meta-analytic method that integrates the reliability coefficients of a scale calculated in different studies into different samples and attempts to suggest whether the reliability of the scale can be generalized for different situations, contexts, and populations (Sánchez-Meca et al., 2013). In this way, RG provides a solid basis for comparing reliability between different measurements and can be utilized as an argument for using and evaluating a test in various situations (Greco et al., 2018). RG studies often focus on the reliability of measurements in different studies and samples rather than the reliability of a single measurement using the target scale (Şen, 2021). The MIBS is an instrument utilized in different studies with diverse samples. Its user-friendly nature makes it a practical tool and widely adopted. Thus, a meta-analytic, general reliability finding to be extracted from the results of different measurements with the MIBS is more likely to be robust evidence for prospective researchers to use the MIBS. Ultimately, we aimed to create a pool of research utilizing the MIBS and explore the findings related to its reliability in these studies through the RG method (Vacha-Haase, 1998). In this study, we sought an answer to the question, “How reliable is the MIBS for assessing mother-infant bonding?” Accordingly, we aimed to review studies using the MIBS and reporting its Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. In this context, we first defined “bonding” and emphasized its key role in early childhood.

Method

We resorted to two different guidelines to generalize the reliability results of the MIBS in different studies: the updated version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Moher et al., 2009; Page et al. 2021), which is a systematic guideline for meta-analysis studies, and the REGEMA Checklist, a customized manual for RG. The REGEMA (Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis) Checklist is a 30-item checklist created for the benefit of researchers, reviewers, and editors in RG studies (Sánchez-Meca et al., 2021). The REGEMA can be used by: (a) meta-analysts conducting RG meta-analyses and aiming to improve the reporting quality, (b) consumers of the RG meta-analyses desiring to be informed about critical appraisals of their reporting quality, and (c) reviewers and editors considering submissions for publication purposes. The REGEMA checklist can be considered a valid tool to improve the reporting quality of RG meta-analyses, as its elaboration was based on other widely accepted guidelines and checklists proposed in the meta-analytic literature (PRISMA, MOOSE, AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, MARS), as well as on methodological papers on RG meta-analysis and measurement (Sánchez-Meca et al., 2021).

Selection Criteria, Search Strategies, and Data Extraction

The initial inclusion criteria were using the MIBS and reporting its Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient. The present research included empirical studies published only in the English language. Moreover, since the MIBS was introduced in 2005, we covered studies meeting the inclusion criteria and published in 2005–2021.

We scanned the specified studies using the phrase “mother-to-infant bonding scale” in the Web of Science, Scopus, Pubmed, and Proquest databases. In addition, we examined the citations of the original study, “A new Mother-to-Infant Bonding Scale: Links with early maternal mood” (Taylor et al., 2005). In addition, we search gray literature (OpenSIGLE-the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) and it yielded no further studies. Overall, we reviewed the databases and went through the results adhering to the criteria specified above. As a result, we collected a total of 702 studies.

First, we excluded 437 duplicate studies. Next, among the remaining 265 studies, we eliminated (a) compilations, meta-analyses, and qualitative studies, (b) studies using different measurement tools, (c) studies published in a language other than English, (d) citations, and (e) those without accessible full texts. Then, among those with full texts, we also excluded studies neither calculating nor reporting any reliability coefficients (the authors of these studies were kindly requested reliability findings via email but did not respond to our e-mails or want to share the relevant results.) (n = 93). Yet, we did not consider the variables, such as place, sample, age, and gender (mother-father), to be exclusion criteria. Separate alpha coefficients reported for different samples/times within the same study were included, and these studies were indicated with independent citations (e.g., Wittkowski et al. 2007_1 and Wittkowski et al. 2007_2). Figure 1 presents the workflow regarding the review and evaluation process of the selected studies.

Figure 1.

Workflow chart of the review and evaluation process of the selected studies.

Coding

We, as the first and second authors of this study, independently coded the selected studies by (a) type of publication, (b) year of publication, (c) sample, (d) sample size, (e) number of items, (f) standard deviation and mean (if reported), (g) country, and (h) place of publication. We calculated the interrater reliability with the agreement index and the interrater agreement was determined as 95%. Afterwards, we discussed and arranged the conflicts. Although the coding that we all agreed as interrater agreement on was shortlisted, we sought an expert opinion on the conflicted coding from a researcher specializing in child development and assessment and evaluation. Thus, the interrater agreement was ensured. Finally, we included a total of 33 Cronbach’s alpha values from 26 independent studies in the analysis.

Statistical Analysis

In the study, we considered only studies reporting Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Since there may be skewness in the distribution of Cronbach’s alpha values or the distribution of alpha coefficients may deviate from a normal distribution (Beretvas & Pastor, 2003), we performed Bonett’s transformation on the alpha values. Hence, the reliability coefficients were normalized using Bonett’s transformation formula (1-|α|) (Bonett, 2002) to meet the assumption of normality, considering the number of studies and sample sizes (Sánchez-Meca et al., 2013).

Fixed-effects and random-effects models are frequently used in meta-analysis studies. Although the fixed-effects model accepts the variances as equal, possible minor omissions may affect the model (Bonett, 2010). The random-effects model, on the other hand, assumes that the studies and samples to be included in RG research are randomly selected (Sánchez-Meca et al., 2013). Eventually, we performed statistical analyses on the transformed alpha values using the random-effects model. Moreover, we determined heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q test and I² test on the transformed alpha values. Finally, we utilized the Fail-Safe N test, Egger’s Regression test, and Kendall’s Tau test to investigate possible publication bias. All statistical analyses were performed on the MAJOR package of Jamovi 1.6.15.

Findings

In this study, we aimed to explore the generalizability of the reliability coefficients of the MIBS reported in different studies.

Characteristics of the Selected Studies

Twenty-six studies, selected for this RG study, were carried out between 2005 and 2021, reported 33 alpha values, and originated from the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Australia, Singapore, Turkey, Sweden, Belgium, and Israel. The cumulative sample size consisted of 9,275 people. Table 1 presents an overview of the studies included.

Table 1.

Overview of the Studies Included

No	Author(s)	Type of publication	Country	Participant characteristics	Sample size	Cronbach’s alpha (raw)	Number of items
1	Wittkowski et al., 2007_1	Article	UK	Postnatal mothers	98	0.55	8
2	Wittkowski et al., 2007_2	Article	UK	Postnatal mothers	98	0.49	8
3	Horsch et al., 2017	Article	Switzerland	Postnatal mothers	287	0.77	8
4	Handelzalts et al., 2016	Article	İsrael<	Expectant mothers	33	0.63	8
5	Ertan et al., 2021	Article	France	Postnatal mothers	916	0.82	8
6	Eapen et al., 2014	Article	Australia	Expectant mothers	127	0.91	8
7	Coktay et al., 2020	Article	Turkey	Postnatal mothers	335	0.79	8
8	Mbabazi, 2014	Thesis	USA	Postnatal mothers	89	0.77	8
9	Calhoun, 2015	Thesis	USA	Postnatal mothers	107	0.52	7^a
10	Lim, 2013	Thesis	USA	Postnatal mothers	13	0.92	8
11	Suchy et al., 2020	Article	USA	Postnatal fathers	98	0.36	8
12	Shreffler et al., 2021	Article	USA	Expectant mothers	177	0.71	8
13	Stuijfzand et al., 2020_1	Article	Switzerland	Postnatal mothers	210	0.73	8
14	Stuijfzand et al., 2020_2	Article	Switzerland	Postnatal mothers	91	0.73	8
15	Stuijfzand et al., 2020_3	Article	Switzerland	Postnatal mothers	301	0.73	8
16	Roth et al., 2021	Article	USA	Postnatal mothers	125	0.76	8
17	Mendelson et al., 2018	Article	USA	Postnatal mothers	27	0.71	8
18	Mayopoulos et al., 2021	Article	USA	Expectant mothers	2251	0.78	8
19	Foli et al., 2013	Article	USA	Adoptive fathers	38	0.86	8
20	South et al., 2012	Article	USA	Adoptive mothers	251	0.90	8
21	Foli et al., 2012a	Article	USA	Adoptive mothers	284	0.89	8
22	Shorey et al., 2019_1	Article	Singapore	Expectant mothers and fathers	236	0.70	8
23	Shorey et al., 2019_2	Article	Singapore	Postnatal mothers and fathers	210	0.58	8
24	Shorey et al., 2019_3	Article	Singapore	Postnatal mothers and fathers	194	0.66	8
25	Shorey et al., 2019_4	Article	Singapore	Postnatal mothers and fathers	186	0.62	8
26	Foli et al., 2012b	Article	USA	Postnatal mothers	113	0.89	8
27	Tichelman et al., 2021	Article	The Netherlands	Postnatal mothers	1528	0.67	8
28	Escasa, 2012	Thesis	USA	Postnatal mothers	260	0.69	8
29	Taylor et al., 2005	Article	UK	Postnatal mothers	144	0.71	8
30	Mörelius et al., 2021	Article	Sweden	Postnatal mothers	63	0.68	8
31	Van Bussel et al., 2010_1	Article	Belgium	Postnatal mothers	263	0.67	8
32	Van Bussel et al., 2010_2	Article	Belgium	Postnatal mothers	202	0.58	8
33	Shoemark et al., 2021	Article	USA	Postnatal mothers	18	0.45	8
				Total sample size	9275

^aOne item was excluded because of zero variance.

As in Table 1, while thesis studies reported 4 alpha values, this number was 29 in the articles. We found that 14 studies were carried out in the United States of America, 3 in the United Kingdom, 4 in Singapore, 4 in Switzerland, 2 in Belgium, and one study each in the Netherlands, France, Australia, Turkey, Sweden, and Israel. Also, 5 studies recruited expectant mothers and fathers, 3 employed adoptive mothers and fathers, and 25 studies were carried out with postnatal mothers and fathers. The samples sizes in the studies ranged from 13 to 1,528 with a cumulative size of 9,275 people. Finally, Cronbach’s alpha values were found to vary between 0.36 and 0.91.

Heterogeneity

Heterogeneity was sought using Cochran’s Q and I² tests on the transformed alpha values. We obtained a significant result from the Cochran’s Q test (df (32) = 584, 8126; p < .01), while the I² test yielded a high level of heterogeneity (96.34%).

Publication Bias

We ran the Fail-Safe N test, Egger’s Regression test, and Kendall’s Tau test to reveal any possible publication bias. While the Fail-Safe N test yielded a value of 65,332.00 (p < .00), the intercept in Egger’s Regression was calculated to be 0.01 (p = .98). Examining the results of Kendall’s Tau test (τ = −0.0418; p = .73) with the funnel plot, we concluded no publication bias. Figure 2 presents the funnel plot created on the transformed alpha values for publication bias. The results show that there is no publication bias.

Figure 2.

Funnel plot for the transformed alpha coefficients.

Internal Reliability Analysis

Figure 3 presents the Forest plot for the raw Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reported in the studies. Accordingly, we determined the mean value of 33 raw Cronbach’s alpha coefficients calculated for 9,275 participants to be 0.72 (95% CI = 0.68–0.76). Converting to a raw Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Bonett’s transformation), the model coefficient was calculated to be 0.73 (95% CI = 0.68–0.77).

Figure 3.

Forest plot for the raw alpha coefficients.

Analysis of Moderator Variables

We carried out the moderator analyses using the mixed-effects model to investigate the reliability value by categorical variables. Accordingly, we accepted the categorical variables as type of publication (thesis, article), participants (mother, father, expectant mother, expectant father, adoptive mothers, adoptive fathers, parents, and expectant parents), data collection period (prenatal and postnatal), country, and year (2005–2021). The findings revealed that the reliability did not significantly change in the studies by type of publication (p = .94), participants (p = .21), data collection period (p = .16), country (p = .17), and year (p = .51).

Discussion

As a result of the reliability generalization analysis, we found that MIBS, which is a measurement tool that evaluates mother-infant bonding, is a reliable measurement tool. As a result of the analyses made within the scope of the study, we determined that the MIBS did not differ according to the type of publication, participants, data collection period, country, and year variables used in the study.

Attachment, as an emotional parent-infant bond (Kennell & McGrath, 2005), is a condition where the mother’s feelings are deemed to have substantial impacts on the infant throughout their life (Branjerdporn et al., 2017; Maunder et al., 2017; Sroufe, 2005). Thus, it is important to evaluate attachment from the early stages and provide mothers with relevant support if needed. In this context, it emerges as a need to explore the MIBS, a measurement tool developed by Taylor et al. (2005) to evaluate the early attachment state among mothers from the first day of delivery, since it is widely adopted in attachment-related studies.

We found that internal consistency coefficients were reported in only 26 studies out of 119 determined in line with the reseach purpose. Other studies either did not report an alpha or reported the one calculated in the secondary studies. Therefore, the relatively high number of studies excluded may have affected RG. However, it is often emphasized that RG research may contribute to raising awareness among scholars to report the reliability values of any psychometric tools they utilize in their research (López-Pina et al., 2015).

The increasing research interest in attachment seems to have led several researchers to use the MIBS on different samples, such as expectant mothers and fathers or adoptive parents. While the authors calculated its reliability coefficient to be 0.71 in the original study, we concluded it to be 0.73 considering the alpha values reported by previous research, indicating that the scale can reliably be administered to different groups. Cicchetti (1994) accepted an alpha coefficient between 0.70–0.80 as moderate, between 0.80–0.90 as good, and above 0.90 as excellent. Our findings showed that, of 33 alphas in 26 studies, 14 were below 0.70, while 22 were reported to be above the threshold value.

While assessing reliability, one needs to consider various factors that may affect reliability (e.g., sample, homogeneity of the group, and context) (López-Pina et al., 2009). Among the studies carried out to adapt the MIBS on postpartum mothers, the lowest Cronbach’s alpha was reported to be 0.45 in the study (Shoemark et al., 2021). When it comes to the detail of this study, we realized that it was carried out with only 18 mothers, which may have accounted for such a low alpha value (Cicchetti, 1994).

Uncovering the level of heterogeneity in meta-analysis studies is accepted as an essential criterion as it affects the model to be selected (Huedo-Medina et al., 2006). In this study, we found high heterogeneity between the reliability coefficients (I² = 96.34). Heterogeneity hinders the generalizability of scores; therefore, subgroup analyses need to be performed to understand the changes due to heterogeneity. As specified above, the moderator analyses resulted in that type of publication, participants, data collection period, country, and year did not significantly affect reliability in the studies. Considering the country variable, it seems cultural differences did not create any changes to the measurements. Besides, the lack of difference among the moderators did not allow to identify the source of heterogeneity. Hence, we may assert that there is a need for measurement tools considering the roles and delivery time.

Educational and psychological research often uses the term “test reliability” when reporting reliability results (Vacha-Haase, 1998). Nevertheless, it is known that reliability must belong to measurements and that an RG study aims to provide generalizability of the internal consistency coefficients of the same measurements in different groups (Sánchez-Meca et al., 2013). Therefore, generalizing the reliability of measurement tools offers a chance to make generalizations about assessments. In this study, we performed analyses on Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reported by different studies for the MIBS. Further research may consider exploring the RG of test-retest coefficients for the MIBS or utilizing some other measurement tools other than the MIBS.

The literature lacks reliability generalization of the measurement tools designed to measure bonding. According to the findings of our research, considered the first in the literature, the reliability values did not significantly differ by subgroups. Nevertheless, it was found that the studies with mothers after birth reported higher reliability values for the MIBS. On the other hand, lower reliability values in studies with fathers may imply that the scale is more convenient to use with mothers. It also evokes the idea that novel tools are needed to measure the attachment of fathers, which may also be supported by the fact that the lowest Cronbach’s alpha value was obtained in a study with fathers (Suchy et al., 2020). Overall, prospective researchers may be recommended to uncover a generalized reliability level of other measurement tools used in assessing attachment.

Limitations

Our study is not free of a few limitations. First, the study only included those reporting Cronbach’s alpha coefficients as the proof of internal consistency reliability of the MIBS. We did not consider studies reporting other reliability coefficients for the scale (e.g., test-retest reliability coefficient) or alpha values calculated in the secondary sources. The second limitation is that we only reviewed studies written in the English language.

Conclusion

Overall, our RG results suggested that the MIBS is a reliable tool to measure caregiver-infant attachment among mothers, fathers, other caregivers, and expectant parents. Furthermore, it is known that scales highly adopted in different cultures may allow cross-cultural comparisons of diverse results, which may be advantageous for prospective researchers who may consider using the MIBS to measure attachment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Emin Demir

Sena Öz

Neriman Aral

Figen Gürsoy

References

Ainsworth

M. D. S.

Bell

S. M.

Steinberg

L. D.

(1981). 5. Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. The Life Cycle (pp. 57–71). Columbia University Press.

American Psychological Association . (2022). APA dictionary of psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/bonding

Beretvas

S. N.

Pastor

D. A.

(2003). Using mixed-effects models in reliability generalization studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402239318

Bonett

D. G.

(2002). Sample size requirements for testing and estimating coefficient alpha. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(4), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986027004335

Bonett

D. G.

(2010). Varying coefficient meta-analytic methods for alpha reliability. Psychological Methods, 15(4), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020142

Bowlby

(1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 39(5), 350–373.

Bowlby

(1973). Attachment and loss: Volume II: Separation, anxiety and anger. Attachment and loss: Volume II: Separation, anxiety and anger (pp. 1–429). The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

Bowlby

(1980). Attachment and loss: Volume III: Loss, sadness and depression Attachment and loss: Volume III: Loss, sadness and depression (pp. 1–462). The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

Brandao

Figueiredo

(2012). Fathers’ emotional involvement with the neonate: Impact of the umbilical cord cutting experience. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(12), 2730–2739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.05978.x

10.

Branjerdporn

Meredith

Strong

Garcia

(2017). Asso- ciations between maternal-fetal attachment and infant develop- mental outcomes: A systematic review. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 21(3), 540–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-016-2138-2

11.

Brockington

I. F.

Aucamp

H. M.

Fraser

(2006). Severe disorders of the mother-infant relationship: Definitions and frequency. Arch Womens Ment Health, 9(5), 243–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-006-0133-0

12.

Brockington

I. F.

Oates

George

Turner

Vostanis

Sullivan

Loh

Murdoch

(2001). A screening questionnaire for mother-infant bonding disorders. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 3(4), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007370170010

13.

Calhoun

A. M

(2015). Impact of skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section: A study comparing bonding outcomes to skin-to-skin after vaginal delivery (doctoral dissertation. The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

14.

Cicchetti

D. V.

(1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessments instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284

15.

Coktay

Turk

(2020). The effect of early kangaroo care provided to term babies on the maternal-fetal attachment. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 13(1), 24–34.

16.

Condon

J. T.

Corkindale

C. J.

(1998). The assessment of parent-to-infant attachment: Development of a self-report questionnaire instrument. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 16(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646839808404558

17.

Deans

Reay

Buist

(2016). Addressing the mother–baby relationship in interpersonal psychotherapy for depression: An overview and case study. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 34(5), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2016.1221502

18.

Eapen

Dadds

Barnett

Kohlhoff

Khan

Radom

Silove

D. M.

(2014). Separation anxiety, attachment and inter-personal representations: Disentangling the role of oxytocin in the perinatal period. Plos One, 9(9), Article e107745. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107745

19.

Ertan

Hingray

Burlacu

Sterlé

El-Hage

(2021). Post-traumatic stress disorder following childbirth. BMC Psychiatry, 21(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03158-6

20.

Escasa

(2012). Sociosexuality, mate preferences, and sex steroid hormone levels among breastfeeding women in.

21.

Fleming

A. S.

Ruble

D. N.

Flett

G. L.

Shaul

D. L.

(1988). Postpartum adjustment in first-time mothers: Relations between mood, maternal attitudes, and mother-infant interactions. Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.1.71

22.

Foli

K. J.

South

S. C.

Lim

(2012a). Rates and predictors of depression in adoptive mothers: Moving toward theory. ANS. Advances in Nursing Science, 35(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/ans.0b013e318244553e

23.

Foli

K. J.

South

S. C.

Lim

Hebdon

(2012b). Maternal postadoption depression, unmet expectations, and personality traits. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 18(5), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390312457993

24.

Foli

K. J.

South

S. C.

Lim

Hebdon

(2013). Depression in adoptive fathers: An exploratory mixed methods study. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14(4), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030482

25.

Fuchs

Möhler

Reck

Resch

Kaess

(2016). The early mother-to-child bond and its unique prospective contribution to child behavior evaluated by mothers and teachers. Psychopathology, 49(4), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1159/000445439

26.

Garcia-Esteve

Torres

Lasheras

Palacios-Hernández

Farré-Sender

Subirà

Valdés

Brockington

I. F.

(2016). Assessment of psychometric properties of the postpartum bonding questionnaire (PBQ) in Spanish mothers. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 19(2), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-015-0589-x

27.

Greco

L. M.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Cockburn

B. S.

Yuan

(2018). Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha: A reliability generalization study. Journal of Management Studies, 55(4), 583–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12328

28.

Handelzalts

J. E.

Krissi

Levy

Freund

Carmiel

Ashwal

Peled

(2016). Personality, preterm labor contractions, and psychological consequences. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 293(3), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3898-4

29.

Hazan

Shaver

P. R.

(1994). Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 5(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1

30.

Horsch

Jacobs

Gilbert

Favrod

Schneider

Harari

M. M.

Graz

M. B.

(2017). Impact of perinatal asphyxia on parental mental health and bonding with the infant: A questionnaire survey of Swiss parents. BMJ Paediatrics Open, 1(1), Article e000059. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2017-000059

31.

Huedo-Medina

T. B.

Sánchez-Meca

Marin-Martinez

Botella

(2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index? Psychological Methods, 11(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193

32.

Karakaş

N. M.

Dağlı

F. Ş.

(2019). The importance of attachment in infant and influencing factors. Turkish Archives of Pediatrics/Türk Pediatri Arşivi, 54(2), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.14744/TurkPediatriArs.2018.80269

33.

Karakulak

H. A.

Alparslan

Ö.

(2016). Anne-bebek bağlanma ölçeğinin türk toplumuna uyarlanması: Aydın örneği. Çağdaş Tıp Dergisi, 6(3), 188–199.

34.

Kennell

McGrath

(2005). Starting the process of mother−infant bonding. Acta Paediatrica, 94(6), 775–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2005.tb01982.x

35.

Kumar

R. C.

(1997). Anybody’s child”: Severe disorders of mother-to-infant bonding. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 171(2), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.171.2.175

36.

Lim

S. K.

(2013). A behavioral intervention for mothers of colicky infants. (Thesis). The University of Texas School of Nursing at Houston.

37.

López-Fernández

Barrios

Gómez-Benito

(2021). The maternal attachment inventory: Development and validation of a short form. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(7), 3046–3057. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14812

38.

López-Pina

J. A.

Sánchez-Meca

López-López

J. A.

Marín-Martínez

Núñez-Núñez

R. M.

Rosa-Alcázar

A. I.

Gomez-Conesa

Ferrer-Requena

(2015). The yale–Brown obsessive compulsive scale: A reliability generalization meta-analysis. Assessment, 22(5), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114551954

39.

López-Pina

J. A.

Sánchez-Meca

Rosa-Alcázar

A. I.

(2009). The Hamilton rating scale for depression: A meta-analytic reliability generalization study. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9(1), 143–159.

40.

Malekpour

(2007). Effects of attachment on early and later development. The British Journal of Development Disabilities, 53(105), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1179/096979507799103360

41.

Mathews

T. L.

Emerson

M. R.

Moore

T. A.

Fial

Hanna

K. M.

(2019). Systematic review: Feasibility, reliability, and validity of maternal/caregiver attachment and bonding screening tools for clinical use. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 33(6), 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2019.04.018

42.

Maunder

R. G.

Hunter

J. J.

Atkinson

Steiner

Wazanna

Fleming

A. S.

Moss

Gaudreau

Meaney

M. J.

Levitan

R. D.

(2017). An attachment-based model of the relationship between childhood adversity and somatization in children and adults. Psychosomatic Medicine, 79(5), 506–513. https://doi.org/10.1097/psy.0000000000000437

43.

Mayopoulos

G. A.

Ein-Dor

Dishy

G. A.

Nandru

Chan

Hanley

L. E.

Kaimal

A. J.

Dekel

(2021). COVID-19 is associated with traumatic childbirth and subsequent mother-infant bonding problems. Journal of Affective Disorders, 282, 122–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.101

44.

Mbabazi

(2014). The impact of parental bonding and childhood trauma on maternal bonding and parental satisfaction in Black women. Adelphi University, The Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies.

45.

Mendelson

McAfee

Damian

A. J.

Brar

Donohue

Sibinga

(2018). A mindfulness intervention to reduce maternal distress in neonatal intensive care: A mixed methods pilot study. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 21(6), 791–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-018-0862-x

46.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

Altman

Antes

Tugwell

(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (Chinese edition). Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine, 7(9), 889–896. https://doi.org/10.3736/jcim20090918

47.

Mörelius

Elander

Saghamre

(2021). A Swedish translation and validation of the mother-to-infant bonding scale. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 49(4), 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820910336

48.

Nagata

Nagai

Sobajima

Ando

Nishide

Honjo

(2000). Maternity blues and attachment to children in mothers of full-term normal infants. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 101(3), 209–217. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.101003209.x

49.

Ohara

Okada

Kubota

Nakamura

Shiino

Aleksic

Morikawa

Yamauchi

Uno

Murase

Goto

Kanai

Masuda

Ozaki

(2016). Validation and factor analysis of mother-infant bonding questionnaire in pregnant and postpartum women in Japan. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0933-3

50.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Moher

(2021). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: Development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003

51.

Perrelli

J. G. A.

Zambaldi

C. F.

Cantilino

Sougey

E. B.

(2014). Mother-child bonding assessment tools☆. Revista Paulista De Pediatria, 32(3), 257–265, https://doi.org/10.1016/s2359-3482(15)30020-8

52.

Roth

M. C.

Humphreys

K. L.

King

L. S.

Gotlib

I. H.

Robakis

T. K.

(2021). Breastfeeding difficulties predict mothers’ bonding with their infants from birth to age six months. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 25(5), 777–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-020-03036-9

53.

Sánchez-Meca

López-López

J. A.

López-Pina

J. A.

(2013). Some recommended statistical analytic practices when reliability generalization studies are conducted. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66(3), 402–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02057.x

54.

Sánchez-Meca

Marín-Martínez

López-López

J. A.

Núñez-Núñez

R. M.

Rubio-Aparicio

López-García

J. J.

López-Nicolás

(2021). Improving the reporting quality of reliability generalization meta-analyses: The REGEMA checklist. Research Synthesis Methods. 12(4), 516–536.

55.

Şen

(2021). A reliability generalization meta-analysis of runco ideational behavior scale. Creativity Research Journal, 34(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2021.1960719

56.

Shoemark

Dahlstrøm

Bedford

Stewart

(2021). The effect of a voice-centered psycho-educational program on maternal self-efficacy: A feasibility study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2537. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052537

57.

Shorey

Y. P. M.

E. D.

Siew

A. L.

Morelius

Yoong

Gandhi

(2019). Effectiveness of a technology-based supportive educational parenting program on parental outcomes (part 1): Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(2), Article e10816. https://doi.org/10.2196/10816

58.

Shreffler

K. M.

Spierling

T. N.

Jespersen

J. E.

Tiemeyer

(2021). Pregnancy intendedness, maternal–fetal bonding, and postnatal maternal–infant bonding. Infant Mental Health Journal, 42(3), 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21919

59.

South

S. C.

Foli

K. J.

Lim

(2012). Predictors of relationship satisfaction in adoptive mothers. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(5), 545–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512462681

60.

Sroufe

L. A.

(2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment and Human Development, 7(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730500365928

61.

Stuijfzand

Garthus-Niegel

Horsch

(2020). Parental birth-related PTSD symptoms and bonding in the early postpartum period: A prospective population-based cohort study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 941. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.570727

62.

Suchy

Morgan

Duncan

Villar

Fox

Rutledge

D. N.

(2020). Teaching father-infant massage during postpartum hospitalization: A randomized crossover trial. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 45(3), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1097/nmc.0000000000000613

63.

Taylor

Atkins

Kumar

Adams

Glover

(2005). A new mother-to-infant bonding scale: Links with early maternal mood. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 8(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-005-0074-z

64.

Tichelman

Warmink-Perdijk

Henrichs

Peters

Schellevis

F. G.

Berger

M. Y.

Burger

(2021). Intrapartum synthetic oxytocin, behavioral and emotional problems in children, and the role of postnatal depressive symptoms, postnatal anxiety and mother-to-infant bonding: A Dutch prospective cohort study. Midwifery, 100, 103045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2021.103045

65.

Tichelman

Westerneng

Witteveen

A. B.

van Baar

A. L.

van der Horst

H. E.

de Jonge

Berger

M. Y.

Schellevis

F. G.

Burger

Peters

L. L.

(2019). Correlates of prenatal and postnatal mother-to-infant bonding quality: A systematic review. Plos One, 14(9), Article e0222998. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222998

66.

Vacha-Haase

(1998). Reliability generalization: Exploring variance in measurement error affecting score reliability across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164498058001002

67.

Van Bussel

J. C.

Spitz

Demyttenaere

(2010). Three self-report questionnaires of the early mother-to-infant bond: Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the MPAS, PBQ and MIBS. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 13(5), 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-009-0140-z

68.

Wiguna

Ismail

R. I.

(2019). Validation study of Indonesian mother–infant bonding scale. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2019.05.003

69.

Winston

Chicot

(2016). The importance of early bonding on the long-term mental health and resilience of children. London Journal of Primary Care, 8(1), 12–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17571472.2015.1133012

70.

Wittkowski

Wieck

Mann

(2007). An evaluation of two bonding questionnaires: A comparison of the mother-to-infant bonding scale with the postpartum bonding questionnaire in a sample of primiparous mothers. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 10(4), 171–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-007-0191-y

71.

Yoshida

Yamashita

Conroy

Marks

Kumar

(2012). A Japanese version of mother-to-infant bonding scale: Factor structure, longitudinal changes and links with maternal mood during the early postnatal period in Japanese mothers. Archives of Women's Mental Health, 15(5), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-012-0291-1

72.

Young

(2013). The importance of bonding. International Journal of Childbirth Education, 28(3), 11–16.

73.

Zeanah

C. H.

Benoit

(1995). Clinical applications of a parent perception interview in infant mental health. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 4(3), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1056-4993(18)30418-8

A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis of the Mother-To-Infant Bonding Scale

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Selection Criteria, Search Strategies, and Data Extraction

Coding

Statistical Analysis

Findings

Characteristics of the Selected Studies

Heterogeneity

Publication Bias

Internal Reliability Analysis

Analysis of Moderator Variables

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References