Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reactive attachment disorder

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:37, 4 March 2008.

[edit] Reactive attachment disorder

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has achieved GA status and subsequently undergone peer review. As far as I can ascertain, FAC criteria have been met. It is a somewhat obscure and under-researched area but I believe the article fairly represents the current state of knowledge. Fainites ^barley 21:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I am not a clinical psychologist, and this is not my area of expertise. I find this article to be a commendable effort to bring order out of the chaos that surrounds attachment theory and diagnosis. In order to be successful in this, the article absolutely must make a series of careful distinctions (enumerated below). I think the authors did succeed quite well in this critical task, though it resulted in more length and detail than one would ideally see in such an article. To be specific, the article needs to distinguish:

1. attachment disorder from insecure attachment styles,
2. inhibited from disinhibited attachment disorder,
3. problematic child behavior from an actual psychological disorder,
4. so-called "attachment therapy" from mainstream therapies for RAD,
5. the ICD-10 from the DSM-IV-TR definitions, and
6. all the various elements that go into the differential diagnosis.

As it stands now, I think the article did well on all counts. Furthermore, I think it is essential that Wikipedia provide this high level of clarity to an area that is sadly notable for its lack of clarity. If any of these essential distinctions are removed or softened, then the article will fall short of what Wikipedia must provide. In short, I support the article for Featured Article status. —Aetheling (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

• Comment - the image in the infobox is not licensed for use on Wikipedia and has been tagged for speedy deletion, please read the license at the source site. More feedback later. --Laser brain (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, this is the license from the image page "According to the legal licence of the source site the use of the image is permitted presuming credit is given to SXC". Fainites ^barley 21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I did see that, however they go on to contradict that statement. Since it isn't a crucial image (it looks like it got deleted anyway) I would recommend pursuing a free image if you must have an image. That is really a separate point, though - does this article need a decorative image? --Laser brain (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Weird isn't it? Anyway - I've put in a different one from Wik.Commons. If people think its better off with no image I'm easy on the subject. the previous one was much better though. Fainites ^barley 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: I've have been reading it and it looks good. I'm a complete non-expert in psychology (this is psychology, right?) so this is all new to me and I may be slow.
  • In the lead, CAM should be spelled out. Perhaps bring the term forward, so the paragraph is not oriented at mainstream criticisms of CAM but focused on defining the non-conventional approaches to RAD.
  • "or the sequelae of maltreatment.[29]" - sequelae is beyond the layperson. [1]
  • "Their Practice Parameter states that the assessment of RAD requires evidence directly obtained from serial observations of the child interacting with his or her primary caregivers and history (as available) of the child’s patterns of attachment behavior with these caregivers, plus observations of the child’s behavior with unfamiliar adults and a comprehensive history of the child’s early caregiving environment including, for example, pediatricians, teachers, or caseworkers.[3]" - is a really long sentence. Can it be broken up?
  • POV concern: I'm concerned about the approach to Attachment therapy. It is obvious that the writers of this article don't like it. The tone/language used in "Treatment" is dismissive of the therapy, and sometimes extreme. For example,
    • "All mainstream prevention programs...are based on attachment theory" - "All"? why is the word "all" necessary?
      • Agree. Fainites ^barley 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "There is considerable criticism of the use of attachment therapy, a form of treatment (and accompanying diagnosis) for supposed attachment disorders including RAD, that is largely unvalidated and has developed outside the scientific mainstream.[91]" - the provided abstract of the source uses much more neutral tone: "therapy is a young and diverse field, and the benefits and risks of many treatments remain scientifically undetermined. Controversies have arisen about potentially harmful attachment therapy techniques used by a subset of attachment therapists."
      • Originally it said 'considerable controversy' but that was objected to. I'd be happy with controversy. The mainstream in this area is almost entirely critical of attachment therapy - meaning the non-mainstream form of therapy, its theoretical base, methods of diagnosis and methods of treatment. The Taskforce report is about that 'subset' of attachment therapy which is commonly known as 'attachment therapy' as opposed to it being a descriptive term. Naming is difficult because the names of these therapies change quite quickly. The phrase 'attachment-based therapy' started to be used by some more mainstream theorists in an attempt to distinguish themselves. I could send you the entire Taskforce report if you like. Here's a chunk from which that line in the abstract is taken:
        • "Controversies have arisen about a particular subset of attachment therapy techniques developed by a subset of attachment therapy practitioners, techniques that have been implicated in several child deaths and other harmful effects. Although focused primarily on specific attachment therapy techniques, the controversy also extends to the theories, diagnoses, diagnostic practices, beliefs, and social group norms supporting these techniques, and to the patient recruitment and advertising practices used by their proponents. The controversy deepened after the death of 10-year-old Candace Newmaker during a therapy session in 2000 (Crowder & Lowe, 2000), and a number of child deaths occurring at the hands of parents who claim that they acted on attachment therapists’ instructions (Warner, 2003). Criminal charges have been brought against some attachment therapists and against parents who claimed to be using what is known as attachment parenting. State legislative actions banning particular treatment techniques have been proposed and passed (Gardner, 2003; Janofsky, 2001). Professional organizations have published warnings (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2003). Despite these actions, and others, some of these concerning practices have remained entrenched within networks of attachment therapists and foster or adoptive parents who advocate their use." Fainites ^barley 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Thank you for the explanation. I can appreciate the troubles this must pose. How about this for wording: Outside the mainstream programs exists attachment therapy, a subset of techniques used for diagnosis or treatment of what are thought to be general attachment disorders, including RAD. They focus on regression and catharsis, accompanied by parenting methods which emphasize obedience and parental control.[92] It is aimed at adopted or fostered children with a view to creating attachment in these children to their new caregivers. The techniques can vary from non-coercive therapeutic work to more extreme forms of physical, confrontational and coercive techniques, of which the best known are holding therapy, rebirthing, rage-reduction and the Evergreen model. Developed outside the scientific mainstream,[91] attachment therapies have little or no evidence base and are largely unvalidated. Critics maintain that these therapies... - it just rearranges some of the points so it first defines what we are referring to by saying "attachment therapy", then presents the criticisms. --maclean 03:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
            • OK. Thanks.I've had a go.Fainites ^barley 10:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Critics maintain that these therapies are not within the attachment paradigm, are potentially abusive,[93]..." - "potentially abusive" in what way? leaving it undefined like this is careless.
      • Its sourced. It comes after the sentence which reads "extreme forms of physical, confrontational and coercive techniques". Does it need more detail than this? There are some dead children plus there have been various other abuse cases involving attachment therapy and AT parenting techniques. The classic form of attachment therapy is "holding therapy" which is frequently physically coercive and confrontational. I could put in more detail but I would have thought mention of physical, confrontational and coercive techniques was enough.Fainites ^barley 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I would like more detail. As someone with little/no knowledge of the field, this term sticks out like a sore thumb. From reading the article, the disorder doesn't seem very dangerous. How can the therapy be abusive? It is a very broad term. I would like to see a fact laid down (like a child died during therapy as a result of x technique, or a more common 'abuse') to back up the claim, not just a footnote. --maclean 03:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
          • • Tell you what - why don't you read Attachment therapy and Candace Newmaker and then say what more detail or explanation this article may need on AT from the point of view of a reader who may never have heard of it. RAD itself is pretty severe. The problem with AT is that ATers define alot of things as RAD which aren't RAD. Their therapy can involve enforced holding or lying on a child which can include enforced eye contact, knuckling and tickling the ribs, pressing a fist into the abdomen to release 'visceral rage', licking the face, making the child kick their legs to the point of exhaustion - all while being shouted at and required to express feelings the child may not have but is told they have. One of the deaths came from a child being wrapped in a blanket whilst therapists leant and pushed against her to simulate rebirth. She died of asphyxiation whilst they shouted 'quitter, quitter' at her, she having already vomited and repeatedly pleaded for air. Another death involved laying on a 4 year old and pressing the fist into the abdomen. I'm not suggesting these therapists mean any harm. There is a coherent if flawed theoretical base to what they do - its just not a theoretical base thats accepted or recognised by the mainstream. Try these video clips. [2], [3]Fainites ^barley 09:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
              • OK, thank you for the info. It was informative. I can see there is a lot behind this. Since this is a point that invites elaboration, I would be satisfied with a wikilink to Attachment therapy#Notable cases like "can be [[Attachment therapy#Notable|potentially abusive]]", if that is alright. --maclean 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
                • "potentially abusive" is a) sourced and shouldn't have other material added to it, and b) refers to alot more than just the cases that lead to a childs death. So what I've done is linked "form of treatment" to the section on the AT page that describes treatment characteristics of AT. Fainites ^barley 15:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Ok. My main POV concern has been resolved with defining therapy before denouncing it. It's a great article, so Support. --maclean 08:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Likewise, with the introduction, where the therapy is denounced before it is defined. --maclean 07:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Frankly its tricky as others have expressed concern in the other direction. I'll have another look though. Fainites ^barley 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• More comments:
  • In the lead, you suggest RAD refers to "disorders" (plural) but you go on to refer to RAD as "it" which is rather confusing. Is RAD a set of disorders or one disorder?
  • Jargon alert: Inhibited. Lay readers may not understand if this is a clinical term with a special meaning or if a dictionary meaning is implied.
  • "The criteria for a diagnosis of a reactive attachment disorder are very different to..." Different from.
  • "This led to efforts from the late-1990s onwards..." Don't begin sentences this way - readers don't necessary know what "this" is referring to.
  • "All mainstream treatment and prevention programs which target RAD..." Use that instead of which.
  • "Caregiver responses lead to the development of patterns of attachment, which in turn lead to internal working models which will guide the individual's feelings..." Ditto.
  • I'm not crazy about saying "See ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR criteria below" unless it's right below. This statement sent me on a scrolling mission and I was never sure I got where I was directed. Diagnostic criteria? It might be better to say, "See the Diagnostic criteria heading for more information."
  • Strange Situation procedure: It is first mentioned in History but not wikilinked and with a lower-case "p". When you mention it later in Assessment, it is linked and with an upper-case "P". Link the first mention, and make the name consistent.
  • The last paragraph in the History section is unsourced. At the very least, you need to source your statement that people disagree about the meaning of "attachment disorder".
  • You begin the Assessment tools heading with: "There is as yet no universally accepted diagnostic protocol for attachment disorder..." I believe this is the first time you have referred to the subject as "attachment disorder" and not RAD, and after you said the definition of "attachment disorder" is disputed. I recommend sticking to calling the subject RAD unless you have multiple sources that the terms are interchangeable since it is disputed.
  • In general, do not provide acronyms for terms you don't use again. An example is "Preschool Assessment of Attachment (PAA)" You don't use "PAA" later in the text, so there is no need to call it out. Just use the full name. There are several instances of this.

I'm through Diagnosis but will have to pick it up again later :) --Laser brain (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

All done - except for a ref on confusion with attachment styles. I hope to find one - as this confusion is very common within attachment therapy and elsewhere. Fainites ^barley 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments There are direct quotations that are uncited (I marked these with {{citequote}}), a distinct lack of stating the obvious for the uninitiated reader and not enough disambiguation, for example on both: what the heck is the DSM and ICD? Psychology technical jargon needs to be explained better. There were also some MOS issues that I've tried to deal with myself. VanTucky 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • On the DSM and ICD thing, this is something that stopped me, too. I considered suggesting several solutions, but considered having them spelled out and wikilinked in the first paragragh of the intro to be the best strategy. Other solutions can include spelling them out is strategic locations, or wikilinking the abbrevations, or using adjectives like 'manual' or 'medical manual'. What do you think of these? --maclean 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You mean there's no article on the DSM? That's absurdity defined, considering how widely it's used in multiple fields (not just psych). I would say create a stub for it, or use the full name (not the acronym) and put medical manual after it. VanTucky 03:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The full wording (and links) for all of those (ICD-10, DSM and DSM-IV-TR) can be cribbed out of Tourette syndrome. The quote is attributed already inline to the DSM. Search on the terms in TS, crib the text and the links, it's all there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders plus ICD (not spelled out in title). Plus many redirects from abreviation, eg. DSM-IV. I added the category for thse diagnostic systems to the article page. Mattisse 03:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• DSM is a book: WP:ITALICS. See the complete treatment and definitions and acronmys as handled in Tourette syndrome. This is a one-edit fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Just giving the link. Didn't bother with italics. I will stay away from now on, you can be sure. Mattisse 03:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the links, Mattisse. I pointed out that it's a book for VanTucky, because the quote is already attributed inline to the DSM, so another citation isn't needed :-) Also, WP:MOSQUOTE explains that blockquotes are reserved for long quotes, so I believe the text was correct before VanTucky's MOS changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yet more comments
  • For the bulleted lists in the Diagnostic criteria heading, check WP:MOS for proper punctuation.
    • • Done. Fainites ^barley 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Under ICD it is stated..." Can you just say, "ICD states..."?
  • Likewise, you say "Under DCM..." Is that common terminology for talking about these sources?
  • "The former of these is somewhat controversial, being a commission rather than omission and because abuse of itself does not lead to attachment disorder." Use first rather than former.
  • Through the Diagnostic criteria heading, you have said several times that abuse/neglect does not necessarily cause RAD but that it is usually the culprit. What are other causes? You suggest that some other factors might cause it but I have not absorbed this from reading.
    • The causes are presumed as stated - but the same behaviour doesn't always, or even usually, result in RAD. Tricky. Fainites ^barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Under diagnostic criteria it says "persistent disregard of the child's basic emotional or physical needs or repeated changes in primary caregiver that prevents the formation of a discriminatory or selective attachment that is presumed to account for the disorder. " It only doesn't necessarily cause it because a carer can behave in this way without producing RAD in a child. Fainites ^barley 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Okay, striking this comment as there is some more clarity later in the article. --Laser brain (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In the Differential diagnosis heading, you don't mention it until the end and it is not linked or defined. I would mention it at the beginning as well so the read doesn't have to get to the end to discover why the heading is so-named.
  • "Common features of these lists such as lying, lack of remorse or conscience and cruelty..." Reword.. it sounds like you are saying the lists themselves exhibit these traits.
  • Okay, what I'm getting from the Alternative diagnosis heading is that "attachment therapists" are using these wacky checklists and misdiagnosing children with RAD. However, some questions emerge from this assumption that are not answered. Foremost, who is an attachment therapist? Is this a form of psychology or something more akin to a social worker? Do all attachment therapists use these checklists? Do some use the correct criteria and therefore make correct diagnoses? Also, who are the critics you mention twice?
    • Attachment therapists call themselves attachment therapists - or they did until there was a major Taskforce Report in 2006 slating the whole thing. Zeanah called it a cottage industry. It started in the 60's/70's based on Zaslow of autism fame who used physical coercion and enforced eye contact to break through autists "defences". This was taken up for problematical adopted or fostered children in a form of therapy, usually 'holding therapy'. It has had a sort of life of its own outside the mainstream. There are some psychologists but most are not. Some are those LCSW's who do mental health. They make more use of DSM criteria now, but many still continue to use the checklists. I could give you links to loads on the web if you like. Have a read of Attachment therapy. The critics are just about everybody mainstream who researches in this area. The main ones are cited here. I believe where I have said 'critics' the criticism is cited to either the Taskforce, o'Connor et al. Prior and Glaser or Zeanah etc. Should I name them aswell as cite them? Fainites ^barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I think citing them is fine - just something I have to get used to. I am used to citation styles where the name is in the text. --Laser brain (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there no other alternative methods of diagnosing RAD?
    • Not that I am aware of. Its really defined by DSM and ICD, apart from in attachment therapy.Fainites ^barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • What do you think of stating as much in the text? --Laser brain (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Trouble is - although its the case - it would need a source, yet who states the obvious? If I can find a source I'll stick it in. Fainites ^barley 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
          • I see your point - stricken. --Laser brain (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the Developments heading: "This is parallel to RAD in its inhibited and disinhibited forms..." Again, beginning a sentence this way is vague. What is "this"? Please check the whole article for more.
    • I think this issue remains - I am still spotting sentences in the article that begin with "This..." and it's not clear what "this" refers to. It's better to just repeat the subject. --Laser brain (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Lots of 'thisses' removed. Not all though as othewise there's too many RAD RAD RAD's.Fainites ^barley 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Disrupted attachment is not covered under other approaches to disordered attachment..." I'm unclear what this means. Do you mean the way they are diagnosed or explained?
  • What is an "identified attachment figure"?
  • You mention "Zeanah" here but who is it? In your notes, you variously cite Zeanah CH, Zeanah CZ, and Zeanah C. Are those all the same person?
    • Yes! Fainites ^barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the Developments heading lost me. Frightened expression? If you are citing a study or experiment, more background is needed.
  • "RAD has never been reported in the absence of serious environmental adversity yet outcomes for children raised in the same environment vary widely." Okay, now we find out that no one has ever been diagnosed with RAD who didn't experience environmental adversity. So then, what is the basis for saying earlier "Under ICD it is stated in relation to the inhibited form that the syndrome probably occurs as a direct result of severe parental neglect, abuse, or serious mishandling." Does that mean that researchers still aren't sure what causes it even though every case has had certain environmental factors?
    • This is what ICD-10 says. DSM on the other hand requires a history of pathogenic care. Its not a fully researched area and there are likely to be changes in the next round of ICD/DSM. Unforunately, at the moment, what we've got is what we've got. Fainites ^barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The difference between the institutionalized children and the control group improved in the follow-up study three years later, although they continued to show significantly higher levels of indiscriminate friendliness." Meaning is unclear here. The difference improved? Does that mean it was greater or less? Also, instead of they, repeat the group you are referring to.
  • "A 2002 study of children in residential nurseries in Bucharest, using the disturbances of attachment interview..." Earlier, the DAI is capitalized and we are given an acronym. Reuse here. Suggest rewording - it sounds like the children were using the interview, which isn't strictly what you intended, I'm sure.
  • Another mention of DAI in reference to the US studies. Use our acronym.
  • I have noticed mixed use of verb tense in referring to studies or research. Here, you say "The first, in 2004, reports..." and then you say the second study "attempted". If I recall, other references to research use the past tense. I'm not sure which is correct but you should be consistent.
  • In reference to the second US study, you say that a number of the children didn't fulfill the criteria because they had a preferred caregiver. Is that a criterion of RAD, or of the study?
  • "It has been suggested by some within the field of attachment therapy that RAD may be quite prevalent because severe child maltreatment, which is known to increase risk for RAD, is prevalent..." It is? What is their basis for saying that severe child maltreatment is prevalent?
    • Hmmm. This from the Taskforce again on attachment therapy. Its what they say is said. Then they say they don't agree with it. Again - estimates of high prevalence among adopted/fostered/maltreated children are common on attachment therapists websites - and indeed on Wiki when they controlled all these articles. I don't really think it would be appropriate to link to AT websites though so I've taken it from the Taskforce as a secondary source. Fainites ^barley 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarifying - it makes a lot more sense now. --Laser brain (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "There are few data..." Awkward phrase. Can you say there are few studies instead? There is little research? Or is that not the same meaning?
    • I'm not sure research is the same as data. Data means little bits of info but research implies a conclusion of some sort. Fainites ^barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • It's mostly a grammar issue.. I'm not sure it's proper to say "there are few data" but I'm not sure and it doesn't really affect readability. --Laser brain (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
        • • It used to say 'little data' which I thought sounded better as well as being precisely what the source says, but somebody said that was wrong as 'data' is plural so it would have to be little datum (which sounds like a village in Dorset. Down the road from Datum Parva.) Fainites ^barley 09:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Assessing the child's safety is an essential first step which determines..." Use that instead of which.
  • "In 2005 the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry laid down guidelines (devised by N.W.Boris and C.H.Zeanah)..." Ah, our friend Z. again. Spacing in names.
  • General comment about the Treatment heading: You mention alternative diagnostic methods, but are there alternative treatment methods as well? Are the people using those unorthodox checklists also using unorthodox treatment methods?
    • Yup. Attachment therapists again. The treatment methods are in the treatment section. I'll try and make this clearer. I can expand on it if you think that would be a good idea. I did wonder about putting the whole AT thing in a separate section but there were no takers on that one. Fainites ^barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Should be fine as is. I wanted to make sure my understanding was correct. --Laser brain (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Under the Course heading.. what's a "longitudinal" study?
    • If anyone still needs to know what a longitudinal study is, it's a type of research in which a group of particpants/subjects are tested or evaluated on several (at least) occasions, with the goal of identifying the rate and pattern of change over time. Such an investigation does not necessarily take a very long time (you could do a longitudinal study of infants' lung inflation over the first 24 hours after birth), but some such studies take many years to complete.Jean Mercer (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Reviewers here raise questions about text in the article that isn't clear to the reader and should be resolved in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • For example, the issue there is a missing wikilink to longitudinal study; terms need to be defined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Done.Fainites ^barley 15:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • For the See also heading, don't list things that are already linked in the article (like DAD).

Overall, this is a very good article. I know nothing about psychology and I finished this article feeling like I could have an intelligent conversation about RAD. There is a touch of jargon but it's probably appropriate for a general encyclopedia reader. I've tried to point out when it isn't. I'm not far from supporting, but I think you need to fix the items I've mentioned. --Laser brain (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Mostly done - except as indicated above. Will have a go at the rest. Am looking forward to the intelligent conversation. Fainites ^barley 15:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I'm noting this as I think the minefield of layout and proportion of what material needs to be in the article has been (much to my pleasant surprise) negotiated successfully. Full kudos for doing so. There is a nice well-defined section on Attachment theory which highlights well its odd relationship to the conceptual groundwork of RAD. I am too bleary eyed for prose issues outlined above but agree the notes seem to be valid and will remove the conditional bit when issues raised by Vantucky, Sandy and Laser Brain are stricken. But anyway, the *&%^$*$ hard bit is over. I am glad that I was wrong in presuming this one couldn't be laid out as such. Congrats. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my comments are in three parts above, but most of them have been addressed. A few minor issues remain but not enough to withhold support. I'm sure Fainites will address them shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 04:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I still have a few nitpicks, mainly concerning prose and a relative lack of context in some sections.
  • Under "Assessment tools": "There is as yet no universally accepted diagnostic protocol for reactive attachment disorder, although the practice parameters for the new classification system proposed would provide the framework for such a protocol." Which new system? Is this the "broader continuum" described in the second paragraph of "Development"? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I've put the second bit in "Developments" along with the description of the proposed new classifications where I think it will be much happier. Fainites ^barley 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• • The article cites the work of C. H. Zeanah quite often. Do you think a biographical stub could be created in compliance with Wikipedia:Notability (academics)?
    • • Good idea. I've done a quick stub from Tulane University bumph. Will do more when I have a moment. C.H. ZeanahFainites ^barley 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• I've been doing a little bit of copy editing here and there; please feel free to revert any of my edits if you feel there was no improvement. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • One more thing: the link in "Smyke A, Zeanah CH (1999). "Disturbances of Attachment Interview". Available on the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry website" is dead—I presume it was retrieved from somewhere with access to the journal's full text :) Do you have the full reference instead? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't officially get the full text for free and although lots of texts describe it the only citation is to say you can get it on the jaacap website so I've put that in. I do have access to a copy on the web but I don't think its meant to be free content. No - it is free from jaacap. I've put it in.Fainites ^barley 22:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem with the book titles (specifically Bowlby, but others should be checked) in the References. I was surprised that books contained an & in the title, so I checked them out on the ISBN finder in the userbox on my userpage, as well as Amazon, and I'm finding different titles depending on where I check. At minimum, none of them should contain an ampersand. Please review all the book titles and use the correct, formal title, no ampersand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. All done. I've put the original Bowlby publications in. The titles change slightly in later editions. The trouble is - its unlikely most people (or libraries) will have the originals which are now nearly 30 years old so the page numbers refer to the recent 1997 paperback reprint. Is that OK if it just says (1997 edition) or do I have to put in the full 1997 btitle, ISBN, publisher etc? (Have checked the other books too). Fainites ^barley 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the data that you put should agree with the page numbers you've provided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fainites ^barley 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.