not used because of its overlap with reflective function. In some cases it was not possible
to assign scores for one or more scales, particularly for experience scales, if participants
did not report many specific memories. Several of the scales are scored separately for
mother and father; in every case the two scores were averaged to give a single score for
each scale. AAI transcripts were also scored for reflective function (Fonagy et al., 1997);
possible scores range from -1 to 9. State of mind scores and reflective function scores for
participants and controls are summarised in Table 2; none of the probable experience
scores showed significant differences between the groups or correlations with other
measures, so are not given in the table.
-------------

Table 2 about here

• Parallel interview scale scores

The parallel interviews were scored on the same state of mind scales as the AAIs, with the
exception of “unresolved loss/trauma” because the parallel interview did not probe for this
explicitly. Parallel interviews were also scored for metacognitive monitoring; it was not
appropriate to code them separately for reflective function because the interview did not
provide explicit opportunities to reflect on internal states. As can be seen, no participants
showed any evidence of metacognitive monitoring in these interviews so would be
unlikely to score for reflective function. Scale scores for the parallel interviews are
summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 about here

Normality

15

<<   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   >>

More intriguing information