Sample
A sample of 347 undergraduates (258 women and 89 men, ranging in age from 18 to 35 years; Mdn519 years
participated in the primary study. Subsequently, Bosmans et al. (2014) investigated the validity of the SAAM in a
sample of 268 Dutch undergraduate students (45 males; 212 females; 11 did not indicate gender) whose mean age
was 19.08 years ( SD52.47).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
According to Gillath et al. (2009) , Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .84, .83, and .87, respectively, for the three
subscales. Likewise, Bosmans et al. (2014) reported alpha coefficients ranging from .78 to .86 for the three SAAM
subscales.
Test/C0Retest
Stability coefficients over a three-month test /C0retest interval were .51, .53, and .59 for anxiety, avoidance, and
security, respectively ( Gillath et al., 2009 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Gillath et al. (2009) reported that SAAM security correlated positively with RQ security (.54), and that SAAM
anxiety correlated positively with ECR anxiety (.42), and with RQ preoccupied (.39). Also, SAAM avoidance was
positively correlated with ECR avoidance (.59), with RQ dismissive (.28), and with RQ fearful (.45). It was also
negatively correlated with the RQ secure style ( 2.37). Bosmans et al. (2014) reported positive correlations
between the secure and anxious subscales (.23), and between the SAAM anxiety (.44) and avoidance subscales
(.65) with the ECR-R (Dutch version).
Divergent/Discriminant
Gillath et al. (2009) reported nonsignificant with other measures of mood, emotion, and personality supporting
the discriminant validity of the scale. SAAM anxiety correlated negatively with RQ dismissive ( 2.22), while
SAAM security correlated negatively with both ECR anxiety ( 2.32), and avoidance ( 2.49). Likewise, Bosmans
et al. (2014) reported negative correlations between security and avoidance subscales ( 2.49), and between avoid-
ance and anxiety subscales ( 2.36). Bosmans et al. also reported negative correlations (ranging from 2.29 to
2.59) between the SAAM subscales and the ECR-R (Dutch version).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Gillath et al. (2009) performed an exploratory factor analysis (p. 365) followed by promax rotation to determine
the factor structure of their items. The Scree plot ( Cattell, 1978; Cattell & Vogelmann, 1977 ) suggested that the 3-
factor solution was the most easily interpreted and was supported by a confirmatory factor analysis.
Criterion/Predictive
Gillath et al. (2009) also showed that the SAAM, especially the security subscale, continued to predict real-life
relationship quality even after other variables were statistically controlled. Bosmans et al. (2014, Table 6) pro-
vided standardized beta coefficients indicative of predictive validity of the SAAM subscales.
Location
Gillath, O., Hart, J., Noftle, E.E., & Stockdale, G.D. (2009). Development and validation of a state adult attach-
ment measure (SAAM). Journal of Research in Personality, 43 , 362/C0373.
Results and Comments
According to Gillath et al. (2009) , state changes in attachment security occur along three dimensions. The inclu-
sion of a separate security subscale may suggest a way out of the problem identified by Fraley et al. (2000) , dis-
cussed earlier, that most previous attachment insecurity scales discriminated poorly at their ‘secure’ ends.435 MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT ORIENTATION OR ATTACHMENT STYLE
IV. INTERPERSONAL STYLES