Risk factors for vulnerable youth in urban townships in South Africa: The potential contribution of reactive attachment disorder

Figures & data

Figure 1. Consort diagram of sample 1999–2011.Notes: ^aTomlinson et al., 2005. ^bTomlinson, Cooper, Stein, Swartz, & Molteno, 2006.

Table 1. Sample demographics for all children (N = 40), % and children with RAD (N = 5), %

Characteristics	All children (N = 40), %	Children with RAD (N = 5/40), %
Child’s age	9.87 years	10 years
Caregiver’s age	37.5 years	36.4 years
Child living with biological mother	90%	100%
Living in same house as father	50%	40%
Caregiver in employment	53%	80%
Income	ZAR841	ZAR948
Living in house with water	63%	40%
Living in house with electricity	100%	100%
Living in house with inside toilet	30%	0%
Average number of people in the house	6	5
Owned house	50%	40%
Brick house	53%	20%

Table 2. RAD and MCAST classification by gender

RAD	Present	Absent	Total
Male	5 (12.5%)	15 (37.5%)	20
Female	0 (0%)	20 (50%)	20
Total	5 (12.5%)	35 (87.5%)	40 (100%)
MCAST attachment	Secure	Insecure	Total
Male	13 (32.5%)	7 (17.5%)	20
Female	15 (37.5%)	5 (12.5%)	20
Total	28 (70%)	12 (30%)	40 (100%)
MCAST attachment	Organised	Disorganised	Total
Male	14 (35%)	6 (15%)	20
Female	17 (42%)	3 (7%)	20
Total	31 (77%)	9 (23%)	40 (100%)

Figure 2. SSP classifications at 18 months and MCAST classifications at 10 years by RAD diagnosis.