University of New Orleans

ScholarWorks@UNO
University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations Dissertations and Theses

Spring 5-15-2015

How Play Therapists Integrate Knowledge of

Attachment Theory Into Clinical Practice: A
Grounded Theory
Karen Marie Swanson Taheri
University of New Orleans, Kswanson@my.uno.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td

Part of the Counselor Education Commons

Recommended Citation
Taheri, Karen Marie Swanson, "How Play Therapists Integrate Knowledge of Attachment Theory Into Clinical Practice: A Grounded
Theory" (2015). University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations. 2001.
https://scholarworks.uno.edu/td/2001

This Dissertation-Restricted is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks@UNO. It has been accepted
for inclusion in University of New Orleans Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. The author is solely
responsible for ensuring compliance with copyright. For more information, please contact scholarworks@uno.edu.
How Play Therapists Integrate Knowledge of Attachment Theory Into Clinical Practice:

A Grounded Theory

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the

University of New Orleans
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy
in
Counselor Education

By

Karen Swanson Taheri

B.J., University of Texas at Austin, 2006

M.A., University of Texas at San Antonio, 2009

March 2015
Copyright, 2015 Karen Taheri

ii
 Acknowledgements

To Kevin, thank you for your consistent love, friendship, and support. Thank you for making
sure you were available to care for baby George while I was driving long distance to campus or
spending hours upon hours on various projects! Thank you for emboldening me to take risks.
Your belief in my ability to achieve my dreams is a true gift.

To Susan, my mother, thank you for encouraging me to expand my knowledge and to become a
leader. Thank you for showing me the value of play and creativity, and for encouraging me to
express myself. Thank you for being genuine with me and for being willing to have
conversations about the hard stuff. It is through our relationship that I learned about the
importance of attachment.

To Willie Mae, my granny, thank you for your unwavering love. If there is one thing that I am
sure of in this life, it is that you love me. I am forever grateful to know the feelings of being
unconditionally loved and to love you in return.

To my sisters, Catherine and Jennifer, thank you for keeping me on my toes all those years. Life
certainly would have been far less fun without you! Thank you for loving me; I love you both
and am lucky to be your little sister.

To Sarah, Lester, and Alyssa, my counseling buddies from San Antonio. You three have filled
my life with warmth and joy. To know you each is a blessing. Your friendships have inspired me
to continually find the value in my self and what I have to offer the world.

To Jaime Parker, my friend, thank you for lending me your ear in times of need. Thank you for
believing in me and for encouraging me to do what works for me. Thank you for cherishing my
quirks and for accepting, even celebrating, me just as I am. Also, thank you for writing such an
awesome dissertation! You inspired me to complete this dissertation; without your hard work,
this dissertation may not have existed.

To Angela, my doctoral “partner-in-crime”, thank you for believing in me and supporting me

throughout this journey. I am fortunate to know you and to have shared many counseling ‘firsts’
with you. I look forward to many future adventures together!

To Dr. Herlihy, thank you for inspiring me as a counselor, educator, supervisor, and writer. You
provided opportunities for me that I barely dreamt would be possible as an experienced
professional, let alone a doctoral student! You helped me to see that my professional capacities
are limited only by the bounds I place on myself. Thank you for your confidence in my abilities
and for encouraging me to grow through experience.

To Dr. Dugan, thank you for modeling flexibility, strength, courage, empathy, and leadership.
Our relationship has been invaluable. I have learned so much about relationships (both with
myself and with others) through you. I am grateful for the time I spent under your supervision
and aspire to use what you have taught me within relationships with my future supervisees.
Thank you for supporting me in my endeavors and for welcoming me to work alongside you

iii
whenever I asked. I look forward to continuing to develop the projects we have started together,
and to discovering what new projects we will create.

To Dr. O’Hanlon, thank you for pushing me to do my best. Your willingness to make time in
your busy schedule to read and re-read my chapters, along with your feedback, served to
strengthen this research. Thank you for your time, efforts, and steadfast support.

To Dr. Watson, thank you for listening to my perspective and motivating me to think critically
from various perspectives. Thank you for acknowledging the inherent value and utility of the
combination of Attachment Theory and play therapy.

To my many friends and family members that I have not yet named, thank you for your support
and encouragement. Your presence is not forgotten! I am grateful to have each of you in my life.

iv
 Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to the Georges in my life… my father, my brother, and

especially my son. Dad (“Paw”), I am so grateful that you were my father. You shaped me and
inspired me more than I am capable of describing. You taught me firsthand the excitement and
power of learning through exploration. Thank you for being a secure base and for encouraging
me to adventure. Chuck (George Charles, Jr.), I maintain that some of the most interesting
conversations in my life have been with you. You are patient, kind, intelligent, and have inspired
me to have courage in relationships. To my baby George Ocean, I love you forever. I look
forward to watching you grow and am elated to be a secure base and safe haven for you. I can’t
wait to see how our adventures in life unfold! Every day I wake up and think it is impossible to
love you more, and each night I am surprised that by the time I fall asleep I’ve grown to love you
even more. I believe you are making my heart expand! You are my sun, my moon, my stars, my
everything.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................................... 3
Significance of the Study........................................................................................................................ 4
Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................................... 5
Attachment Theory............................................................................................................................... 5
Social Constructivist Theory................................................................................................................ 6
Play Therapy Dimensions Model ......................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions................................................................................................................................. 8
Overview of Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 9
Assumptions of the Study..................................................................................................................... 11
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................................. 11
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................................... 12
Organization of Manuscript ................................................................................................................ 13
CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 14
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................. 14
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 14
Play Therapy......................................................................................................................................... 14
Historical Development...................................................................................................................... 14
A Developmentally Sensitive Approach ............................................................................................ 15
Play Therapy Credentialing and Practices.......................................................................................... 16
Theoretical Orientations to Play Therapy .......................................................................................... 18
Stages of the Play Therapy Process.................................................................................................... 21
Treatment Planning and Decision-Making......................................................................................... 24
Attachment Theory............................................................................................................................... 28
Development of Attachment Theory.................................................................................................. 28
Basic Tenets of Attachment Theory................................................................................................... 31
Attachment Across the Lifespan ........................................................................................................ 35
Current Perspectives on Attachment Theory...................................................................................... 38
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................... 38
Attachment Theory in Play Therapy .................................................................................................. 39
Play Therapy Skills and the Therapeutic Relationship....................................................................... 39
Attachment-Based Play Therapy Clinical Interventions .................................................................... 42
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 47
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 50
METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 50
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 50
Purpose of the Study............................................................................................................................. 50

vi
 Rationale for Use of a Qualitative Approach ..................................................................................... 51
Research Questions............................................................................................................................... 52
Grounded Theory ................................................................................................................................. 55
Selection of Participants....................................................................................................................... 57
Sampling Procedures and Criteria...................................................................................................... 57
Theoretical Sampling ......................................................................................................................... 58
Participant Demographic Information................................................................................................ 59
Sample Size........................................................................................................................................ 59
Data Gathering Procedures ................................................................................................................. 61
Interviewing ....................................................................................................................................... 61
Role of the Researcher ......................................................................................................................... 64
Data Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 68
Initial Coding ..................................................................................................................................... 69
Focused Coding.................................................................................................................................. 69
Emergence of Categories ................................................................................................................... 70
Generating Theory.............................................................................................................................. 70
Ethical Considerations ......................................................................................................................... 71
Establishing Trustworthiness .............................................................................................................. 72
Clarifying Researcher Bias................................................................................................................. 72
Member Checking.............................................................................................................................. 73
Use of Thick Description ................................................................................................................... 73
Audit Trail.......................................................................................................................................... 74
Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 74
CHAPTER FOUR......................................................................................................................... 75
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 75
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 75
Participants ........................................................................................................................................... 77
Raquel ................................................................................................................................................ 78
Kara .................................................................................................................................................... 81
Ezra .................................................................................................................................................... 84
Juanita ................................................................................................................................................ 86
Nikki................................................................................................................................................... 87
Simone................................................................................................................................................ 89
Ginger................................................................................................................................................. 91
Theory Development ............................................................................................................................ 94
Coding ................................................................................................................................................ 94
Categories........................................................................................................................................... 97
Core Categories and Final Theory Development ............................................................................ 114
Establishing Safety........................................................................................................................... 115
Gaining and Providing Information ................................................................................................. 116
Facilitating Growth Through Relationship....................................................................................... 121
Saying Goodbye ............................................................................................................................... 122
Valuing Integration and Hindering Integration Serve as Contextual Understanding....................... 125
Moving Through the Theory ............................................................................................................ 127
Primary Theoretical Orientation and Integration of Attachment Theory......................................... 127
Linking Participant-Labeled Stages to the Final Theory................................................................ 128
Therapeutic Relationship From an Attachment-Based Perspective ................................................. 132
Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 133

vii
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 135
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 135
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 135
Summary of Methods ......................................................................................................................... 135
Discussion of Results .......................................................................................................................... 136
Stages of the Theory......................................................................................................................... 136
Additional Findings.......................................................................................................................... 142
The Grounded Theory and Play Therapy Treatment Planning..................................................... 144
Play Therapy Treatment Planning.................................................................................................... 145
Theoretical Orientation and Use of Attachment Theory Knowledge............................................... 146
Implications......................................................................................................................................... 147
Play Therapists ................................................................................................................................. 147
Educators.......................................................................................................................................... 148
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................................... 149
Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 150
Personal Reflections ........................................................................................................................... 151
Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 152
References ........................................................................................................................................... 153
APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................. 166
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 167
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................. 168
APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................. 171
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................. 172
APPENDIX F.............................................................................................................................. 173
APPENDIX G............................................................................................................................. 174
APPENDIX H............................................................................................................................. 175
VITA ........................................................................................................................................... 180

viii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Participant Demographic Information ............................................................................. 78
Table 2 Participants’ Self-labeled Stages of Process of Integration of Attachment Theory ........ 93
Table 3 Participant-reported Stages and the Respective Integration Points Within the Finalized
Theory ......................................................................................................................................... 131

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Example of data analysis illustrating movement from selected codes to core categories.
....................................................................................................................................................... 96
Figure 2 Data analysis process for constructing grounded theory. ............................................... 97
Figure 3 Movement through attachment theory integration into play therapy treatment planning.
..................................................................................................................................................... 126

x
 Abstract

The quality of the dynamics within individuals’ early relationships with their caregivers

can impact the overall mental health, functioning, and quality of future relationships for those

individuals (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000; Bowlby, 1988; Carlson, 1998; Cassidy

& Shaver, 2008; Deklyen & Greenberg, 2008; Johnson & Whiffen, 2003; Levy & Orlans, 1998;

Ogawa et al., 1997; Renken et al., 1989; Warren, Huston, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997). Attachment

Theory describes the nature, characteristics, and dynamics of the relationship between a child

and caregiver, and delineates how an internal concept of self and self and others is created via

those relationships (Bowlby, 1988; Brisch, 2011; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Solomon & George,

1999). Assessing for and addressing attachment issues early in life, and helping to establish a

secure base for a child, can serve as a preventative measure for thwarting a variety of

interpersonal and self-concept issues (Bowlby, 1988; Martin, 2005; Morisset et al., 1990; Rutter,

1987). Several play therapy interventions for addressing attachment issues exist, yet no

framework existed to describe how theoretical knowledge of Attachment Theory may be

integrated into clinical practice from initial contact through termination. The purpose of this

research was to generate a framework that explored and described how play therapists integrated

knowledge of Attachment Theory within their treatment planning. The constructed framework

may be used by educators, play therapists and families to conceptualize the play therapy process

from an attachment-based perspective.

Key words: attachment theory, play therapy, treatment planning, clinical practice

xi
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background

All mammals play (Brown & Vaughan, 2009). The importance of human play has been

deliberated for centuries. Plato stated, “You can discover more about a person in an hour of play

than in a year of conversation” (Association for Play Therapy, APT, 2014a). Engaging in play

behaviors contributes to the overall development of the brain, as well as cognitive and social

abilities, across many animal species (Brown & Vaughan, 2009). In humans, play offers a variety

of therapeutic benefits. Schaefer (2013) referred to those benefits as the “therapeutic powers of

play,” which include self-expression, access to the unconscious, direct and indirect teaching,

catharsis, abreaction, counter-conditioning of fears, positive emotions, stress inoculation and

management, therapeutic relationship, attachment, empathy, social competence, resiliency,

creative problem solving, moral development, psychological development, self-regulation, and

self-esteem (p. xiv). Play has been used in mental health professions for several decades and has

evolved into a specialized form of therapeutic intervention referred to as play therapy (Kottman,

2013; Landreth, 2012; Ray, 2011; Schaefer, 2013). According to the APT (2014b), play therapy

is defined as:

The systematic use of a theoretical model to establish an interpersonal process

wherein trained play therapists use the therapeutic powers of play to help clients prevent

or resolve psychosocial difficulties and achieve optimal growth and development. (p.1)

Play therapy is a therapeutic modality through which a variety of presenting issues may be

addressed (Kottman, 2001; Landreth, 2012; Schaefer, 2003a, 2003b). Although some children

and adolescents may choose to verbally communicate their concerns, play is considered to be

1
“the natural medium of communication” of the child (Landreth, 2012, p.9). Play therapy,

whether the child or adolescent decides to speak or not, is considered a developmentally

appropriate approach (Drewes, 2006; Landreth, 2012; Ray, 2011). Play therapy is primarily

utilized with children and adolescents, but may also be used with adults (Kottman, 2001;

Landreth, 2012; Schaefer, 2003b; Suri, 2012; Turner, 2005). There are also several existing

techniques and methods within play therapy to enhance familial relationships, such as theraplay,

filial therapy, and family play therapy (Kottman, 2001; Landreth, 2012; Parker, 2012; Schaefer,

2003a).

Children are influenced by their environments and their primary relationships; therefore,

it is beneficial to work with a child’s caregivers when providing services to that child (Dugan,

Swanson, & Short, 2011; Landreth & Bratton, 2006; Ray, 2011). Play therapists work with

caregivers to strengthen the child-caregiver relationship, which in turn enhances therapeutic

outcomes (Bratton, Ray, Rhine, & Jones, 2005). Some play therapists choose to engage the

caregivers through ongoing consultation sessions or directly within the play therapy sessions.

Other play therapists believe the therapeutic relationship can serve as the foundation for

repairing and rebuilding an individual’s patterns of relating with others, thereby changing the

dynamics within existing relationships for that child without directly engaging the caregiver in

sessions. The importance of working with caregivers, when working with children, is further

illuminated through an Attachment Theory lens.

Human infants are extremely vulnerable and are completely dependent on their

caregivers for survival. A newborn cannot hold its head up without assistance and certainly

cannot feed itself, create a warm environment for itself, or protect itself from predators. The

infant relies on the caregiver to provide for all basic needs, including emotional needs.

2
 Attachment Theory, developed by Bowlby (1969), describes the importance of, and the

dynamics within, the child-caregiver relationship. Based on the consistency and quality of the

caregiver’s responses to the child, as well as internal factors within the child, the early child-

caregiver relationship primes the child for future relationships. In general, Attachment Theory

describes two potential styles for the child’s development of concept of self and self and others:

secure and insecure. A secure child is more likely to perform well in school, trust others, and

engage in satisfying relationships in the future (Levy & Orlans, 1998).

Statement of the Problem

The quality within the dynamics of individuals’ early relationships with their caregivers

can impact the overall mental health, functioning, and quality of future relationships for those

individuals (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000; Carlson, 1998; Cassidy & Shaver, 2008;

Deklyen & Greenberg, 2008; Johnson & Whiffen, 2003; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Ogawa et al.,

1997; Renken et al., 1989; Warren, Huston, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997). Attachment theory

describes the nature, characteristics, and dynamics of the relationship between a child and his or

her caregiver, and delineates how an internal concept of self and self and others is created via

those relationships (Bowlby, 1988; Brisch, 2011; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Solomon & George,

1999). Assessing for and addressing attachment issues early on, and helping to establish a secure

base for a child, can serve as a preventative measure for thwarting a variety of interpersonal and

self-concept issues (Bowlby, 1988; Martin, 2005; Morisset et al., 1990; Rutter, 1987).

Researchers have demonstrated that engaging caregivers within the play therapy process

enhances therapeutic outcomes (Bratton, Ray, Rhine, & Jones, 2005). Ryan and Bratton (2008)

stated, “Attachment Theory and research is a well established framework for understanding

children's normal and atypical social/emotional development. It is used extensively by clinicians

3
to design interventions, understand interactions, and assess clinical progress" (p. 28). Haslam

and Harris (2011) reported a deficit in knowledge “about what beliefs and attitudes drive the

practice decisions of play therapists around their work with families” (p.52). Play therapists

reported a perceived lack of training and competency in family systems based play therapy

interventions and claimed what is missing from current play therapy research is an understanding

of the “concrete application of Attachment Theory from assessment to treatment” (Parker, 2012,

p. 114).

Significance of the Study

Establishing a secure base for a child early in life can serve as a preventative measure and

can decrease mental health and social issues later in life (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson,

2000; Carlson, 1998; Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Deklyen & Greenberg, 2008; Johnson & Whiffen,

2003; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Ogawa et al., 1997; Renken et al., 1989; Warren, Huston, Egeland,

& Sroufe, 1997). Play therapists primarily provide services to children and their families, yet

little is known about the beliefs that motivate and drive their practices of including family

members within treatment (Haslam & Harris, 2011). The APT (2012) Best Practices guidelines

for play therapists encourage the use of treatment plans, and updating clients and their families

according to those treatment plans, for play therapy services rendered. Ray (2011) discussed the

importance of tracking progress within and across sessions to provide timely updates to

caregivers throughout the play therapy process.

Purpose

The purpose of this research study was to explore and describe how play therapists

integrated Attachment Theory within their clinical practice. I developed a framework grounded

in data obtained that may serve as a guide for play therapists interested in integrating Attachment

4
Theory within their clinical practice. I co-constructed this framework with data obtained from

participants. This framework can also be used to conceptualize the process of change for the play

therapist, as well as the caregivers involved in treatment. Potential barriers to integrating

Attachment Theory within clinical work were identified. The final framework, or grounded

theory, that was developed may serve as a guide for play therapists and caregivers to

conceptualize the change process from an Attachment Theory perspective.

Conceptual Framework

According to Charmaz (2014), the “literature review and theoretical framework are

ideological sites in which you claim, locate, evaluate, and defend your position” (p. 305). For the

purpose of studying the process of how play therapists with knowledge of Attachment Theory

integrate such knowledge into their clinical practice, the study was ideologically situated within a

conceptual framework that combined aspects of Attachment Theory, Social Constructivist

Theory, and the Play Therapy Dimensions Model.

Attachment Theory

Attachment Theory, formulated by Bowlby (1969), posits that the quality of early

childhood relationships between a child and her or his caregivers effects that child’s

development of a self-concept, quality of future relationships across the lifespan, and several

other areas of functioning (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Johnson & Whiffen, 2003; Levy & Orlans,

1998). An individual’s attachment style may be categorized as falling on a continuum ranging

from secure to insecure. Enhancing the child-caregiver relationship, thus establishing a more

secure attachment style early in life, can provide a secure base from which the child can develop

a positive sense of self and others.

5
 Attachment Theory was utilized in data gathering and data analysis for this research

study to inform me regarding the content of questions to ask during semi-structured interviews,

as well as to determine which portions of the data obtained from the participants were

Attachment Theory based. I paid attention to any disclosures about engaging caregivers within

the play therapy process, signs that Play Therapists looked for to determine whether or not a

child is presenting with a more secure or insecure attachment style, and how Play Therapists

chose to approach children and their families through clinical intervention based on their

attachment style. To generate the practice-based theory of the decision-making process that Play

Therapists used to incorporate Attachment Theory into their practice, it was necessary to

understand and clearly delineate which portions of the data were attachment-based. To my

knowledge, no theory existed prior to this research that provided information on how Attachment

Theory may be integrated from initial contact through termination within the play therapy

process. Thus, I hoped the results of this study might enhance the applicability of Attachment

Theory within play therapy clinical practice.

Social Constructivist Theory

Social constructivist theory, particularly the frameworks ideologically associated with the

theoretical concepts of Vygotsky (1978), purports that reality is individually constructed within

the context of social relationships, one’s environment, and one’s experiences. No single reality is

thought to exist from this perspective, as all realities are created within each individual in

relation to the person’s context. Reality is not viewed as static; rather, it is continuously and

collaboratively constructed through “collective subjectivity” (Hua Liu & Matthews, 2005,

p.392).

6
 The process of treatment planning, broadly defined as the incorporation of knowledge

into clinical practice, involves the therapist’s perception of reality, as well as the client’s

perceptions of reality. A treatment plan, or plan for the therapy process, involves social co-

construction between the therapist and the client. Both provide information to one another and

together they determine mutually set goals for the therapeutic process. In other words, they co-

construct their reality for the play therapy process and this plan is re-assessed, updated, and re-

constructed periodically as change occurs across the entire play therapy process. In this study,

attention was paid to the therapist’s knowledge gained through previous education as well as

social interaction with the client, or “collective subjectivity,” (Hua Liu & Matthews, 2005,

p.392) and how such knowledge informed the play therapists’ clinical practice from an

Attachment Theory perspective.

Play Therapy Dimensions Model

Yasenik and Gardner (2012) developed the Play Therapy Dimensions Model (PTDM),

based on their clinical practice, to serve as a treatment planning and decision-making guide for

integrative play therapists. The PTDM can be broken down into two primary dimensions:

consciousness and directiveness. Yasenik and Gardner (2012) described four quadrants that are

created when the continuums of consciousness and directiveness are intersected perpendicular to

one another. Those four quadrants are labeled as “active utilization,” “open discussion and

exploration,” “non-intrusive responding,” and “co-facilitation.” A play therapist utilizing the

PTDM conceptualizes the process of integration based on the quadrant within which the client’s

needs and the therapists’ orientation exist. The model may be used across all theoretical

orientations and allows the play therapist to monitor treatment progress and changes. Movement

across the quadrants is not considered necessary to indicate progress and therapeutic change.

7
Yasenik and Gardner (2012) also consider the play therapist’s primary theoretical orientation, the

client’s needs and presenting issues, and the therapeutic powers of play that might be engaged to

best address the client’s concerns. For the purposes of this study, I focused on understanding the

play therapists’ primary theoretical orientation and how this orientation shaped and drove play

therapists’ clinical practice and choices for integration of Attachment Theory, how and when the

therapeutic power of attachment was incorporated into practice, and the play therapists’

conceptualization of the clients’ needs and presenting issues within and across the play therapy

treatment process. I used portions of the PTDM as a conceptual guide to describe and monitor

the process of change reported within and across play therapy sessions by participants.

Specifically, I focused on Yasenik and Gardner’s (2012) questions of what (which quadrant the

play therapist is practicing within), how (the “therapeutic roles and activities,” p. 100), who

(“clinical applications,” p. 108), and when “considerations for the play therapy process,” p. 106)

in conceptualizing participants’ reports to better understand their treatment planning and

decision-making processes.

Research Questions

To discover the process of how play therapists are integrating their knowledge of

Attachment Theory within their clinical practice, it was important to understand their decision-

making process firsthand. Without an understanding of how a play therapist moved from

thinking about Attachment Theory to using it in clinical practice, there was no understanding of

how the theoretical knowledge was applied. Understanding the decision-making process helped

link thinking to the application of knowledge. A qualitative methodology allows for individual

participants to share their experiences. The hope was that from that sharing, patterns and themes

would emerge in how those participants integrated their knowledge of Attachment Theory.

8
Those themes were linked and described to show the overall process of integration, as it occurred

among participants. Thus, the primary research question was: How do play therapists who have

knowledge of Attachment Theory integrate that knowledge into their clinical practice?

Several sub-questions were also explored. These sub-questions were: What is the

decision-making process behind integrating Attachment Theory into play therapy clinical

practice from initial contact through termination? How do play therapists define and describe the

stages of integration of Attachment Theory in their clinical practice? What barriers, if any, do

play therapists perceive as hindering integration of Attachment Theory into clinical practice?

Gaining insight into potential barriers that play therapists face in incorporating an attachment

theoretical approach to practice is essential to understanding why some play therapists may

choose not to, or be unable to, integrate Attachment Theory into their clinical work.

Overview of Methodology

Grounded theory is a methodology that may be used to explore and describe a process.

(Creswell, 2013). According to Creswell (2013), “participants in the study would all have

experienced the process, and the development of the theory might help explain practice or

provide a framework for further research” (p. 83). Although several schools of thought exist

regarding how grounded theory research is best conducted, Charmaz (2014) described

constructivist grounded theory as providing an opportunity for the theoretical framework to

emerge from data and as ultimately co-constructed by the researcher and participants. The notion

that the researcher is completely free from bias is considered a falsity, as the researcher is

entering the research process with previously gained knowledge, values, and life experiences that

can and do shape the researcher’s perspective. The researcher’s previous knowledge and

experiences, or bias, is not viewed in a negative light. Rather, it is considered a valuable tool that

9
can assist in informing the researcher’s approach to co-constructing the grounded theory in

conjunction with participants (Charmaz, 2014). In chapter three of this document, I discuss my

bias and how it informed my approach to this research. “The researcher focuses on a process or

an action that has distinct steps or phases that occur over time” (Creswell, 2013, p.85). The

process is further illuminated through the development of the theoretical explanation for the

movement within that process. Thus, identifying a gap in the literature includes deciphering a

process, or action, that is in need of further explanation. In this study, I sought to explore and

describe the process of how play therapists with knowledge of Attachment Theory integrated

such knowledge within their treatment planning. The use of grounded theory methodology

allowed for the exploration of play therapists’ beliefs and thoughts behind incorporating an

Attachment Theory perspective into their clinical work.

A screening survey was used to determine which participants met the following

requirements for research participation: had knowledge of Attachment Theory, perceived self as

integrating Attachment Theory within clinical practice, and held the Registered Play Therapist or

Registered Play Therapist Supervisor credential. The use of these requirements ensured the

participants had the knowledge and experience to contribute to the development of the grounded

theory. The initial round of semi-structured interviews was completed with seven participants via

videoconferencing technology and telephone. Each participant was notified that there may be

several rounds of interviews. Participants were asked to participate in follow-up interviews, as

needed, to fill in any gaps within the emergent categories and theoretical framework. The sample

size was determined by the number of participants and interviews needed for data saturation to

occur. The stages of data analysis consisted of initial coding, focused coding, deciphering of

categories, and construction of the theoretical framework or grounded theory through linking

10
categories. A framework grounded in data was co-constructed; that framework described how

participants integrated Attachment Theory within their treatment planning.

Assumptions of the Study

I assumed that all participants in the study were honest and forthcoming in their reports.

There were no incentives provided, no attempts were made to sway participants to answer in any

specific manner, and I assumed participants were trustworthy in their responses to interview

questions. I also assumed that participants who reported they had education in Attachment

Theory and perceived themselves as integrating Attachment Theory within their clinical work

were knowledgeable enough to provide insightful responses for participating in co-construction

of the grounded theory.

Limitations and Delimitations

Limitations of this research study were the sole qualitative focus in data gathering, the

subjectivity of data obtained, and the researcher’s bias. The use of only qualitative data within

the study limited the generalize ability of findings and may have limited the applicability of

findings across diverse practitioners and clientele. The use of semi-structured interviews and a

small number of practitioner perspectives in construction of the grounded theory led to

subjectivity in data obtained. A limitation in using only highly subjective data to generate the

theory was that perspectives used may not apply beyond the participants of this study. Further

research of the theoretical framework constructed will need to occur to determine the

applicability of the framework across diverse practitioners and clientele. The researcher’s own

experiences and bias shaped the manner in which the research was conducted. While I will

attempted to openly disclose my own assumptions and experiences that may have shaped the

research process, it was impossible to disclose every single experience and subjectivity that

11
informed my perceptions. Thus, researcher subjectivity was a limitation of this study and also

hindered the ability of the research to be precisely replicated.

Delimitations of this study included the small sample size, the exclusive inclusion of

credentialed play therapists, and the use of technology for data gathering. The sample size

consisted of seven participants. This sample size was small and therefore limited the number of

perspectives that were used in constructing the grounded theory. The inclusion of only

credentialed play therapists also limited the number of perspectives that were utilized in the

study. There may be professionals studying or training to become credentialed as play therapists

with knowledge, training, and clinical experience implementing Attachment Theory. Their

voices were not heard within this study. The use of videoconferencing technology may have

deterred participants who were less familiar with such technology. Their perspectives were also

lost in this study.

Definition of Terms

Attachment Theory- A bio-psycho-social, evolutionary theory that describes the quality of the

dynamics within early dyadic relationships between children and their primary caregivers; based

on those relationships the child develops a concept of self and self and others (Bowlby

1969/1988; Levy & Orlans, 1998). These concepts of self and others can influence the

individual’s development of future relationships (Bowlby, 1988).

Initial contact- The first contact the play therapist makes with the client. Some play therapists

may view this as the initial phone conversation; others may perceive initial contact to be the first

face-to-face appointment with the client.

Play Therapy- “The systematic use of a theoretical model to establish an interpersonal process

wherein trained play therapists use the therapeutic powers of play to help clients prevent or

12
resolve psychosocial difficulties and achieve optimal growth and development” (Association for

Play Therapy, 2012).

Termination- Landreth (2012) defined termination as the “discontinuing of the [therapeutic]

relationship” and noted that the termination process varies in length from practitioner to

practitioner (p. 361). Some consider the final session to be the termination of the therapeutic

relationship, whereas others view a series of final sessions to comprise the termination process.

Ray (2011) recommended a minimum of three termination sessions, and possibly more

depending on the length of time the child has been in play therapy.

Treatment Planning- The definition of treatment planning was broadened for the purposes of

this study to include all clinical practice, not solely the treatment plan that was written down on

paper or saved using electronic means.

Organization of Manuscript

This document is comprised of five chapters. Chapter One serves to introduce the

research topic, pertinent background information, purpose of the research study, research

questions, chosen methodology, assumptions, limitations and delimitations, and definition of

relevant terms. Chapter Two, the literature review, provides an overview of existing literature

relevant to the research topic. This chapter contains three major sub-sections: play therapy,

Attachment Theory, and Attachment Theory in play therapy. Chapter Three describes in detail

the chosen methodology and research process. Chapter Four provides results of the study and

provides direct quotations from participant transcripts in support of findings. Chapter Five

provides a summary and discussion of the findings of the study, relates the results back to

pertinent literature, describes implications for educators and play therapists, suggests areas for

future research and provides a reflection of the researcher.

13
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of literature on play therapy, Attachment Theory, and

Attachment Theory within play therapy. A brief history of play therapy is provided, along with a

description of play therapists and their practices, existing theoretical orientations, the process of

treatment planning, and stages of the play therapy process. Attachment Theory is described along

with its seminal tenets, modifications, current perspectives, and research related to the

importance of addressing attachment issues early in life. Finally, literature surrounding the

integration of Attachment Theory within play therapy clinical practice is provided with a focus

on extant attachment-based individual and family systems play therapy interventions.

Play Therapy

Historical Development

The origins of the use of play in mental health counseling can be traced back to Freud

and his work with a young boy named Hans (Freud, 1909). Freud corresponded with Hans’

father; he encouraged the father to observe Hans’ play and then to report his observations back to

him. Freud interpreted the psychological conflicts Hans was experiencing through analyzing

Hans’ father’s play reports and then suggested ways the father could respond to Hans to facilitate

psychological change (Kottman, 2011; Landreth, 2012). Anna Freud and Melanie Klein are

credited as the first mental health professionals to have utilized play directly with child clients

(Bratton, Ray, Rhine, & Jones, 2005). Anna Freud focused on using play to establish rapport

14
with the child and then moved to verbal processing once rapport was established, whereas Klein

perceived play to be the child’s primary means of expression (Kottman, 2011).

A variety of directive, non-directive, and integrative play therapy theoretical orientations

have evolved over more recent decades. The most commonly reported forms of play therapy

used are non-directive and integrative approaches to play therapy (Bratton, Ray, Rhine, & Jones,

2005; Lambert et al., 2007; Phillips & Landreth, 1995). Virginia Axline, a student of Carl

Rogers, created a form of non-directive play therapy by integrating Rogers’ person-centered

concepts with relationship-focused play therapy principles (Kottman, 2011; Landreth, 2012; Ray,

2011). Axline (1969) recognized that play was a form of communication for children and chose

to work with children through use of play instead of verbalization. Axline focused on building a

solid foundational relationship, or therapeutic rapport (Ray, 2011). Landreth (2012) expanded on

Axline’s work and further established Child-Centered Play Therapy (CCPT). Landreth (2012)

and Axline (1969) focused on the importance of creating a unique relationship in the playroom to

establish a safe, accepting, and permissive environment where the child could experience

freedom of expression without judgment. Through this therapeutic environment, in conjunction

with the therapeutic relationship, change and self-actualization occur for the child. Several other

play therapy theoretical orientations, based on theories typically used with adults, have been

developed (Kottman, 2011; Schaefer, 2003a).

A Developmentally Sensitive Approach

Play therapy is a developmentally appropriate form of therapeutic intervention (Kottman,

2011; Landreth, 2012; Ray, 2011). Although play therapy may be utilized across the lifespan, the

average age of clients is age seven (Bratton, Ray, Rhine, & Jones, 2005). According to Piaget’s

(1962) theory of cognitive development, children do not acquire the ability to think abstractly

15
until approximately age 12. Play provides a concrete medium for expression; it allows children

to communicate symbolically through use of toys rather than through verbal self-expression,

which requires abstract cognitive abilities. Landreth (2012) stated that the “toys are used like

words by children, and play is their language” (p. 16). Play therapy, in addition to being a

cognitively appropriate intervention, allows children to experience control over external

situations and experiences, within which they may otherwise feel powerless. In play therapy,

children can convey desires, wishes, fears, and needs; be understood; and experience acceptance

by a trained professional (Landreth, 2012).

Play Therapy Credentialing and Practices

The two primary credentials that play therapists earn are Registered Play Therapist (RPT)

and Registered Play Therapist Supervisor (RPT-S). These two credentials are bestowed upon

qualified professionals by the Association for Play Therapy (APT), the national professional

association for play therapists. Education and training guidelines exist and must be met to fulfill

the qualifications of either of these designations. To become an RPT, individuals must be

licensed in the state of practice, hold a master’s degree in a mental health discipline with specific

core education requirements and have a minimum of two years and 2,000 hours of clinical

practice. They must have completed 150 hours of play therapy specific education from approved

providers, 500 hours of play therapy clinical practice, and 50 hours of play therapy supervision

(APT, 2014c). The application for becoming an RPT-S requires the same qualifications as the

application for becoming an RPT and has an additional three years and 3,000 hours of clinical

experience, an additional 500 hours of play therapy clinical practice (for a total of 1,000 hours),

and requires the applicant to be a licensed supervisor within the state of practice or have

completed six hours of play therapy supervisor training (APT, 2014c). Membership within the

16
APT is open to any individual studying or working to become a play therapist as well as those

who are already credentialed as play therapists and play therapist supervisors. The APT currently

has 5,100 members, of whom 1,236 hold the RPT credential and 1,222 hold the RPT-S credential

(C. Guerrero, personal communication, September 30, 2014).

Phillips and Landreth (1995), in a survey of 1166 play therapy professionals, found that

the majority of play therapists are female, master’s-level degree holders, ranging from age 30 to

50, who have received most of their training in play therapy and child development from

workshops. Male participants in the study were more likely to be doctoral level practitioners;

there was no difference between female and male play therapists’ hours per week devoted to

practicing play therapy or number of average sessions per week (Phillips & Landreth, 1995).

Most play therapists worked with children on an individual basis once a week; the typical

number of sessions needed to complete therapy was 11 to 20, and most play therapists completed

work with clients within 30 sessions. The two most common theoretical orientations employed

were eclectic, or integrative, and client-centered play therapy (Phillips & Landreth, 1995). In a

more recent study, Lambert et al. (2007) found the majority of practitioners utilizing play therapy

operated from the child-centered perspective. One group of researchers found that play therapists

receive the most training in the child-centered orientation to play therapy (Ryan, Gomery, &

Lacasse, 2002). Play therapists believe play therapy is most appropriately utilized with children

ages three to 11 (Phillips & Landreth, 1998). The most commonly reported presenting issues that

play therapists reported to be effectively addressed through play therapy were physical and

sexual abuse, depression or withdrawal, acting out or impulse-control difficulties, and academic

difficulties (Phillips & Landreth, 1998).

17
Theoretical Orientations to Play Therapy

Several theoretical orientations to play therapy exist. Play therapists’ choice of theoretical

orientation drives conceptualization of the therapeutic relationship, change process, and methods

of intervening. In general, play therapy orientations may be divided into directive, non-directive,

mixed directive and non-directive, and integrative. Directive and non-directive refer to the level

of leadership the therapist takes within the play therapy sessions; higher levels of the therapist

deciding the direction of the therapeutic session are indicative of a directive therapist stance and

higher levels of the child leading the direction of the session are indicative of a more non-

directive therapist stance. Integrative approaches allow the play therapist to follow the child’s

needs and to intervene from a directive, non-directive, or mixed approach in response to the

child’s changing presentation (Schaefer, 2003b).

Non-Directive Play Therapy Approaches. In non-directive play therapy approaches the

play therapist allows the child to lead the direction and content of play sessions. Non-directive

theoretical orientations to play therapy include Jungian Analytical Play Therapy and Child-

Centered Play Therapy.

Jungian analytical play therapy. This approach, originally utilized in adult therapy, was

adapted for use with children based on the principles of Jung’s Analytical Psychology.

Traditionally, this play therapy approach was used with sand tray (Kottman, 2011). Lowenfeld

(1950) created a technique called “The World” wherein clients constructed their world in the

sand and each object symbolically represented a piece of their existence. Kalff, a friend of Jung,

expanded on Lowenfeld’s work and the use of symbolism to include use of narrative to

illuminate the scenes in the sand (Kottman, 2011). Several theorists further developed this

theoretical orientation through the use of play and art with clients to “explore the ego, the self,

18
and the collective unconscious” (Kottman, 2011, p. 36). Jungian analytical play therapy is

considered to be a non-directive approach to play therapy, as the counselor does not lead the

client to complete certain tasks within the session or provide interpretation of the process to the

client (Kottman, 2011).

Child-centered play therapy. Virginia Axline applied Carl Rogers’ fundamental concepts

of client-centered therapy for adults to the process of play therapy. The therapeutic relationship

is the key focus within this orientation and is viewed as the primary vehicle for change (Axline,

1969; Kottman, 2011; Landreth, 2012). The therapist does not interpret the child’s play or

provide direction; rather, the focus is on trusting the child’s inherent tendency toward growth and

therefore allowing the child to lead the therapeutic process (Landreth, 2012). It is only when the

child feels free to continue without changing the self that the process of change begins (Landreth,

2012).

Directive Play Therapy Approaches. In directive approaches to play therapy the play

therapist provides the direction of play sessions. Cognitive-Behavioral Play Therapy is a

directive theoretical orientation to play therapy.

Cognitive-behavioral play therapy. Cognitive-behavioral play therapy is “structured,

directive, and goal-oriented” (Kottman, 2011, p. 35). Knell integrated traditional cognitive-

behavioral techniques into the play therapy process to increase children’s awareness of thoughts,

behaviors, and relationships. The therapist sets up specific play situations to mimic real life

concerns the child has experienced. The child is then able to practice new approaches to those

dilemmas and develop new behaviors for future implementation (Kottman, 2011).

Mixed Directive and Non-directive Approaches. The play therapist in mixed directive

and non-directive approaches to play therapy switches back and forth between directing the play

19
sessions and allowing the child to lead in the direction of the play sessions. Mixed approaches

include Adlerian Play Therapy and Gestalt Play Therapy.

Adlerian play therapy. Adlerian play therapy involves the use of a wide variety of

creative interventions such as music, sand tray, play, dance, storytelling, and art (Kottman,

2011). The purpose of the use of creative interventions and expression through play is to enhance

the therapeutic relationship and to allow the therapist “to explore the child’s intrapersonal and

interpersonal dynamics, to help the child gain insight, and provide a context for the child to learn

and practice more constructive ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving” (Kottman, 2011, p. 35).

The play therapist also works with the child’s caregivers, such as parents or teachers, to facilitate

change in the child’s environments (Kottman, 2011). The Adlerian play therapist utilizes both

directive and non-directive techniques. The play therapist often begins with a more non-directive

approach. Once the therapist’s understanding of the child’s perceptions and experiences and the

therapeutic relationship are well established, the therapist may choose to take a more directive

stance to address presenting concerns (Kottman, 2011).

Gestalt play therapy. Oaklander (1978) developed Gestalt play therapy based on the

primary concepts of Perls’ Gestalt Therapy. The relationship between the play therapist and the

child fluctuates between directive and non-directive approaches. At times the play therapist

directs the child to participate in experiments, or activities, intended to facilitate growth. At other

times the therapist allows the child to take the lead in session (Kottman, 2011). Oaklander

“focused on the relationship between the therapist and children, the concept of organismic self-

regulation, children’s boundaries and sense of self, and the therapeutic role of awareness,

experience, and resistance” (Kottman, 2011, p. 35).

20
 Integrative Play Therapy Approaches. Integrative approaches to play therapy allow for

the play therapist to choose from a wide variety of interventions and assessments to address the

child’s, or family’s, presenting issues. Integrative approaches include Ecosystemic Play Therapy

and Prescriptive Play Therapy.

Ecosystemic play therapy. O’Connor (2000, 2009) developed ecosystemic play therapy.

This approach takes into consideration each of the child’s systems, as understanding the child’s

contexts is essential in comprehending experiences and facilitating change. The play therapist

assesses the child using a variety of evaluative tools in the following areas: “cognitive, physical,

social, emotional, and processing of life experiences” (Connor 2000; 2009 as cited in Kottman,

2011, p. 36). Based on the results of those assessments, the play therapist provides directive

experiences for the child within the play sessions to facilitate development and change (Kottman,

2011).

Prescriptive play therapy. The prescriptive approach to play therapy developed from a

discerned need to tailor therapeutic interventions to an individual’s presenting concerns and

needs. There was a focus on utilizing techniques and theory directly in response to the client’s

“presenting problems, specific personality traits, and particular situation” (Kottman, 2011, p. 38).

Play therapists working from this perspective need to have acquired a wealth of knowledge and

training in a variety of theoretical orientations and techniques to aptly apply tailored

interventions to clients’ needs.

Stages of the Play Therapy Process

The literature surrounding understanding stages of the play therapy process focuses

heavily on child-centered play therapy. A model describing the stages of engaging caregivers in

the play therapy process also exists and may be useful in understanding the potential stages

21
involved in play therapists’ work with caregivers from an attachment perspective. Understanding

the stages of the play therapy process can assist play therapists in treatment planning as well as

provide caregivers with information regarding the process and progress in play therapy treatment

(Cochran et al., 2010; Fall, 1997; Nordling & Guerney, 1999; Ray, 2011).

Child-centered play therapy stages. The therapeutic relationship is the key element

within the child-centered play therapy process. It is through establishment of an accepting,

genuine, empathic relationship that change is facilitated (Landreth, 2012). Moustakas (1955, as

cited in O’Connor and Braverman, 1997), stated that once such a relationship is established,

children progress through the following stages of the therapeutic process:

1. Diffuse negative feelings, expressed everywhere in the child’s play

2. Ambivalent feelings, generally anxious or hostile
3. Direct negative feelings, expressed toward parents, siblings, and others, or in specific
forms of regression
4. Ambivalent feelings, positive and negative, toward parents, siblings, and others
5. Clear, distinct, separate, usually realistic positive and negative attitudes, with positive
attitudes predominating in the child’s play (p. 84).

Nordling and Guerney (1999) proposed four stages of the child-centered play therapy process.

These stages were called “warm up,” “aggressive,” “regressive,” and “mastery” (Nordling &

Guerney, 1999, p. 18). Certain types of behaviors occur within each stage of the process, and the

therapeutic relationship is said to strengthen throughout completion of each stage (Nordling &

Guerney, 1999). The authors noted that each child passes through the stages of the play therapy

process at a unique pace. During the warm up stage, the child orients to the play therapist and the

new play therapy environment. The child becomes accustomed to taking the lead within the

sessions, a theory-specific aspect of the child-centered play therapy process. Children enter the

“aggressive” stage of the process once trust and therapeutic rapport have been established within

the therapeutic relationship. During this phase, the child tends to exhibit more aggressive play

22
behaviors or practice self-assertion. The “regressive” stage is marked by the child’s display of

and engagement in regressive behaviors to “work on issues related to nurturance, attachment,

dependence/independence, identity and self-image, and other issues related to the relationships

with others” (Nordling & Guerney, 1999, p. 20). Such play behaviors may include “cooking

meals, giving a tea party, telling a bedtime story,” “putting a bottle in the mouth,” “taking a nap,”

or “engaging in babbling/baby talk” (Nordling & Guerney, 1999, p. 20-21). The final stage,

referred to as mastery, is marked by the child’s increased expressed competence, mastery, and

creativity. Some children exhibit these qualities through independent play, while others express

them through “creation of their own games” or “interactive role-play” (Nordling & Guerney,

1999, p. 21). Transitioning between stages is not considered to occur without overlap between

the stages, at times across several sessions (Nordling & Guerney, 1999). Cochran et al. (2010)

tracked two boys’ progress through the stages of child-centered play therapy defined by Nordling

and Guerney (1999) and confirmed the existence and utility of the stages to track client progress.

Engaging caregivers and beyond. Steen (2010) outlined four stages of engaging

caregivers in the play therapy consultation process. Those four stages were: engagement,

cooperation, incorporation, and termination. The stages describe the developmental process

caregivers venture through while their children are in treatment. During the engagement phase,

or first phase, caregivers may feel reluctance about the play therapy treatment process. The

therapist’s focus in this stage is providing appropriate education to the caregiver regarding play

therapy, offering empathic responses, and establishing rapport and trust with the caregiver while

remaining focused on the child client (Steen, 2010). In the cooperation phase, the caregiver

begins to become “a more active participant” in the consultation process (Steen, 2010, p. 1). The

caregiver is more likely to seek out advice, which illustrates progression past the engagement

23
phase and signifies growing trust in the play therapist. Next, caregivers enter the incorporation

phase wherein they begin to implement the advice, or skills, they have acquired throughout

consultation with the play therapist. As caregivers integrate new practices into their relationship

with their child, caregivers experience increased empathy with their child and they grow

increasingly aware of their responsibility and ability to facilitate change (Steen, 2010). The final

stage of the caregivers’ process is termination. At this point the caregiver “appears relaxed,

maybe relieved; the parent and child have both made significant changes, and furthermore, the

dynamics in the family have changed substantially” (Steen, 2010, p. 2). Steen (2010) stated that

understanding these stages allows the play therapist to tailor responses and skills offered to

caregivers in a developmentally appropriate fashion.

Treatment Planning and Decision-Making

Caregivers and treatment planning. As caregivers are the primary decision-makers for

their child’s engagement in play therapy services, their inclusion in the treatment planning and

decision-making processes is crucial (Ray, 2011). Ray (2011) recommended providing caregiver

consultations every three to five play therapy sessions to inform caregivers, obtain information

and updates from caregivers on changes in other environments, and to provide skills for

caregivers’ use. APT (2012) advocated that play therapists “explain the developmentally

appropriate treatment plan in an understandable manner to the client and/or his/her legal

guardian, if applicable” (p. 2). Caregiver consultations provide an appropriate time to accomplish

collaborating with caregivers in development of the treatment plan, as well as to explain the

treatment plan. According to Play Therapy Best Practices (APT, 2012), a treatment plan “should

contain measurable outcome goals” and be “reviewed regularly to ensure viability, effectiveness,

and the continued support of the client and the involvement of the others in achieving the

24
therapeutic goals” (p. 2). According to Ray (2011), a treatment plan should include “a diagnosis,

prediction of therapy length, reported symptoms, and objectives for the client” ( p. 234). In

addition, the play therapist “report[s] parental concerns,” “set[s] objectives that are assumed to

be easily attainable by the child, and provid[es] a rationale for [the chosen theoretical

orientation] as the most appropriate intervention” (Ray, 2011, p. 234). Ray (2011) developed a

treatment planning form for play therapists’ use, adapted from a form provided in Wiger (2009),

which focused on presenting problem, caregivers’ concerns, goals and objectives, and

interventions used. The treatment plan may be updated as change occurs, new information is

obtained through caregiver consultations, and new or different goals or objectives become the

focus. Throughout the caregiver consultations, the play therapist provides the caregivers with

feedback regarding progress, changes, skills for use, and prepares the caregivers for the eventual

termination (Ray, 2011).

Diagnosing disorders of attachment. Treatment plans are part of a medical model

approach to play therapy and generally involve diagnosis, intervention, assessing for progress,

and plans for termination (Ray, 2011). Some play therapists who ascribe to certain theoretical

orientations, such as child-centered play therapy, may be less inclined to diagnose. However,

with insurance companies dictating reimbursement for client services, diagnosis is often a

necessity for clients to receive play therapy services (Ray, 2011). The Diagnostic and Statistical

Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V, 2013), is the primary guide used by mental

health professionals in deciphering a mental health diagnosis for a client. Several disorders

(typically presenting in children) specifically mentioned the word attachment within the criteria

for diagnostic assessment, including Separation Anxiety, Reactive Attachment Disorder, and

Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder (DSM-V, 2013). Whereas these are some of the

25
disorders that refer directly to attachment, research has shown that a wide variety of disorders

may present in childhood, adolescence, or adulthood in correlation with the quality of an

individual’s early attachment relationships, among other risk factors (Rutter, 1985). These other

disorders include anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, antisocial

behaviors, dissociative disorders, feeding and eating disorders, and conduct disorder (Aguilar,

Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000; Carlson, 1998; Deklyen & Greenberg, 2008; Ogawa et al.,

1997; Renken et al., 1989; Warren, Huston, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997). The National Institute of

Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care found that

children’s insecure attachment tended to significantly predict future problem behaviors in

children who lived in at-risk environments (Belsky & Fearon, 2002). Gender was also a

significant factor in prediction of future behavioral issues. In a longitudinal study conducted by

the Minnesota Parent-Child Project, researchers found that “infant avoidance predicted teacher-

rated aggressiveness in middle childhood and ambivalence predicted passive withdrawal;

however, these associations were significant only for boys” (Renken et al., 1989 as cited in

Deklyen & Greenberg, 2008). Several other studies, with smaller sample sizes and fewer

insecure children included, found no significant effect between insecure attachment in children

living in low-risk environments and behavioral issues later in life (Bates, Bayles, Bennett, Ridge,

& Brown, 1991; Bates, Maslin, & Frankel, 1985; Deklyen & Greenberg, 2008; Fagot &

Kavanaugh, 1990; Goldberg, Lojkasek, Minde, & Corter, 1990; Lewis, Feiring, McGuffog, &

Jaskir, 1984). The presence of a secure attachment early in life was considered to be a protective

factor against future behavioral issues and psychopathology, particularly for those children in

high-risk environments (Morisset et al., 1990; Rutter, 1987).

26
 Assessing for progress. Play therapists assess for progress within and across play

therapy sessions. One method for assessing progress is to look for a change in themes exhibited

within the child’s play and expressions (Landreth, 2012; Ray, 2011). Ray (2011) also provided a

list of play behaviors that can be tracked within and across sessions to assess for progress. Each

of those behaviors, such as destructive and constructive, was displayed in the format of a

continuum without a preference for either continuum representing increased health. “The play

therapist assesses growth according to movement in the direction that is helpful to the child”

(Ray, 2011, p. 126). Assessing progress may be conceptualized in terms of what stage of the play

therapy process the client is in (Cochran et al., 2010; Fall, 1997; Landreth, 2012; Nordling &

Guerney, 1999; Ray, 2011). In general, a play therapist can assess a child’s overall progress in

terms of moving from maladjusted behaviors to adjusted behaviors (Moustakas, 1955; 1973).

Termination. Termination signifies the ending of the therapeutic process and

relationship. Assessing for and deciding whether a child is ready for termination can be

challenging (Landreth, 2012; Ray, 2011). At times termination occurs without warning, when a

caregiver decides to end play therapy. “In ideal cases, the child has come to a natural end of

therapy wherein he is expressive and constructive in session; maintains warm relationships with

some adults and children, including the therapist; and engages in self-enhancing behaviors”

(Ray, 2011, p. 134). The therapist takes an encouraging stance during this final phase of therapy

and reflects the strengths and growth that have occurred across the play therapy process to both

the caregivers and the child (Ray, 2011). Landreth (2012) focused on the importance of allowing

time for the child to process the ending of the therapeutic relationship, as it is significant, and

suggested offering a minimum of two to three sessions as part of the termination process.

27
 A framework for decision-making and treatment planning. Yasenik and Gardner

(2012) developed the Play Therapy Dimensions Model to provide a decision-making and

treatment-planning framework for use across theoretical orientations within the play therapy

process. This model is based on three primary assumptions: “first, each child is unique regarding

his/her skills and abilities; second, all children follow a common developmental pathway; and

third, the play therapist has a central role in facilitating change and optimizing growth” (Yasenik

& Gardner, 2012, p. 45). Two dimensions make up the primary components of the model:

directiveness and consciousness. Directiveness refers to the amount of direction and

interpretation the play therapist elicits. Consciousness refers to the amount of the child’s

awareness regarding verbal expressions, behaviors, and play. Each of these dimensions exists on

a continuum from less to more; the intersections of directiveness and consciousness in

perpendicular form create a four-quadrant diagram illustrating four potential combinations of

these two dimensions. Yasenik and Gardner (2012) labeled each potential combination, or

quadrant, as follows: “active utilization” (high consciousness and non-directiveness), “open

discussion and exploration” (high consciousness and high directiveness), “non-intrusive

responding” (non-directiveness and low consciousness), and “co-facilitation” (directiveness and

low consciousness) (p. 14). The model is flexible enough to be utilized across all theoretical

orientations to play therapy and may be used to address concerns in individual or family systems

interventions (Yasenik & Gardner, 2012).

Attachment Theory

Development of Attachment Theory

Bowlby (1969), the originator of Attachment Theory, was inspired by the work of

clinicians and scientists from various disciplines. Bowlby discerned the need for a new theory

28
that provided further explanation of certain behaviors children displayed upon separation from

caregivers. In particular, the works of Harlow and Lorenz were highly influential on Bowlby.

Obtaining food was considered the primary motivation for an infant seeking proximity to a

caregiver before Harlow’s (1960) experiment displayed macaques monkeys’ preferences for a

soft mother over a mother that provided food (Bowlby, 1988). Lorenz (1935) showed the

existence of an inherent behavioral system that encouraged ducklings to seek out closeness to a

primary caregiver. Bowlby was curious about the purpose this intrinsically motivated behavior

served in humans, and concluded it is a survival instinct that elicits the desire for the child to

seek out physical and emotional safety from the caregiver (Bowlby, 1988). Bowlby (1988)

theorized that this built-in behavioral system is left over from a time when the infant may have

been vulnerable to wild predators. After World War II ended, Bowlby was asked to initiate a

child psychotherapy program at the Tavistock Clinic. Two students who would become

influential in the future joined his research team: Ainsworth and Robertson (Brisch, 2011).

Robertson had been a student of Anna Freud’s and utilized intense observational techniques to

analyze behaviors and relationships; these skills proved highly beneficial in the work he

completed as a researcher under Bowlby’s tutelage. Robertson created a documentary called “A

Two Year Old Goes to the Hospital,” which portrayed a young girl’s experiences of having to go

to the hospital without access to her mother. At that time children were not allowed to have

caregivers present during treatment at a hospital. The documentary displayed the attachment

stages of behaviors associated with separation: “protest, despair, detachment” (Brisch, 2011, p.

9). The documentary was later used to update hospital policies to allow children to have access

to caregivers. It was also used to display the stages of attachment behaviors children elicit and

experience when separated from a primary attachment figure for prolonged periods of time

29
(Brisch, 2011). Initial attachment behaviors displayed upon departure of a caregiver typically

involve intense protest (e.g., crying, wailing) by the child to instigate the caregiver’s instinct to

return and provide safety to the child. If the child’s first attempts are to no avail, the secondary

set of attachment behaviors are usually withdrawn, quiet behaviors. These categories of

attachment behaviors were derived from theories of evolution and are thought to be by-products

of the basic drive for survival (Bowlby, 1988; Brisch, 2011; Johnson & Whiffen, 2003). Those

infants and children who did not seek proximity by demonstrating attachment behaviors did not

survive as long as those who did (Bowlby, 1988).

Attachment theory assessments. Ainsworth, another researcher who studied under

Bowlby at the Tavistock Clinic, provided the necessary research to establish Attachment Theory

as credible in the professional community (Bowlby, 1988). Ainsworth conducted research in

Uganda, where she observed the relationships between children and their mothers. Ainsworth

(1967) made “2- hour visits in their homes every 2 weeks accompanied by an interpreter” during

which she made “very detailed records both of the mother’s caregiving behavior and the child’s

attachment and separation behavior” (Brisch, 2011, p. 11). From her research in Uganda, in

conjunction with further research upon return to the United States, Ainsworth developed the

Strange Situation test (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969). The Strange Situation test is an observational

assessment wherein the behaviors elicited by the child and caregiver are evaluated during several

episodes of the child’s departure from and return to the caregiver. The child’s attachment style is

evaluated through deciphering the patterns of the child’s responses to departure from and reunion

with the caregiver. Specific focus is applied to the reunion between the child and the caregiver

and the child’s ability or inability to be soothed and emotionally regulated through proximity to

the caregiver.

30
 George is credited as the primary creator of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI)

(George, Kaplan, & Main, 1985). The AAI is a semi-structured interview that is used to assess

adult attachment styles. Although George did not find any significant patterns among individual

responses made by the adults in her research interviews, Main and Goldwyn (1985) “discovered

that how mothers processed and discussed their childhood experiences [in response to the AAI]

was related to their infants’ behavior in the Strange Situation” (Brisch, 2011, p. 12). This

correlation initiated a new way of perceiving adult attachment and allowed for insight into adult

memories of childhood attachment relationships (Brisch, 2011).

Basic Tenets of Attachment Theory

Attachment Theory is comprised of ten essential tenets. Attention is paid to internal

working models, or attachment styles. Comprehension of the development of an internal working

model is vital to understanding the clinical application of Attachment Theory. Additional tenets

include intrinsic motivation, security equals autonomy, security offers a safe haven, attachment

offers a secure base, accessibility and responsiveness build bonds, fear and uncertainty activate

attachment needs, separation distress is predictable, insecure forms of engagement can be

identified, and separation and loss are traumatizing (Johnson & Whiffen, 2003).

Intrinsic motivation. The drive for attachment is an innate motivating force. It is

instinctual and is present across the lifespan. The instinct to attach is observed in the human

drive to connect through relationships (Johnson & Whiffen, 2003).

Security equals autonomy. Attachment Theory does not consider all forms of

dependency as being negative. Instead, dependency is differentiated into two types: effective or

ineffective. Interdependence is viewed as a necessary construct for human development. Thus,

interdependence, or effective dependence, is positive (Johnson & Whiffen, 2003).

31
 Security offers a safe haven. Proximity to a secure attachment figure soothes the central

nervous system and reduces stress hormones. Decreased stress leads to a greater sense of

satisfaction and promotes healthy development (Johnson & Whiffen, 2003). A relaxed, secure

individual is able to use mental faculties for exploration of the environment.

Attachment offers a secure base. The more secure an individual’s attachment style, the

more autonomous the individual (Bowlby, 1988; Johnson & Whiffen, 2003). Bowlby (1988)

discussed the importance of the child’s ability to explore the environment to learn survival skills.

The more secure a child was, the more likely that child was to explore, adapt, and survive.

Accessibility and responsiveness build bonds. The more accessible the caregiver is, and

the better the caregiver is able to respond to the child’s expressed needs, the more secure the

child will be. The role of emotion is key in Attachment Theory. Emotional accessibility and

responsiveness by the caregiver provide the base for the child to develop a sense of self-worth

and empathy with others (Johnson & Whiffen, 2003).

Fear and uncertainty activate attachment needs. The caregiver’s inability or

unwillingness to respond to the child’s needs facilitates insecurity. A lack of consistent care as an

infant develops the infant’s distrust in others. Attachment behaviors are activated in times of

stress, and a child whose attachment system is activated is experiencing distress (Bowlby, 1988).

The insecurity and inability to trust can lead to a decreased sense of self-worth (Johnson &

Whiffen, 2003).

Separation distress is predictable. Due to the nature of the attachment bond, when the

caregiver leaves the child, the child becomes distressed. This is a predictable outcome.

Attachment behaviors are elicited during those moments of distress to encourage the caregiver to

return (Johnson & Whiffen, 2003).

32
 Insecure forms of engagement can be identified. A limited number of insecure forms

of engagement are identified. Insecure reactions are described as being primarily anxious or

avoidant. Insecure children, whether anxious or avoidant, are not soothed upon return of the

caregiver (Johnson & Whiffen, 2003). A history of inconsistent responses or a complete lack of

responses by the caregiver train the child not to trust in the caregiver’s efforts.

Separation and loss are traumatizing. Bowlby (1988) described the trauma that occurs

from neglect, isolation, and loss. Deprivation of emotional responsiveness is traumatizing.

Isolation and separation lead to insecurity and a decreased sense of self-worth (Johnson &

Whiffen, 2003).

Attachment involves working models of self and others. The attachment bond is

mutually established through the caregiver’s responsiveness to the child’s needs and the child’s

perceptions of whether or not those needs have been satisfied (Levy & Orlans, 1998).

Attachment behaviors, such as crying, sucking, and smiling, are exhibited by the child to

communicate a need to the caregiver. An individual’s attachment model is activated during times

of increased stress. Once the model is activated, the individual displays attachment behaviors,

and seeks out proximity to the primary attachment figure to gain a sense of increased security

(Bowlby 1988). Depending on the primary caregiver’s availability and response to the child’s

attachment behaviors, the child builds a concept of self and others. This concept is referred to as

the internal working model. The individual’s patterns of attachment behaviors demonstrated are

indicative of that individual’s internal working model. An individual’s internal working model

differs from the person’s attachment style because the internal working model can change from

individual to individual. The attachment style describes the overall tendencies within the

individual and can range from secure to insecure; along the insecure continuum, an attachment

33
style is further described as ranging from anxious (hyperactivated) to avoidant (deactivated).

Attachment styles categorized as secure, anxious, avoidant, and mixed (Johnson & Whiffen,

2003). The anxious, avoidant, and mixed classifications are indicative of an insecure working

model. An insecurely attached child has a diminished sense of self, lower self-esteem, and is not

trusting of others. A securely attached child has a more positive self-concept and is more trusting

of others. Security equates to feeling worthy of receiving love, whereas insecurity equates to not

feeling worthy of receiving love (Johnson & Whiffen, 2003).

Internal Representation, Internal Working Models, and Attachment Styles

The dynamics of the caregiver-child relationship shape the way a child perceives self, and

self and others (Bowlby, 1988). Based on the sensitivity level of a caregiver’s responses to a

child, as well as the response rate and consistency in the caregiver’s responsiveness, the child

develops an internalized sense of self in relation to that caregiver, which is considered to be an

internal representation. Throughout the course of the first year of life, that internal representation

becomes further solidified through continued interactions with the primary caregiver(s) and the

child develops Internal Working Models (IWM) of self and self and others (Bowlby, 1973).

“These models reflect the child’s appraisal of, and confidence in, the self as acceptable and

worthy of care and protection, and the attachment figure’s desire, ability, and availability to

provide protection and care” (Solomon & George, 1999, p. 5). “These models, in turn, organize

appraisal processes, thought, memory, and feelings with regard to the attachment figure and

serve to guide future behavior” (Bowlby, Main, et al., as cited in Solomon & George, 1999, p. 5).

An individual’s attachment style develops through multiple relationship experiences in

conjunction with the quality of the early life relationships that shaped the development of the

IWM (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). Bowlby (1988) believed that once a child’s IWM is

34
internalized, it remains stable across the lifespan; research has shown that an individual’s

attachment style may change throughout life depending on future relationships and life

experiences (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). Attachment styles, as originally defined by Ainsworth et

al. (1978), were categorized as secure, avoidant, and ambivalent. Main and Solomon (1990),

through conducting the Strange Situation test with a larger sample than Ainsworth et al. (1978)

utilized, found an additional classification of attachment style which they called the disorganized

type. The child with the disorganized type of attachment style perceives “the caregiver as scary

and scared; therefore the infant needs to be comforted, but is afraid to seek comfort from the

caregiver” (Zilberstein & Messer, 2010 as cited in Parker, 2012, pp. 40-41). Snow, Sullivan,

Martin, and Helm (in submission) provided a summary of Attachment Theory, describing the

cycle of development and influence of an individual’s representational model, IWM, and

attachment style:

The parent-child relationship is influenced by the parent’s representational model.

Through the interaction of parent-child, the child develops an internal working

model (IWM) based on the representational model of the parent. The IWM

contributes to the development of a sense of self and self and others. It is from

this sense of self and self and others the child develops patterns of relating which

come together to form an attachment style. The attachment style becomes the

adult’s representational model which then influences the parent-child relationship

(p.6).

Attachment Across the Lifespan

Bowlby (1944) completed a mixed-methods study wherein he compared several factors

between 44 thieves and 44 children who were not thieves (control group). In addition to

35
gathering quantitative information such as age and intelligence level, Bowlby interviewed the

juvenile participants first, then their mothers. Bowlby sought, throughout the qualitative portion

of the study, to investigate whether or not distinguishable patterns of relating existed within the

relationship between primary caregivers (mothers) and their child in the juvenile participants

(thieves) versus the control group (non-thieves). Bowlby’s (1944) seminal research with the 44

thieves provided a link between maternal deprivation (particularly within the first two years of

life) and a lack of the development of empathy. This research supported Bowlby’s suspicion that

the quality of the primary caregiver-child relationship early in life affects that child’s ability to

relate in future relationships. A plethora of research has since been conducted to try to establish a

clear connection between the quality of a child’s early relationships and the child’s later social

functioning and development of psychopathology into adolescence and adulthood (Deklyan &

Greenberg, 2008). To summarize that literature, insecure children, particularly boys, living in at-

risk environments, are most likely to be adversely effected; they tend to develop

psychopathology and unstable relationships as they age (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson,

2000; Belsky & Fearon, 2002; Carlson, 1998; Deklyen & Greenberg, 2008; Ogawa et al., 1997;

Renken et al., 1989; Rutter, 1985; Warren, Huston, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997). The presence of a

secure attachment early in life served as a protective factor against future behavioral issues and

psychopathology, particularly for children living in high-risk environments (Morisset et al.,

1990; Rutter, 1987).

Intergenerational attachment patterns. The quality of the attachment relationship is

signified by the caregivers’ responsiveness and sensitivity to the signals children present in an

attempt to have needs met (Brisch, 2011). When an adult has an insecure attachment style, he or

she is less likely to respond in a consistent, sensitive, and caring manner to a child’s presenting

36
bids for care. This inconsistency in responsiveness may lead the child to develop an unstable

sense of self and self and others and can lead to development of an insecure attachment style.

Research has shown “there is a connection between the quality of the attachment representations

in the parental generation and the attachment quality that develops in infancy” (Brisch, 2002,

p.20; Fonagy, Steele, & Steele, 1991; Main et al., 1985; Steele & Steele, 1994). Benoit and

Parker (1994) stated that “Working models have a propensity for stability within individuals and

across generations” (p.322). “Studies show that there are correlations between the attachment

representation of the parents, observable behavior in caregiving and interaction with their infants,

and the later development of attachment quality in their children” (Grossman, Grossman, &

Zimmermann, 1999, p. 760-786). Martin (2005) tracked attachment styles across three

generations using the Marschack Interaction Method (MIM) and the Adult Scale of Parental

Attachment (ASPA). Martin’s (2005) findings supported the notion that a grandmother’s

attachment style effected her ways of relating to her daughter, which in turn effected the

daughter’s development of an attachment style and patterns of relating to her child. Patterns and

influence among attachment styles were found across the three generations, but did not indicate a

definite passing down of the same attachment style from generation to generation (Martin, 2005).

Similarly, Main and Goldwyn (1985) “discovered that how mothers processed and discussed

their childhood experiences was related to their infants’ behavior in the Strange Situation”

assessment (Brisch, 2011, p. 12). In short, the attachment style of the caregiver influences the

ways the caregiver relates to the child, which influences the development of an IWM and

attachment style within the child. Internal and external factors shape the child’s development of

an IWM and attachment style (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). The caregivers’ responsiveness and

37
patterns of relating with the child serve as examples of external factors that contribute to the

development of the child’s IWM and attachment style.

Current Perspectives on Attachment Theory

Application of Attachment Theory is being investigated across a wide variety of

disciplines. Current research topics include the relationship between attachment style and

physical health, whether animal-human bonds are indicative of an attachment relationship,

attachment in animal-assisted therapy, and models of clinical supervision that discuss the effects

of attachment styles on the supervisor-supervisee relationship (Neswald-McCalip, 2001;

Petromonaco, Uchino, & Schetter, 2013; Sable, 2013; Zilcha-Mano, Mikulincer, & Shaver,

2011). In addition, increased attention has been paid to the effects of attachment style on

development. Researchers have shown that children with a secure attachment style are more

socially adept, have enhanced cognitive abilities, are more competent in problem-solving, are

more independent, and have a more positive self-concept than children with insecure attachment

styles (Johnson & Whiffen, 2003; Levy & Orlans, 1998).

Conclusion

Bowlby (1988) was interested in expanding the application of his theory into clinical

practice. “He felt [incorporation of his theory into practice] is particularly important to prevent

the development of psychopathological patterns of attachment in the early adult-child

relationship, as well as in psychotherapeutic work generally” (Brisch, 2011, p. 14). Research

supports the notion that addressing attachment issues within the caregiver-child dyad early in life

may enhance the social abilities, cognitive well-being, and the caregiving practices of that

individual in the future (Martin, 2005; Levy & Orlans, 1998).

38
 Attachment Theory in Play Therapy

Attachment Theory is not considered a primary theoretical orientation for providing play

therapy services. Rather, it is a secondary theory that may be integrated into providing services

across the play therapy process. For the purposes of this study, play therapists from a variety of

theoretical orientations were interviewed to ground the emerging theory in multiple perspectives.

This diverse background in theoretical orientations allowed the theoretical framework to be

applied across theoretical orientations to play therapy. In this section, existing attachment-based

clinical interventions and their effectiveness are described. Basic play therapy skills that exist

across all theoretical orientations are discussed and attention is paid to the importance of

establishing the therapeutic relationship. These skills facilitate the development of therapeutic

rapport between client and play therapist.

Play Therapy Skills and the Therapeutic Relationship

The importance of the therapeutic relationship in facilitating the creation of an accepting

and facilitative therapeutic environment has been acknowledged in the field of play therapy

(Axline, 1969; Kottman, 2011; Landreth, 2012; Moustakas, 1955; Ray, 2011). The play therapist

utilizes specific skills and techniques to establish the therapeutic relationship and facilitate

change. Although precise skills and techniques may differ according to the theoretical orientation

of the play therapist, basic verbal and non-verbal skills are common among all theoretical

orientations. Those skills are also the core techniques used from a child-centered theoretical

perspective and include tracking behavior, reflecting content, reflecting feeling, returning

responsibility, facilitating creativity and spontaneity, esteem building, facilitating relationship,

reflecting larger meaning, and limit setting (Ray, 2011).

39
 Tracking. When a play therapist uses the skill of tracking behavior, the play therapist

states exactly what the child is doing, without labeling the toys or items used until the child

labels the items. Naming an item before the child labels it conveys an assumption on the part of

the play therapist and can disrupt or direct the child’s play. The purpose and rationale for using

tracking is to let the child know the therapist is engaged and interested in what the child is doing,

without leading or directing the child’s play (Landreth, 2012; Ray, 2011).

Reflecting content. Reflecting content is a verbal skill that allows the play therapist to

convey understanding of both verbal and non-verbal expressions of the child. Just as a counselor

reflects the content of adult verbalizations, so does the play therapist paraphrase and give back to

the child the content of exactly what the child is expressing. In play therapy, reflecting content is

possible even when the child is not verbal. For instance, the play therapist may summarize the

content of an interaction the child is playing out with toys (Landreth, 2012; Ray, 2011).

Reflecting feeling. Reflecting feeling is a verbal skill that can increase the child’s

emotional awareness. The play therapist provides a statement wherein the child’s emotional

expressions are reflected back to the child. This skill also allows the play therapist to

demonstrate understanding and acceptance of the child’s feelings, whatever they may be. For

instance, if a child is angry about attending play therapy and verbalizes that anger, the therapist

may respond, “You are angry about being here and you’d rather be [somewhere else]” (Ray,

2011, p.86).

Returning responsibility. Returning responsibility encourages children to realize their

own capability. The play therapist does not complete any task in the playroom that the child is

able to accomplish without assistance. Instead, the therapist encourages the child to work on

40
carrying out the task with which he or she is seeking help. These types of responses “help

children experience themselves as able and empowered” (Ray, 2011, p. 87).

Facilitating creativity. Facilitating creativity fosters the child’s ability to make creative

decisions. For instance, if a child is wondering what the characters in a story he or she has

created should do, the play therapist may respond, “In here you can decide what happens next.”

Allowing children to utilize creativity in self-expression encourages “them to develop flexibility

in thought and action” (Ray, 2011, p. 87).

Esteem building. Esteem building is a skill that is used to enhance the child’s positive

self-perception. The play therapist notices when the child has worked to accomplish a task or an

activity and communicates that realization to the child. The therapist may say, “You worked

really hard on that and were able to do it!” The play therapist does not praise the child by

evaluating what the child creates; rather, the therapist encourages and acknowledges the effort

the child puts into an activity, thereby building esteem (Landreth, 2012; Ray, 2011).

Facilitating relationship. Verbal responses that bring awareness and insight to the child

about the therapeutic relationship between the child and therapist are referred to as facilitating

relationship. The purpose of this skill is to “help the child learn effective communication patterns

and express the therapist’s care for the child” (Ray, 2011, p. 88). The child gains a further

understanding of the nature of the therapeutic relationship and can practice communication skills

in a non-threatening environment.

Reflecting meaning. Reflecting the larger meaning is used by the play therapist to

augment meaning for the child. This skill begins with the therapist noticing themes and patterns

in the child’s play and then those patterns are communicated back to the child. The use of

reflecting the larger meaning can enhance the child’s insight into play behaviors. Ray (2011)

41
provided the example of a child who consistently chose to keep the playroom organized; the

therapist responded, “You like to keep things clean and organized” (p. 88).

Limit setting. Limit setting provides necessary structure and safety for the child.

According to Landreth and Bratton (2004), limits are not to be set until they are absolutely

needed. For instance, a limit is needed if the therapist does not allow people to get hurt in the

playroom and the child is forcefully hitting the therapist. In this situation the therapist might say,

“I’m not for hitting. You can choose to pretend the doll is me and hit the doll, or you can choose

to pretend the bop bag is me and hit the bop bag.” This skill allows for redirection of the child’s

behavior in an accepting manner without disregarding the child’s need for catharsis and

expression (Landreth, 2012).

Basic play therapy skills are present across all theoretical orientations and are purposeful.

The trained play therapist understands that it is not necessary for all of the basic skills to be

utilized in each session. Every skill has a specific rationale for use and the trained play therapist

is adept at choosing the most appropriate skill, or set of skills, for use in any given context. The

establishment of the therapeutic relationship is essential to the process of change across all

theoretical orientations to play therapy. Basic play therapy skills assist in establishing a secure

therapeutic relationship. It is through the therapeutic relationship that the child experiences

acceptance, validation, increased awareness, and the freedom to utilize inherent capacity to move

toward growth (Landreth, 2012).

Attachment-Based Play Therapy Clinical Interventions

Individual play therapy interventions. Although the majority of attachment-based play

therapy clinical interventions involve direct engagement of the caregiver in the play therapy

treatment process, individual attachment-based interventions do exist. In these individual

42
interventions the therapist is perceived to be the secure base for the child. Goodyear-Brown

(2014) stated that any positive relationship interaction is viewed as beneficial for the child

because it allows for new neural pathways to be created. The idea is that the more positive

relationships the child is engaged in, the better able the child is to establish trust in future

relationships.

Object relations play therapy. The theoretical underpinnings of this approach to play

therapy are a combination of Bowlby’s (1988) Attachment Theory and object relations theories

of Winnicott (1965) and Mahler (Mahler & Furer, 1968). Object Relations Play Therapy is based

on three core assumptions: striving to connect with others through relationships drives an

individual’s development; individuals develop concepts of self and others through their relational

experiences; and the therapeutic relationship becomes the secure platform from which previous

unstable concepts of self and others may be reconfigured to healthier, more stable concepts

(Benedict, 2006). The primary focus in object relations play therapy is developing an essential,

secure, therapeutic relationship through emotional attunement to the child (Benedict, 2006).

Object relations play therapists believe that establishing the relationship is therapeutic in and of

itself, as many of the clients benefiting from this type of intervention have experienced

interpersonal trauma and have a difficult time learning to trust others. Once the relationship is

developed, the therapist then begins to challenge the child’s maladaptive internal working model

through the established therapeutic relationship and the use of play (Benedict, 2006). Certain

play techniques, such as thematic play, are utilized to facilitate the child’s ability to progress

towards a more secure sense of self and others (Benedict, 2006).

Circle of security. The Circle of Security model provides play therapists with a way to

conceptualize and respond to the child client’s needs and foster the development of a secure

43
relationship with the play therapist (Stewart, Whelan, & Pendelton, 2014). A diagram outlining

the circle of security displays two primary functions of the therapist: to be a secure base, and to

be a safe haven for the child (Cooper, Hoffman, Marvin, & Powell, 1998). The play therapist

responds to underlying needs of the child within the therapeutic environment. When a child is in

need of exploration and venturing away, independent from the play therapist, the play therapist

serves as a secure base for the child to return to whenever he or she desires. When a child is in

need of nurturance, or ‘coming to you,’ then the play therapist serves as the safe haven for the

child. The play therapist is constantly assessing and re-assessing the needs of the child as they

change across the play sessions and responds accordingly to these two basic needs.

Developmental play therapy. Developmental play therapy, created by Brody (1978),

focuses on utilizing touch in the play therapy process to foster development. Brody suggested

that human touch is a necessity to forming an attachment bond early in life and that without

exposure to affectionate, healthy touch, the child does not develop a sense of trust in others

(Brody, 1992). This approach differs from other individual approaches as it may also be applied

within a group format, as well as with primary or temporary caregivers. The play therapist works

with the child and the caregiver to develop healthy touch patterns and to establish, or re-

establish, trust within their relationship. Examples of the types of touch activities utilized in this

approach are holding, stroking, and rocking (Kottman, 2011). Brody (1978) also focused on

introducing the child to temporary caregivers from the community, as well as teachers, to

continue establishing trust with other adults. Each child played individually with an assigned

adult before joining the other children in a group format. The children’s group time was referred

to as “Circle Time” and was intended to allow the children to practice separation from their

temporary caregivers and to focus on relating with peers (Brody, 1978).

44
 Attachment security intervention. Whelan and Stewart (2015) proposed a new method,

based on clinical experience, for addressing attachment issues in play therapy clinical practice

wherein the play therapist responds to the child and caregiver separately. The clinician is attuned

to attachment insecurity in the caregiver-child dyad and works to assist in forming a more secure

attachment between the child and the caregiver through use of the therapeutic relationship. The

play therapist responds to the caregiver’s frustrations, concerns, and confusion regarding mixed

or “noisy attachment signals” (Whelan & Stewart, 2015, p. 119) from the child in caregiver

consultation sessions. The intent is to help the caregiver “not to feel personally disrespected,

rejected, or emotionally injured by the child’s emotions and actions” (Whelan & Stewart, 2015,

p. 119) and to help the caregiver reframe the child’s behaviors into expressed needs. The play

therapist also strives to create a secure environment for the child wherein attachment issues may

be explored and addressed through attuned responsiveness by the play therapist in individual

sessions (Whelan & Stewart, 2015).

Family systems play therapy interventions. Research has shown that engaging

caregivers while working with children enhances therapeutic treatment outcomes (Bratton &

Landreth, 2005; Bratton, Ray, Rhine, & Jones, 2005; Leblanc & Ritchie, 2001). Several play

therapy clinical interventions are used to address the relationship between children and their

caregivers. The techniques of the interventions may differ, but the end goal is the same: to create

or enhance a secure attachment bond between the child and at least one primary caregiver.

Theraplay. Theraplay was established by Jernberg in 1967. According to Booth and

Jernberg (2010), Theraplay is “based on attachment research that demonstrates that sensitive,

responsive caregiving and playful interactions nourish a child’s brain, form positive internal

representations of self and others, and have a lifelong impact on behavior and feelings” (p.4).

45
The structured sequence to providing Theraplay is assessment, treatment, and then follow up

sessions. The Marschak Interaction Method (MIM), an observational technique, is used in

conjunction with several questionnaires and an intake interview to evaluate the quality of the

child-caregiver relationship (Booth & Jernberg, 2010; Marschak, 1960). The therapist then

develops a treatment plan. The four Theraplay dimensions utilized throughout treatment are

structure, engagement, nurture, and challenge. Activities are used during sessions to engage the

caregiver with the child and to mimic early interactions of a secure relationship between an

infant and a caregiver. The purpose is to allow the child, whose needs as an infant may not have

been met or may have been met inconsistently, to have a corrective experience that facilitates

development (Booth & Jernberg, 2010). Follow-up sessions are scheduled as needed.

Parent-child interaction therapy. Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) was

originally created to address a variety of psychological and behavioral concerns in children.

Enhancing the caregiver-child relationship and teaching caregivers how to implement effective

consequences for undesired behaviors were emphasized. PCIT is a two-phase intervention. The

first phase, termed Child-Directed Interaction (CDI; Urquiza & Timmer, 2012), focuses on

allowing the child to lead during sessions with the caregiver. The end phase of therapy, Parent-

Directed Interaction (PDI), focuses on “improving child compliance” as the caregiver

implements consequences with the child (Urquiza & Timmer, 2012, p.146). Urquiza and Timmer

(2012) estimated the typical number of sessions ranges from 14 to 20. In short, the caregiver

learns how to respond to the child’s needs for empathy and structure.

Filial therapy. Filial Therapy (FT) was created by Louise and Bernard Guerney in the

1960s in response to a shortage of mental health counselors to provide services to children

(Bratton & Landreth, 1995). In FT, caregivers become the primary therapeutic change agent for

46
their child. The therapist teaches the caregiver how to provide Child-Centered Play Therapy

(CCPT). Once the caregiver has a strong grasp of the necessary therapeutic skills, the caregiver

begins to perform at-home play sessions. Regularly scheduled meetings continue to take place

between the therapist and the caregiver to discuss skills and progress. VanFleet (2014) estimated

that the goals of filial therapy are achieved in approximately “15-20 one-hour sessions for

families experiencing moderately challenging problems” (p.3).

Child-parent relationship therapy. Child-Parent Relationship Therapy (CPRT) is a

condensed version of FT. CPRT is a ten-session model wherein caregivers meet in a group

format to learn how to provide at-home CCPT sessions. CPRT is a highly structured format. The

manual for the CPRT group format provides worksheets for caregivers, essential key points for

the therapist to remember to stress in each session, helpful tools and lists for caregivers, and

homework assignments for caregivers to complete between sessions (Bratton, Landreth, Kellam,

& Blackard, 2006). Caregivers are required to bring in a video example each week of an at-home

session. The videotapes are reviewed in the group format. Feedback is provided to the caregiver

regarding the caregiver’s skills by peer group members and the therapist (Landreth & Bratton,

2006).

Conclusion

Play therapy is purposeful. A discussion of the historical development of play therapy

provides an overview of the perspectives and approaches that have been used by mental health

practitioners and play therapists. The use of play in therapy evolved into the use of play therapy.

Play therapy is a developmentally appropriate intervention that allows children to express

themselves in a natural format. Rather than encouraging the child to come to the therapist’s level

of cognitive ability through use of verbal expression, the therapist enters the child’s

47
developmental level of communication, or play (Landreth, 2012). Play therapists deliberately

choose to use specific skills to harness the therapeutic powers of play and attend to the

expressions and needs of the child, or client. The use of basic play therapy skills facilitates the

establishment of a secure, therapeutic relationship, through which the child experiences

acceptance and the freedom to experience and move toward growth (Landreth, 2012).

The therapeutic relationship is viewed by some play therapy professionals, from an

attachment perspective, as serving as a secure-base and safety-haven from which the child is free

to explore or retreat for nurturance as needed (Benedict, 2006; Stewart, Whelan, & Pendelton,

2014). Other Attachment Theory play therapy clinical interventions are family-based and focus

on directly engaging the caregiver in the process of play therapy to enhance the attachment

relationship between caregiver and child and also to reduce maladaptive behaviors within the

family system (Booth & Jernberg, 2010; Landreth & Bratton, 2006; Urquiza & Timmer, 2012;

Van Fleet, 2014). Knowledge of Attachment Theory is necessary to fully grasp the concept of

healthy childhood development. The caregiver-child relationship plays an integral part in a

child’s ability to accept nurturance from others, establish relationships, develop a positive self-

concept, and explore the world (Bowlby, 1988; Johnson & Whiffen, 2003; Levy & Orlans,

1998). Play is a child’s most natural form of communication (Landreth, 2012). Enhancing the

child-caregiver relationship through use of play-based interventions assists the caregiver to

empathize with the child’s perspective (Landreth & Bratton, 2006). Addressing attachment

concerns early in life can lead to increased empathy and interpersonal skills across the lifespan

(Bowlby, 1988; Levy & Orlans, 1998). Individual play therapy interventions may be used to

address attachment concerns; however, enhancing the child-caregiver bond directly is essential in

providing effective treatment within the family (Lieberman, 2003). Schaefer (2003) and Schaefer

48
and Drewes (2011) cited several research studies providing validation that PCIT, Theraplay, and

FT are effective in addressing attachment-related issues. Ryan and Bratton (2008) stated,

“Attachment theory and research is a well established framework for understanding children's

normal and atypical social/emotional development. It is used extensively by clinicians to design

interventions, understand interactions, and assess clinical progress" (p. 28). However, Parker

(2012) found that play therapists indicated “low levels of adequate training and self-reported

competency in Filial Therapy, Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, and Theraplay” (p. 95). Parker

(2012) also claimed that what is missing from current play therapy research is an understanding

of the “concrete application of Attachment Theory from assessment to treatment” (p. 114).

“Results garnered from studying the process through with Attachment Theory is applied during

intake, how it informs treatment, and how the treatment is implemented would be useful”

(Parker, 2012, p. 114). Some play therapists reported barriers to implementing attachment-

oriented family-based play therapy interventions, such as “limit[ed] access to caregivers”

(Parker, 2012, p. 114).

49
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

In this chapter, the overall methodology used to conduct the study is described. The

purpose of the study is reiterated and is followed by an explanation of the rationale for choosing

a qualitative approach to the research topic. The specific use of grounded theory methods is

further described in relation to the purpose of the study and research topic. The primary research

questions are discussed in depth, including the rationale for their foci. Ethical considerations,

participant selection and demographic information, data gathering procedures, and measures

taken to establish credibility and trustworthiness are expounded.

Purpose of the Study

The quality of an individual's early relationships can impact the overall mental health,

functioning, and quality of future relationships for that individual (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008;

Johnson & Whiffen, 2003; Levy & Orlans, 1998). Assessing for and addressing attachment

issues early on, through helping to establish a secure base for a child, can serve as a preventative

measure for thwarting a variety of interpersonal and self-concept issues. What is lacking from

current play therapy research is “a concrete understanding of the application of Attachment

Theory from assessment to treatment” (Parker, 2012, p. 104). The purpose of this study was to

construct a framework for play therapists to use that describes how to incorporate Attachment

Theory within their clinical practice, as well as to discern any perceived barriers to implementing

an Attachment Theory perspective within play therapy clinical practice. The framework that was

50
constructed described the incorporation of knowledge of Attachment Theory from intake through

termination, was grounded in data, and provides play therapists with a guide for how to

incorporate Attachment Theory into their clinical practice.

Rationale for Use of a Qualitative Approach

Qualitative research allows the researcher to explore and describe in rich detail individual

participants’ experiences and reports (Creswell, 2013). A qualitative perspective is “a natural

extension of the therapeutic process” and allows the researcher to approach research with “the

basic conditions of genuineness, empathy, and positive regard” (Glazer & Stein, 2010, p.55).

Exploring play therapists’ thought processes behind their incorporation of Attachment Theory

into their clinical practice could have been obtained through several forms of data, such as verbal

discourse, a survey, or written documents. I chose to utilize verbal discourse, through semi-

structured interviews, as the primary method of data gathering. I chose to use a qualitative

approach to allow for individual nuances and experiences to remain present in participants’

reports. For instance, a quantitative survey involves forcing participants to subscribe to

predetermined possible answers. I wanted the participants to fully express their perceptions and

experiences without having to subscribe to predetermined answers.

Grounded theory, one approach to qualitative research, is typically used to explore and

describe a process (Creswell, 2013). Exploring how play therapists are incorporating Attachment

Theory in their play therapy clinical practice, from initial contact through termination, involved

uncovering a time-sensitive decision-making process. Grounded theory methodology enabled

this process to be explored and described. In using a grounded theory approach to qualitative

research, I was able to construct a theory directly from data obtained. The theory constructed in

this research was grounded in play therapists’ perceptions and clinical experiences. Grounded

51
theory is a method in contrast to a quantitative approach, which often involves the researcher

individually constructing a theory and then testing its validity, reliability, and applicability.

Using grounded theory methodology allowed me to understand how Attachment Theory was

integrated by several play therapists. In other words, the theory was generated from the ground

up rather than from the researcher down. “In qualitative research, knowledge is not passively

observed, but actively constructed and evolved from an exploration of people’s internal

construction” (Yeh & Inman, 2007, p. 370). Using the grounded theory methodology enabled me

to co-construct, through Charmaz’s (2014) constructivist grounded theory approach to analysis,

the theoretical framework with participants through their reports. The conceptual framework

employed to inform research methods and data analysis was a combination of Attachment

Theory, Social Constructivist Theory, and the Play Therapy Dimensions Model.

Research Questions

The primary research question of the study was: “How do play therapists with knowledge

of Attachment Theory integrate that knowledge into their clinical practice?” To fully address this

primary research question, several sub-questions were necessary. The primary research question,

in conjunction with the sub-questions further described in this section, were used to create the

interview guide (see Appendix A) for conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews with

participants.

The answers to the sub-questions explored in this research contributed to the deciphering

of data obtained in regards to the primary research question of the study. Together, the answers

obtained to sub-questions provided information specifically regarding the decision-making

process behind theoretical integration of Attachment Theory, perceived importance of the use of

52
Attachment Theory, and perceptions of barriers to incorporating Attachment Theory within

clinical practice.

To understand how play therapists integrated theoretical knowledge into practice, it was

essential to understand their decision-making process. Thus, one sub-question was: “What is the

decision-making process behind play therapists’ integration of their knowledge of attachment

theory into their clinical practice?” For the purposes of this study, the decision-making process

was defined from a broad perspective to avoid assuming that all decision-making processes were

alike. The focus was on understanding play therapists’ use of particular bits of knowledge of

Attachment Theory at certain junctures, or critical decision moments, within the therapy process.

Part of how this was discerned was through inquiry concerning cues that play therapists used,

either from the client or from the therapist’s previously acquired knowledge of Attachment

Theory, to decide on the course of treatment for a particular client or family. In accordance with

the Play Therapy Dimensions Model (Yasenik & Gardner, 2012), attention was paid to the

therapists’ primary chosen theoretical orientation, each therapist’s level of directiveness, and the

client’s presenting concern. Such data was used to clarify the purposeful connection of theory to

practice. Participants were asked to provide a specific case example of a client with whom they

had integrated their knowledge of Attachment Theory; descriptions were sought from initial

contact through termination. I realized before conducting the research that play therapists may

not have integrated Attachment Theory from initial contact through termination, so data was not

forced to fit within this time frame. Rather, participants’ reports regarding their perceptions of

the stages of the integration process, as well as implicit use of Attachment Theory within their

case example reports, were used to construct the stages of the integration process.

53
 Within any process, there is a flow. At times the flow may be linear, and at times it may

be cyclical or another type of non-linear flow. Parker (2012) pinpointed the need for a more

thorough understanding of the ways that play therapists integrate their knowledge of Attachment

Theory into their practice. Rather than the researcher deciding how to label the stages of the

process of integration for the participants, a social constructivist approach was employed. The

constructivist perspective allowed participants to share their experiences of integration, name the

stages of their integration process, and describe what occurred in each stage. Thus, a second sub-

question that was used to establish the theoretical framework describing the integration process

was: “How do play therapists with knowledge of Attachment Theory define and describe the

stages of their process of integration of this knowledge?” Once this information was gleaned, the

stages of the integration process emerged through cross-interview coding. Follow-up interviews

were utilized to fill in any gaps within the process.

Haslam and Harris (2011) recognized a lack of understanding regarding the “beliefs and

attitudes [that] drive the practice decisions of play therapists around their work with families”

(p.52). Parker (2012) showed that play therapists have an interest in utilizing an Attachment

Theory perspective and that some may not have the competence gleaned from attachment-based

training to provide services from an Attachment Theory perspective. Understanding how play

therapists’ perceptions of Attachment Theory drive their use of Attachment Theory in their

practice may further enlighten others as to the perceived importance of the use of such

interventions. Answers to this question may also serve to describe the impetus for inclusion or

non-inclusion of attachment-based interventions in play therapists’ work. Thus, a third sub-

question was: “What perceived importance do play therapists’ place on utilizing an Attachment

54
Theory perspective and how, if at all, does this importance motivate their inclusion of knowledge

of Attachment Theory into their clinical practice?”

Parker (2012) found that some play therapists experienced barriers to providing family-

based play therapy interventions, although those barriers were not fully described. Rather, the

barriers were discovered as an unexpected emergent theme from responses to an open-ended

qualitative question. The fourth sub-question, intended to gain clarification regarding barriers,

was: “What barriers, if any, have play therapists encountered, or imagine others might encounter,

to integrating their knowledge of Attachment Theory into their clinical practice?” The intention

of this sub-question was to discover any barriers or hindrances that exist that may keep play

therapists from implementing an Attachment Theory perspective.

Grounded Theory

Grounded theory, developed by Glaser and Strauss in 1967, is a qualitative approach to

research that may be used to generate a theory that describes a process (Creswell, 2013).

According to Creswell (2013), “participants in the study would all have experienced the process,

and the development of the theory might help explain practice or provide a framework for further

research” (p. 83). Several schools of thought exist within the grounded theory approach. Glaser

and Strauss created the approach to streamline the development of theory. Rather than creating a

theory based on inferences, the intent of this new methodology was to allow the theory to be

“grounded in data from the field, especially in the actions, interactions, and social processes of

people” (Creswell, 2013, p. 84). The two creators developed a highly structured approach to

analyzing the data obtained. Eventually, Glaser and Strauss no longer agreed upon the structured

approach, called axial coding, and they each created their own frameworks for grounded theory

analysis. Constructivist grounded theory, a more recent approach to grounded theory, was

55
established by Charmaz (1995, 2000, 2014). Charmaz focused on allowing the theory to emerge

from the data rather than following a highly structured format (Creswell, 2013).

The first step in conducting grounded theory research is to identify a gap in the current

literature. “The researcher focuses on a process or an action that has distinct steps or phases that

occur over time” (Creswell, 2013, p.85). The process is further illuminated through the

development of the theoretical explanation for the movement within that process. Thus,

identifying a gap in the literature includes deciphering a process, or action, that is in need of

further explanation. To my knowledge, no description existed of the process of integration of

Attachment Theory knowledge into play therapy treatment planning from intake through

termination. Parker (2012) asserted that more information was needed on how clinical

application of the theoretical knowledge of Attachment Theory occurs in the play therapy

treatment planning process.

Next, the researcher deciphers what types of participants are necessary to study the

process in question. Grounded theory relies predominantly on interviewing as the means for

gathering data, but other forms of materials such as documents and audiovisual materials may be

used as well (Creswell, 2013). The researcher then decides what types of questions will be asked.

The focus is “on understanding how individuals experience the process and identify the steps in

the process” (Creswell, 2013, p. 88). There were two phases of interviewing within the data

collection process. As certain patterns, or categories, emerged from the data, I returned to

interview participants, and acquired more specific details about the process. The categories were

linked through movement from a time-sensitive perspective to create the theory. The data

collection phase did not end until each category identified became saturated and solidified as a

component within the generated theory.

56
 Next, the researcher embarks on the data analysis stage of research. The data analysis

process is either detailed and structured, or involves a more flexible approach that allows the end

theory to emerge from the data (Creswell, 2013). Throughout the analysis process, a technique

called memoing was utilized. Through memoing the researcher “writes down ideas about the

evolving theory throughout the process of open, axial, and selective coding” (Creswell, 2013, p.

89). The final step was for the researcher to report the “substantive-level theory” that was

grounded within the data collected and to compare the theoretical product to similar existing

theories (Creswell, 2013, p. 89). I discussed research findings and related them to pertinent

literature in Chapter Five.

Selection of Participants

The participants for this research study were selected by a combination of purposeful and

theoretical sampling. According to Creswell (2013), purposeful sampling is defined as

“select[ing] individuals and sites for study because they can purposefully inform an

understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon in the study” (p. 156).

Purposeful sampling involves three primary considerations: the participants, the sampling

method, and the number of participants or sample size (Creswell, 2013).

Sampling Procedures and Criteria

All participants for this study were members of the Association for Play Therapy (APT),

which is the national professional association for play therapists. A screening survey was sent by

e-mail to 5,707 APT members. Of those e-mailed APT members, 262 responded to the screening

survey (see Appendix B for the e-mail and Appendix C for the screening survey). The gender

breakdown of those responses was 242 females and 20 males. Within that same e-mail, potential

participants were notified of possible benefits and consequences of participating, their right to

57
withdraw their participation at any time, and they were informed that participating in the

anonymous screening survey comprised informed consent. Those who were willing to participate

in initial interviews were asked to provide their e-mail address at the end of the screening survey

for me to contact them if they met criteria for further participation. To reduce any potential bias

in answering the questions truthfully, the researcher did not divulge the criteria required for

further participation. In response to the final question of the screening survey, 90 participants

provided their e-mail addresses and indicated they were interested in participating in the

interview portion of the research. Of those 90 participants, 34 participants met the criteria for

participation in the study. Seven participants were selected based on their RPT or RPT-S

credential, ethnicity, geographical location, ability and willingness to participate, perceived

frequency of incorporating knowledge of Attachment Theory within their treatment planning

process, and exposure to a minimum of 18 clock hours of education in Attachment Theory. It

was anticipated that play therapy professionals who were educated in Attachment Theory, who

also integrated such knowledge into their clinical practice, would be able to contribute to the

development of a theoretical framework that described the overall process of incorporation of

Attachment Theory into practice. These criteria for purposeful sampling ensured that participants

had the ability and knowledge to contribute to the overall development of the target theoretical

framework of the study. Of interested participants, individuals with the most education and

experience in Attachment Theory were selected for the first round of interviews.

Theoretical Sampling

In the grounded theory approach to qualitative research, the researcher utilizes theoretical

sampling (Charmaz, 2014). When using theoretical sampling, the researcher “chooses

participants who can contribute to the development of the theory” (Creswell, 2013, p. 155).

58
Charmaz (2014) described the process of theoretical sampling as occurring once “a tentative

theoretical category from the data” has been developed and the “researcher seeks people, events,

or information to illuminate and define the properties, boundaries, and relevance of this category

or set of categories” (p. 345). Thus theoretical sampling occurred during and throughout the data

collection and data analysis phases of research and differed from initial sampling. Using

theoretical sampling, I requested additional interviews from participants whose reports needed

further clarification in to further flesh out a category or to obtain additional information as to

how certain categories related, or did not relate, to one another. Once saturation of categories

was reached, and there was no longer any question about the relationship of the categories to one

another within the developed theory, I ceased to gather data.

Participant Demographic Information

In an attempt to diversify the sample, several additional criteria were utilized in selection

of participants. Demographic information such as gender, race, and age were used along with

information regarding practice settings of participants to gain as much variety as possible within

the sample. Attention was also paid to obtaining participants from differing geographical

locations, as well as to the recruitment of participants with varied theoretical orientations to play

therapy. The hope was that, by recruiting participants in different geographical locations with

differing theoretical orientations, a less homogenous sample would be obtained. The attempt to

reduce homogeneity of the participants in the sample allowed for richer data to be obtained in

constructing the intended grounded theoretical framework of the study.

Sample Size

Differing viewpoints exist concerning what constitutes an appropriate sample size for

grounded theory methodology. Creswell (2013) recommended that a range of “20 to 30

59
individuals” (p. 157) may be necessary to meet saturation. Charmaz (2014) agreed with a similar

range of participants, yet acknowledged that certain criteria diminish the need for larger sample

sizes. Criteria such as homogeneity of participants in the sample, researching a topic that has a

“shared language,” the use of more structured interviews, rich data gathering, having a clearly

focused area of research, and diversifying the types of data gathered tend to decrease the need for

larger sample sizes (Charmaz, 2014). The concept of saturation, or the point at which obtained

data are no longer generating new themes or categories within the research, and at which existing

categories are fleshed out and supported by multiple perspectives, is prevalent across the

literature regarding grounded theory research. The sample size is indicated once the researcher

reaches saturation (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell, 2013; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Guest, Bunce, &

Johnson, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Thomson, 2011). The difficulty lies in estimating the

number of participants it will take to reach saturation before the data are actually obtained.

Thomson (2011) suggested that the sample size will most likely continue increasing until the

process of theoretical saturation is completed. Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) attempted to

discover the point at which the majority of themes, categories, and saturation are reached in

qualitative research in terms of sample size. Although the researchers acknowledged that several

factors play a role in increasing or diminishing the sample size, they reported that 94 percent of

codes and themes “had been identified within the first six interviews” and that 97 percent “were

identified after twelve” (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006, p. 73). The researchers concluded “data

saturation had for the most part occurred by the time we had analyzed twelve interviews” (Guest,

Bunce, & Johnson, 2006, p. 74).

Due to relative homogeneity of the target sample for this research study, the use of semi-

structured interviews, and a clearly defined research topic of interest, the first round of

60
interviews consisted of seven participants. I was prepared to increase the sample size as

necessary to reach saturation. Data obtained from seven participants led to the achievement of

saturation.

Data Gathering Procedures

Permission and approval were obtained from the University of New Orleans’ Institutional

Review Board (IRB) before beginning the data gathering process. See Appendix D for the IRB

exemption letter. Participants, all of whom were members of the APT, received an e-mail with an

informed consent letter describing possible benefits and consequences of partaking in the

research study, as well as participants’ right to withdraw their participation from the study at any

point. Within that same e-mail potential participants were provided with a link to the initial

screening survey. Participants who chose to complete the screening survey were prompted on the

last question to provide their e-mail address to the researcher if they were interested in

participating in interviews. Once participants were selected, I contacted seven participants via e-

mail to schedule the initial round of interviews (see Appendix E). Participants were selected

according to their demographic information, geographical location, credential level, practice

setting, education hours in Attachment Theory, and how often they perceived themselves as

integrating their knowledge of Attachment Theory in their clinical practice. Those participants

who were not selected for the interviewing process were sent an e-mail thanking them for their

participation and notifying them that they were not selected (see Appendix F).

Interviewing

The use of in-depth interviewing to obtain rich data is appropriate to the construction of a

grounded theory. The researcher uses this form of data gathering “because it facilitates

conducting an open-ended, in-depth exploration of an area in which the interviewee has

61
substantial experience” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 85). Through verbal discourse the researcher is

flexible enough to both glean information from the participant as well as to allow novel data to

emerge. The researcher is able to address and inquire further about emerging information

throughout the interview discourse process (Charmaz, 2014). I used a semi-structured interview

guide to provide a somewhat consistent format across interviews. I acknowledged that the

interview was a fluid, dynamic process wherein information may be addressed and further

pursued within the moment. Therefore, each interview was unique and generated varied data.

The use of the interview guide allowed the focus of the interview to remain primarily on

information pertinent to the construction of the grounded theory.

Constructivist approach to interviewing. The constructivist approach to grounded

theory involves applying a perspective to the interviewing process that is different from other

grounded theory approaches. Special attention is paid to the development of a mutual

relationship between the researcher and the participant so that the interview process becomes

collaborative. The researcher may begin by asking few, open-ended questions to allow the

participant to share any information the participant deems relevant. It is possible that just a

couple of open-ended questions may suffice at the beginning of the interview, depending on how

much narrative and description the participant provides (Charmaz, 2014). As the data collection

process becomes more focused, the researcher’s interview questions also become increasingly

focused. The researcher begins in a somewhat non-directive stance to interviewing and ends up

being increasingly specific in the types of questions asked to obtain the necessary information

required to flesh out the emerging theoretical concepts and categories (Charmaz, 2014).

Consistent with Charmaz’s (2014) guidelines for constructivist interviewing, I began the

62
interviews with open-ended questions and followed up with more specific questions once

patterns in the data were observed.

Technology and interviewing. Most qualitative data are acquired through discourse,

observations, and documents (Creswell, 2007; Mayan, 2009; Patton, 2002). The use of

interviews to obtain data is the most widely used approach to data collection qualitative research

(Redlich-Amirav & Higginbottom, 2014). With the advancement of technology, the use of

technology to acquire qualitative data for research purposes has increased. Interviewing via the

Internet using videoconferencing programs allows the researcher to conduct face-to-face

interviews in real time without sacrificing the observational component lost when conducting

interviews solely via telephone or through chat rooms (Evans, Elford, & Wiggins, 2008). The

use of technology to obtain data through videoconferencing also allows the researcher to gain

access to participants over vast geographical terrain, thereby increasing the researcher’s ability to

diversify the sample. Other benefits to utilizing videoconferencing technology in the data

gathering process are that it is inexpensive, the participant may remain in the comfort of one’s

home or office, and the ability to record visual and audio data simultaneously. Guldberg and

Mackness (2009) claimed that one of the primary disadvantages to using technology as a means

for data gathering is that participants who are unfamiliar with such technology may have a

difficult time participating and may have an aversion to the use of such media as

videoconferencing. Also, the potential for time lags if the Internet connection is unstable on one

end of the conversation, the possibility of disconnection, or the loss of data acquired may

increase participant and researcher frustration with the use of the technology (Redlich-Amirav &

Higginbottom, 2014).

63
 In this study, data was gathered through use of semi-structured, in-depth interviews via

videoconferencing technology and telephone conversations. The use of videoconferencing and

telephone conversations allowed me to reach a more geographically diverse sample of

participants. I used videoconferencing technology when possible, especially with initial

interviews. My hope was to engage in conversation with participants without sacrificing the

value of face-to-face interaction and observation. The videoconferencing and telephone

interviews were audio recorded for transcription purposes.

Interview process and member checks. The first round of interviews were

approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour in length. Once the first set of interviews were completed

and transcribed, member checks ensued. I provided each participant with a synopsis of my

perception of the reported data via e-mail and asked whether or not he or she would like to add to

or change any information. The purpose was to allow participants to contribute any information

they may have but did not think to contribute during the first interview. Performing member

checks also allowed me to check my perceptions with each participant and therefore added

credibility to the study. A second round of follow-up interviews was conducted, as needed, using

theoretical sampling to obtain necessary further data. Those second interviews lasted

approximately 10 to 20 minutes and allowed me to acquire novel data that helped to fill in gaps

for co-construction of the theoretical framework. Participant consent was obtained verbally with

each interview and participants were reminded they could withdraw from the study at any time

without penalty.

Role of the Researcher

In qualitative research the researcher is the primary research instrument (Creswell, 2013).

All data obtained and analyzed are filtered through the researcher. The researcher’s perspective

64
can color and shape the entire research process, from selection of the topic of study to data

analysis and the manner in which outcomes are reported. Therefore, the subjective experiences

of the researcher and any previous knowledge regarding the research topic in progress can and

do shape the research. Peshking (1988) described subjectivity as “a garment that cannot be

removed” (p. 17). It is not necessary, nor is it realistic, to completely remove the researcher’s

perspective from the process (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell, 2013). It is imperative that the

researcher share as much of the manner in which perceptions and experiences shape the research

so that readers may differentiate potential biases within the study. It is also of upmost importance

that the researcher remains as aware as possible of how previous experiences are molding the

research and to report such influence throughout the process (Peshkin, 1988). Researchers “are

obligated to be reflexive about what we bring to the scene, what we see, and how we see it”

(Charmaz, 2014, p. 27).

One method for keeping track of the researcher’s own biases and influence over the

research is to memo throughout the entire research process. The purpose of memoing is to record

“codes and comparisons and any other ideas about [the] data that occur” to the researcher

(Charmaz, 2014, p. 4). Whereas memoing typically begins during the coding phases of research,

the subjectivities of the researcher may be documented from the beginning of the research

process via memoing. This technique allows the researcher to acknowledge changes in the

researcher’s perception of the research, as well as enhances the ability to inform the reader of the

researcher’s subjectivities throughout the research process. I used memoing throughout the

research to maintain awareness of my own biases. An example memo is provided in Appendix

G. Excerpts from other sample memos can be found in the research audit in Appendix H.

65
 Researcher’s reflections and biases. I am a full-time doctoral student, Licensed

Professional Counselor, and Registered Play Therapist. I have provided services to children and

their families for approximately five and a half years. For one of those years I was a counseling

student intern under faculty supervision for clinical experiences as part of my master’s degree

attainment, and for about three of those years I was a post-master’s counselor-in-training

working toward licensure under supervision while studying and training to become a play

therapist. At the onset of this research, I worked in private practice part-time where I focused on

providing play therapy services to children and their families. I consider myself to be a new

professional in both the counseling and play therapy professions.

I have had a penchant for studying relationships since I was an adolescent. Over the years

I have become increasingly interested in Attachment Theory and its application in play therapy,

the counseling supervisory relationship, and across varying disciplines of clinical practice. As a

play therapist who works with children and families, I value the utility of assessing for and

addressing attachment styles within and across all relationships related to the counseling process,

from supervisor and counselor, to counselor and client, to client and caregiver.

I have training specifically in providing Filial Therapy and Child-Parent Relationship

Therapy interventions to children and their families and provide these services in a private

practice setting. I also conceptualize clients from an Attachment Theory perspective, yet I am not

always quite sure how to incorporate that information into the development of a comprehensive

treatment plan. I see Attachment Theory as a complex, beneficial perspective to implement in

clinical practice and have a simultaneous dearth of knowledge as to exactly how to incorporate it

from initial contact through termination. Part of my bias as the researcher for this study was that

I hoped to generate a theoretical framework that describes integration of Attachment Theory into

66
clinical practice from initial contact through termination. I remained aware of this hope for such

a comprehensive framework to develop so that I did not lead participants to answer questions in

a particular manner to fulfill this personal goal.

As a Registered Play Therapist who integrated Attachment Theory within my clinical

practice, I realized that my knowledge and background shaped my perceptions of other play

therapists’ reports during the interview process. I was careful not to assume that other play

therapists had perceptions and integrative experiences similar to my own. I perceived myself as

integrating Attachment Theory primarily through conceptualization and relationship-

enhancement interventions. In my practice, I offered Filial Therapy, Child-Parent Relationship

Therapy, and family play therapy to directly address the relationships within the family

dynamics. I also offered general relationship enrichment through providing caregivers with

relationship-enhancing skills to use at home. I did not utilize any formal attachment-based

assessments within my practice, as I had not received the necessary formalized training. It was

important for me to memo throughout the data gathering and analysis process to minimize my

bias and assumptions as much as possible. I allowed participants to describe their experiences

and asked for clarification as necessary to ensure that I did not assume that participants’ reports

were similar to my own experiences. I also realized that I placed value on utilizing an

Attachment Theory perspective within play therapy and remained cognizant throughout the

research process that other play therapists may not have valued the utility of Attachment Theory

in clinical practice the way that I did.

Bracketing provides an opportunity for the researcher to enhance self-awareness

throughout the research process. For bracketing purposes, I have asked myself the same research

questions that I asked participants. I think it is very important to assess for and address

67
attachment issues because I think that attachment is at play anytime there is a relationship

involved. This importance reflects the value that I place on working from an attachment

perspective. I do not believe there is always an attachment issue; rather, the dynamics within

relationships and the manner in which an individual perceives their self-worth and their ability to

trust others depends upon their attachment history. Within play therapy I think that establishing a

secure, supportive relationship with the child as well as the caregivers is vital to therapeutic

success. I try to engage caregivers throughout the entire time I am working with the child,

whether it is through family based play therapy interventions or through consultation. I value the

caregiver’s feedback and try to provide relationship-enhancing skills for the caregiver to use with

their child whenever possible, regardless of the presenting issue. I offer this to the clients and

families I work with because I do not believe that a ‘perfect’ attachment relationship exists. I

believe that all relationships can be enhanced and therefore provide relationship-enhancing skills

whenever I perceive an opportunity to do so. I believe that in strengthening the caregiver-child

relationship the child’s quality of life is enhanced and that the child can then move more freely in

the world to explore self and others. This sense of freedom, or increased confidence, to explore

can be useful when facing a variety of presenting issues. I have also witnessed the benefits of

caregivers’ ability to empathize with their children and to accept them in their struggles. I believe

that this type of understanding is the first step for the caregiver to be able to provide support and

encouragement to the child whenever the child faces challenges.

Data Analysis

Analysis begins when the researcher starts moving beyond the data obtained and begins

creating abstractions of the meaning behind the data. This can begin within the transcription

process, or even as early as the initial data collection phase (Charmaz, 2014). I personally

68
transcribed each participant’s interview to fully immerse myself as soon as possible in the data.

Constructivist grounded theory approaches data analysis from the perspective that the researcher

and participants co-construct the theory through a collaborative process. The researcher’s

perceptions are viewed as a necessary tool to the construction of the grounded theory, which is

an on-going, interactive process among the researcher, the participant, and the data (Charmaz,

2014). Charmaz (2014) described the general process of grounded theory data analysis to be

initial coding, focused coding, discovering categories, and then linking those found categories to

generate theory.

Initial Coding

Codes are constructed. They are the researcher’s interpretations of the data obtained. The

researcher re-interacts with participants through the data obtained and works to “understand

participants’ views and actions from their perspective” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 115). According to

Charmaz (2014), initial coding is a detail-oriented process that may take place through word-by-

word coding or line-by-line coding. The focus during this stage is on actions occurring within the

data. Charmaz (2014; 2012) recommended using gerunds for codes to initiate action-oriented

descriptions of the process that is being studied and to avoid type-coding participants rather than

the data. I utilized the line-by-line initial coding process and to adhered to Charmaz’s (2014)

recommendation to focus on noticing the actions that were occurring within the text. I

documented those actions using gerunds as codes. This early focus on actions through use of

gerunds assisted in the later description of movement within the constructed theory (Charmaz,

2014).

Focused Coding

69
 Focused coding involves the use of initial codes to discern which “make the most analytic

sense to categorize your data incisively and completely” and “can involve coding your initial

codes” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 138). Essentially, the researcher deciphers which codes are most

prevalent across the data and discerns whether any of the codes may be combined into fewer

codes. Focused coding tends to proceed more quickly than initial coding, involves analyzing

larger chunks of data, and allows for categories to begin emerging (Charmaz, 2014). I used

Charmaz’s (2014) focused coding once initial line-by-line coding was complete.

Emergence of Categories

Charmaz (2014) compared the process of categories emerging to Strauss and Corbin’s

(1998) axial coding. The author purported that the primary difference between the two methods

is that the strategies employed to define categories “are emergent, rather [than] procedural

applications” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 148). I followed Charmaz’s (2014) process and allowed

categories to emerge from the focused codes and initial codes that were constructed. Once

categories were created, they were further refined and defined into categories and sub-categories

(Charmaz, 2014). Emerging categories proved to be significant within the overall process of the

final constructed grounded theory when they were validated across participants.

Generating Theory

Theoretical coding occurred once categories emerged. The general purpose for using

theoretical coding is to “help you theorize your data and focused codes” (Charmaz, 2014, p.

150). Theoretical codes convey the relationships between the codes and categories that have

already emerged within the data. These relationship codes provide links from category to

category to further describe the movement across the process being studied. I used theoretical

coding to define the relationships between the categories within the constructed theory to define

70
the flow of the process of integration of knowledge of Attachment Theory within clinical

practice. At any time throughout the data analysis phase, if a hole in the emergent categories or

theoretical framework existed, I revisited participants’ reports or requested additional interviews

to collect data to fill in those gaps. This is a common practice within grounded theory and may

prove necessary to reach data saturation. Once saturation occurs, the need for collecting

additional data ceases. The final step is for the researcher to report the “substantive-level theory”

that has been grounded within the data collected and to compare the theoretical product to

similar existing theories (Creswell, 2013, p. 89). Once the grounded theory was generated, I

compared aspects of the theory to extant literature. In Chapter Five, I provided a written

comparison of the similarities and differences between the grounded theory generated from this

research and any pre-existing, similar theory to clarify the novel contributions this study made.

Upon completion of the study, participants who provided their e-mail to participate within the

study were provided with a copy of the generated theoretical framework via e-mail.

Ethical Considerations

The researcher provided written and verbal consent to each participant. The written

consent describing the participants’ rights and the potential benefits and consequences of

participating in the research study were communicated and obtained via the initial e-mail that

provided the link to the screening survey. The second, verbal consent for research participation

and audio-taping was acquired through discourse once selected participants had scheduled the

first interview. In e-mail discourse while scheduling the first interview, participants were once

again informed of their rights and potential benefits and consequences of participating in the

study. They were notified that consent for participation included consent to audio recording of

the interviews. Participants were given the option to withdraw from the study at any point and

71
were provided with the option of contacting the researcher prior to the initial round of interviews

with any questions or potential concerns. Pseudonyms were assigned to participants to protect

their confidentiality.

Establishing Trustworthiness

Creswell (2013) compared the establishment of trustworthiness in qualitative research to

the concept of validity in quantitative research. The general idea in establishing trustworthiness

is that the researcher is able to clearly communicate how data have been analyzed and how

conclusions have been drawn. This allows readers to decide whether they agree with the tactics

the researcher used throughout the process. Additionally, Creswell (2013) provided an overview

of several researcher stances on what leads to the establishment of credibility of qualitative

research. Triangulation is a method often used in qualitative research to establish trustworthiness

and involves the researcher backing up data obtained and inferences made through locating

evidentiary support through a variety of resources. Creswell (2013) described eight possible

forms of conducting triangulation in the research process and recommended that researchers

subscribe to a minimum of two of those eight methods to establish trustworthiness. I used four

primary forms of triangulation: “clarifying researcher bias” from the beginning, “member

checking,” the use of “rich, thick description” in reporting data, and an audit trail (Creswell,

2013, pp. 251-252).

Clarifying Researcher Bias

Researcher bias can impact the entire research process, from the choice of topic, to the

analysis methods used, to the reporting of findings. It is vital for readers to be able to separate the

researcher’s values, “past experiences, biases, prejudices, and orientations that have likely

shaped the interpretation and approach to the study” (Creswell, 2013, p. 251). From a

72
constructivist perspective the researcher cannot be neutral, as the researcher brings an entire

world-view and plethora of experiences into the research process. Grounded theorist researchers

must explicate their perceptions and experiences shaping the research to keep the reader as

informed as possible (Charmaz, 2014). Again, the intention is that the reader can spot the biases

that have shaped the research and understand the manner in which the research was constructed.

I bracketed my experiences as a play therapist and clarified my biases as the researcher, as is

described under the subheading “researcher’s reflection and biases” under the Role of the

Researcher section in Chapter Three.

Member Checking

Lincoln and Guba deemed member checking as “the most critical technique for

establishing credibility” (p. 314). Member checking involves the researcher checking in with

participants regarding the researcher’s perceptions of participants’ reports. Member checks

occurred after each interview was conducted. I provided each participant with a synopsis of his

or her reports via e-mail and asked whether he or she would like to add to or change any

information. One purpose was to allow participants to contribute any information they may have

but did not think to offer during the interview. Once the final theoretical framework had emerged

and was established, participants were provided with a synopsis of the framework.

Use of Thick Description

The social constructivist approach to grounded theory focuses on the importance of

describing the contexts of research participants as well as the co-construction of reality that

occurs between the researcher and participant (Charmaz, 2014). The use of thick description

provides a clear understanding of the settings of participants and the information obtained to

determine whether such information can be transferred to other contexts (Creswell, 2013).

73
Descriptions may be physical, or may describe some sort of activity or movement (Creswell,

2013). To portray an accurate understanding of the data and information obtained for this

research, I provided rich descriptions of participants’ reports. I also provided information

regarding their practice settings. Additionally, direct quotations of participants were

communicated in appropriate support of findings.

Audit Trail

An audit trail documents the overall process of research so that any outside person may

know exactly how the research was completed (Creswell, 2013). I documented each step of the

research process and included excerpts of researcher memos that I kept throughout the research

journey to further clarify my subjectivities in connection with the research process (see

Appendix H). I also made notes regarding the general steps taken, such as obtaining IRB

approval.

Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the use of grounded theory research methodology

to develop a theoretical framework describing the process of integration of knowledge of

Attachment Theory into play therapists’ clinical practice. Specific clarification of ethical

considerations, participant selection and demographic information, as well as data gathering

procedures and measures taken to establish trustworthiness by the researcher were divulged. A

step-by-step overview of the process of data analysis was also included. A section airing the

researcher’s biases, experiences and background information relevant to the research topic was

provided.

74
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Introduction

Enhancing attachment between a child and his or her caregiver early in life can serve as a

protective measure against a variety of mental health concerns and can enhance that individual’s

ability to engage in future relationships (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000; Carlson,

1998; Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Deklyen & Greenberg, 2008; Johnson & Whiffen, 2003; Levy &

Orlans, 1998; Ogawa et al., 1997; Renken et al., 1989; Warren, Huston, Egeland, & Sroufe,

1997). The purpose of this study was to explore how play therapists with knowledge of

Attachment Theory integrate such knowledge into their treatment planning and clinical practice.

Although several attachment-based interventions exist, no existing theoretical framework was

found to describe the manner in which Attachment Theory is applied across play therapy

treatment planning, regardless of the type of intervention(s) employed. The primary research

question of this study focused on understanding play therapists’ perceptions of their process of

integrating Attachment Theory within their treatment planning and clinical practice. Additional

research questions focused on discovering the value, if any, participants placed on utilizing an

attachment-based perspective, and any perceived barriers that may exist to incorporating

knowledge of Attachment Theory into practice.

The intent of this study was to co-construct, with participants, a grounded theory

describing the process of integration of Attachment Theory within play therapy treatment

planning. The theoretical framework that emerged during data analysis is that integration of

Attachment Theory begins at initial contact with the client and ends when play therapy

75
terminates. The primary focus throughout the integration process is placed on increasing well-

being through relationship enhancement. The stages of the theory of integration, as co-

constructed by the researcher and participants, are establishing safety, gaining and providing

information, facilitating growth through relationship, and saying goodbye. These four stages

emerged through the data analysis processes of initial coding, focused coding, theoretical

sampling, creation of categories, and linking categories through relationship. The general flow

through the stages of the theory was found to be non-linear, due to a cyclical component between

the second and third stages. The relationships between the stages of the theory are explicated at

the end of this chapter and Figure 3 illustrates the movement through the stages of the final

theory.

The formal data analysis portion of the research began with the act of transcribing;

interviews were transcribed by the researcher. Memoing and constant comparison methods were

utilized throughout data analysis procedures. A research audit was kept, documenting the

research steps taken throughout the process. Excerpts from memos serving as examples of the

memoing process were included in the research audit. See Appendix G for a memo example and

Appendix H for the research audit. Member checks were completed via e-mail following

transcription of the initial interviews. The following section introduces the seven participants

selected for this research study through descriptions of their practice setting, background

information regarding their knowledge of Attachment Theory, and a brief summary of their

description of the stages of their integration process. All participants were assigned a pseudonym

and specific organization names were omitted to preserve confidentiality.

76
 Participants

All participants held the Registered Play Therapist or Registered Play Therapist-

Supervisor credential, reported a minimum of 18 clock hours of education in Attachment Theory,

and perceived themselves as integrating Attachment Theory within their clinical practice ‘often’

or ‘almost always.’ During the screening process, attention was paid to selecting participants

from varying geographical locations, ethnicities, principal theoretical orientations, primary

credentials, and practice settings. To provide an impression of each individual’s responses to

interview questions, I have included transcript excerpts in their introductions that exhibit a

portion of their perception of integrating Attachment Theory. I also provided each participant’s

self-labeled stages of their integration process and remained true to their use of language. In

Table 1, participant demographic information is displayed. In Table 2, a concise look is provided

at participants’ self-labeled stages of their integration process of Attachment Theory into their

clinical treatment planning.

77
Table 1

Participant Demographic Information

Pseudonym Race Gender Theoretical Credential State Practice Clock

Orientation Setting Hours of
Education
in
Attachment
Theory

Raquel Caucasian Female Prescriptive LPC, RPT TX Private 36 +

Practice

Kara Hispanic Female Prescriptive LCSW, MO School 36+

RPT and
Agency

Ezra Caucasian Female Child- LMFT, UT Private 36+

Centered LCSW, Practice
RPT-S

Juanita Caucasian Female Prescriptive LCPC, IL Agency 18 to 24

NCC, RPT

Nikki Caucasian Female Child- LMFT, CA Private 36+

Centered RPT Practice

Simone Caucasian Female Cognitive LCSW, MI Private 18 to 24

Behavioral RPT Practice

Ginger Caucasian Female “Theraplay, Psychiatric DC Private 36+

Dyadic and Nurse Practice
others”

Raquel

Raquel is a thirty-nine year old, Caucasian female who works in private practice in

Texas. She is a Licensed Professional Counselor and Registered Play Therapist, and has

approximately five years of clinical experience. She provides services primarily to children, ages

six to 10, but also works with teenagers, and utilizes Prescriptive play therapy as her chosen

78
theoretical orientation. Raquel has received over 36 clock hours of education in Attachment

Theory and perceived herself as integrating Attachment Theory within her treatment planning

process ‘almost always.’ Raquel’s clinical attachment-based training centered primarily around

the use of Theraplay. Raquel believed that the quality of the attachment should be “at least

assessed” any time a clinician is working with children and their families. Raquel stated that she

believed individuals develop a sense of self within their initial relationships with caregivers and

that not assessing or addressing attachment issues leads to a failure on the play therapist’s part to

understand a major portion of that child or family’s experiences.

Raquel begins integrating knowledge of Attachment Theory in the initial intake session.

She seeks to gain as much knowledge as she can about the child’s presenting issue,

developmental history, and family dynamics. Based on the presenting issue, she chooses to

integrate her knowledge of Attachment Theory in different ways.

If I’ve got an idea coming from intake that this is truly an attachment problem, like the

main issue is an attachment issue, then we’re going to go straight into an attachment

assessment during the first session. If it’s more of a, um, say anxiety or depression, or

something like that, then I’ve got that in the back of my mind. I’m thinking, ‘Well, how

is the attachment environment? How is the attachment style and the whole environment

going to support or take away from the problem?’

Raquel either addresses a blatant attachment disruption directly, or uses existing strengths within

the caregiver-child attachment relationship to indirectly enhance the play therapy process.

Raquel identified the general phases of her integration process as intake, assessing the

attachment itself, feedback, intervention, facilitating change through relationship, and

termination. From Raquel’s perspective, intake consisted of gathering information from the

79
caregivers through asking questions related to attachment, gaining a thorough understanding of

the presenting concerns, and establishing goals. She considered intake to be a part of assessment,

and described intake as primarily being a time when informal assessment methods, such as

verbally asking questions during conversation, were used. When an individual presented with an

obvious attachment-related issue, Raquel would proceed from intake into a more formal

assessment phase of the integration process, which she referred to as “assessing the attachment

itself.” Within this formal phase, she reported she would most likely use the Marschack

Interaction Method (MIM) assessment to discover the qualities within the relational dynamics

between the caregiver and the child. From there, she would provide feedback and gain

information through consultation with the caregiver. It is during this consultation that a course of

action, or plan, would be developed in conjunction with feedback from the caregiver. Based on

the needs of the caregiver and the child, Raquel stated that she would choose an intervention

based on the caregiver’s availability to engage in the therapeutic process. When the caregiver

was available to engage directly within therapeutic sessions, Raquel would incorporate the

caregiver in sessions. If the caregiver was unable to engage in the process directly but was

willing to engage through periodic consultation sessions, then Raquel would engage the

caregiver in that manner and work on the caregiver-child relationship in an indirect manner. If

the caregiver was unable to engage in either direct sessions or in consultations, and the child was

not yet a teenager, Raquel would refer those clients to other practitioners. Raquel spoke about the

importance of focusing on encouraging a healthy attachment between the caregiver and child

instead of fostering an attachment between the child and the therapist, as the therapeutic

relationship is temporary. Raquel stated that harm could occur to the child if the child had

attached to the therapist and then the caregivers pulled the child from therapy prematurely.

80
Raquel spoke about working with teenagers and using the therapeutic relationship as a means

from which to “launch them.” She described teenagers as having the insight to be able to

cognitively understand and apply the dynamics in the therapeutic relationship to other

relationships, whereas a younger child will not likely have the same abilities to cognitively

understand and translate the relational dynamics of the therapeutic relationship to other

relationships. Raquel focused on using the strengths already existing within the caregiver-child

relationship to facilitate growth. The final stage of Raquel’s process, termination, was described

as occurring once the initial goals of therapy have been met. Raquel also mentioned that at times

termination occurs because a client leaves therapy prematurely and that while she works to avoid

this through engaging caregivers within the process, she views it as ultimately beyond her

control.

Kara

Kara works in an agency that is also a school. She is a 34 year old, Hispanic female and

is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and Registered Play Therapist in Missouri. She has been

practicing for approximately five years. She works primarily with infants and children, infants to

age five, and incorporates caregivers and teachers into her interventions. Kara works from a

Prescriptive play therapy theoretical orientation. She has completed over 36 clock hours of

education in Attachment Theory and perceived herself as integrating this knowledge into her

practice ‘almost always.’ She has received training in Theraplay, Child-Parent Relationship

Therapy (CPRT), and Didactic Developmental Psychotherapy (DDP).

For Kara, the population she serves is a primary motivator for incorporating her

knowledge of Attachment Theory within her clinical practice.

81
 So, the kids that I work with are typically kids that are struggling behaviorally with

extreme aggression and violence. The underlying diagnosis tends to be Post-traumatic

Stress Disorder (PTSD). So these are families that are in severe places of poverty and

with that comes neglect and sometimes abuse. So that attachment piece is so significant!

Kara seeks to incorporate caregivers within her treatment planning and clinical practice

whenever possible. She provides individual and group play therapy. She also teaches skills to

teachers to incorporate with children in the classroom and holds group therapy sessions within

the classroom setting.

Kara perceived herself as integrating Attachment Theory across all the work she does.

Kara said, “I feel like everything I do is really attachment-based. I start with that framework

essentially.” Kara defined the stages of her process of integrating Attachment Theory within her

treatment planning as: establishing safety, building trust, regulation and mastery, and

termination. Establishing safety was a major emphasis in Kara’s interview. Kara described the

population she works with as really needing to have that sense of security through safety in the

play therapy environment to be able to even begin therapeutic work, particularly from an

attachment perspective. Kara said, “You have your safety first and then attachment next.”

Kara described the establishing safety phase of her work to be overlapping with the entire

process, but she also described it as being essential to establish safety before beginning any

attachment-based work. Building trust was considered to occur after establishing safety and was

described by Kara to be an ongoing process throughout the therapeutic process.

But I think kind of breaking it down, phase two is that building of trust. Consistent

responding, consistent responding, which ideally leads to the phase of regulation, which

means the child or the adult can have this sensitive, attuned person, that is responding to

82
 them the same way every time, and they learn to build that trust and skill, which…then

they can incorporate themselves.

Kara discussed the use of modeling, assessing caregiver’s availability, responding to caregiver’s

needs, responding to child’s needs, and encouraging caregiver to respond to child’s needs to be

part of building trust. Once trust was established and maintained, along with safety, then Kara

focused on regulation and mastery of skills.

I’m being very general here, but working on developing skills such as emotional

regulation, emotional identification, noticing emotions, validating them, normalizing

them for them, then highlighting the resiliency skills that they have and then the last

phase is mastery.

The regulation and mastery of skills phase was described as being ongoing until the more secure

attachment was established between the child and the caregiver. The regulation and mastery of

skills stage is when interventions were used to facilitate growth through relationship. Kara

reported using Theraplay interventions to address the needs of the child and the caregiver. Kara

also stated that she provides in-classroom groups using Theraplay techniques with the children to

foster relationships with their peers in addition to relationships with their caregivers. This

generalizing of the relational skills to relationships outside the therapeutic and caregiver-child

relationships was viewed as the beginning of the termination process.

Then ideally I’m replacing myself, if I’ve become the surrogate attachment figure, and

replacing myself with a parent that is now ready, or a teacher, or a peer, or someone they

can generalize the safe, consistent, validating relationship.

Kara mentioned that she had rarely engaged in a full termination process, as she perceived the

attachment issues in the populations she works with to be so great and the work is ongoing.

83
However, she did mention that her termination process included generalizing skills to outside

relationships, first with a caregiver or another adult, and then with peers. Once healthy

attachment relationships are formed with peers, she perceived the ending of therapy to be

indicated.

Ezra

Ezra, a 58 year old, Caucasian female, is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist,

Licensed Clinical Social Worker, and Registered Play Therapist Supervisor. She provides

services primarily to children age six to 10 and works in private practice in Utah. Ezra operates

from a Child-Centered Play Therapy theoretical orientation and has approximately 20 years of

clinical experience. She has accomplished over 36 hours of education in Attachment Theory and

perceives herself as integrating this knowledge within her treatment planning ‘almost always.’

Ezra believed that working from an attachment perspective with children and their

families is vital to the child’s ability to self-actualize. She stated she used her knowledge of

Attachment Theory with all of her clients. Throughout the interview she focused on her

conceptualization of the therapeutic process from an attachment-perspective, which was

facilitating growth through relationship. Ezra described, “I really like what Gary Landreth

explains, you know, I don’t treat depression. I make a relationship with the child.”

I’m looking at the attachment as the foundation. Because I connect deeply with that

humanistic piece of the child has within them, or the individual has within them, that

ability to heal, but it does need to happen in what I’m going to call a safe place, a safe

relationship.

Ezra identified the phases of her integration process as intake, assessment, intervention, and

tapering off or termination. She also described using modeling from an attachment-perspective,

84
to show caregivers relational skills, across the entire play therapy process. Ezra viewed the

beginning of Attachment Theory integration as occurring in intake through the process of

gathering information, getting to know the family dynamics through informal observations,

establishing a sense of safety within the therapeutic relationship, modeling healthy attachment

qualities to caregivers, and providing education to caregivers regarding Attachment Theory. Ezra

focused on gaining trans-generational attachment information in addition to caregiver and child

attachment information during her intake process. From intake, Ezra moved into the assessment

phase, which she defined as incorporating both formal and informal assessment methods from an

attachment-based perspective. Ezra stated she used the MIM in addition to observations of body

language cues to assess an individual’s attachment style. Ezra reported using an attachment-

based perspective with all her clients, and stated that this is “going to be one of the very first

places I intervene” when working with clients with “explicit attachment disruption.” Ezra

assessed the caregiver-child relationship and then decided how to intervene based on the “current

status of the relationship.” Ezra spoke of incorporating Filial Therapy techniques and Theraplay

techniques into her interventions and also of creating “check ins” between the caregiver and the

child at home to foster the enhancement of their relationship. Ezra stated that the termination, or

tapering off, phase began when the caregiver and child began showing markers of a more secure

relationship. Ezra uses the tactics of tapering off the number of sessions and spacing out those

sessions farther and farther apart to ease the process of saying goodbye. Throughout the

termination, or tapering off, stage Ezra assessed for regression or new presenting concerns and, if

no new issues arose, therapy was ended. If a new issue arose, or if there was significant

regression, the treatment planning process began again from the beginning, except that the intake

stage was replaced by a consultation session with the caregivers.

85
Juanita

Juanita is a 63 year old, Caucasian female who works in Illinois. She is a Licensed

Clinical Professional Counselor, National Certified Counselor, and Registered Play Therapist.

She has approximately 15 years of clinical experience and currently provides services within an

agency setting. She utilizes a Prescriptive play therapy theoretical orientation and chiefly serves

children age three to eight “who are involved with child protective services.” She completed

approximately 24 hours of education in Attachment Theory and perceives herself as ‘almost

always’ integrating that knowledge within her play therapy treatment planning.

Juanita described the importance of working from an attachment-based perspective as

being integral to the child’s development of sense of self and self and others. She also spoke

about the importance of establishing safety first to promote a sense of security for accomplishing

attachment-based work.

From day one, when they come in, so that we are making this a safe and a predictable

environment, and showing them how much we value them and how much we, um, have

great esteem for them so that they can start getting that unconditional respect and that

they can start to internalize a better sense of themselves.

Juanita outlined the stages of her integration process of Attachment Theory as making the

play therapy environment safe and predictable, harder work, integration, and end of therapy. She

stated that the children and families she works with typically are overcoming trauma and

“attachment is just interwoven through all of that.” Juanita described her process of integration

using the metaphor of a sandwich. She stated that the bottom piece of bread was the “basis, your

beginning, and the establishment of the foundation of the relationship and the safety and the

predictability.” From this initial phase, Juanita described moving into “the meat of the sandwich

86
and that would be the harder work.” The harder work phase included learning relational skills

and raising awareness of negative cognitions about self and self and others and changing those

cognitions to reflect a more positive or secure framework from which to view self and self and

others. On the other side of the sandwich, or the top piece of bread, is “the turning that into the

positive relationship, the ability to practice the good relationship skills with all of that

knowledge” and “to be able to integrate and to really use those skills with their families or with

their foster families.” Juanita stated that this is the point at which most of her clients are either

reunified with their caregivers or adopted, so they are no longer receiving services with her.

Juanita clarified that, if she had the opportunity to continue providing longer-term services, she

would most likely continue working on the caregiver-child relationship through skills-building

and “exploring their self and their feelings of their self and how they’re integrated into society

and with their friends and with their families.” Juanita stated that she would know the time had

come to terminate “when I would just see that child’s face light up around that adult and then

that very same love reflected in the parent’s face.”

Nikki

Nikki is a 45 year old, Caucasian female who is a Licensed Marriage and Family

Therapist, Registered Play Therapist, and credentialed teacher. She works from a Child-Centered

Play Therapy theoretical orientation in a private practice setting in California. Nikki has

approximately seven years of clinical work experience and most of the clients she serves fall

within the age range of six to 10 years old. Nikki has completed over 36 clock hours of education

in Attachment Theory and perceived herself as ‘almost always’ integrating Attachment Theory

within her treatment planning.

87
 According to Nikki, Attachment Theory is “essential. I can’t not incorporate it. It’s

always there. It’s something that I’m mindful of the entire session.” Nikki viewed Attachment

Theory as a “hopeful” theory for approaching her clinical work and she stated, “It really aligned

with just my paradigm of life and therapy.”

Nikki viewed herself as integrating Attachment Theory knowledge with her individual

clients through conceptualizing their level of personal security, as well as within family-based

play therapy interventions. She stated, in regards to Attachment Theory, “I use the basic concepts

in everything that I do.” Nikki defined the stages of her integration process as creating safety,

assessing, creating and implementing a plan, and generalizing. Nikki stated, “letting the client or

the family know that the first, the only main rule in the room, is to keep everyone safe” is of

upmost importance to initiating attachment-based therapy. Nikki clarified that this referred to

physical and emotional safety, as well as “knowing that there is nothing that you can do in here

that um, can’t be repaired.” While safety was being established and maintained, the assessment

phase began. Nikki stated that she used both formal and informal assessments to gain

information regarding the attachment style of the individual or the status of the attachment

relationship between the caregiver and the child. Nikki reported that she used primarily informal

methods of assessing, such as noticing body language cues like “acting out” or “getting big and

loud,” to assess the attachment style of an individual or child-caregiver relationship. Nikki also

mentioned that she used an attachment assessment that she created based on the Adult

Attachment Inventory (AAI) to assess caregivers’ attachment styles in her intake sessions.

Following the assessment stage Nikki moved into the creating a plan and implementing the plan

stage. It was within this stage that Nikki described tailoring interventions to meet the client’s

needs. Nikki described the purpose of this stage as “really, actively helping that family process

88
and experience that secure attachment.” She mentioned that a lot of the work in this stage with

the child is done through the therapeutic relationship and the caregiver-child relationship,

without the use of words. Nikki said, “It would all be through play and interaction and

relationship.” Once the caregiver and the child are beginning to develop a more secure

relationship, or the child and therapist are developing a more secure relationship, then the next

step was “to help them generalize that to other relationships.” This is when Nikki would either

choose to incorporate the caregiver, if the caregiver was not already directly involved, or another

individual who would have a long term presence in the child’s life, within the therapy sessions.

Nikki stated that she followed the same signals for ending therapy from an attachment-based

perspective as she does with all of her therapy. Nikki said, “when children are done and ready to

end our work together, their play becomes less repetitive, less intense.”

Simone

Simone, a 60-year-old Caucasian female, is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and

Registered Play Therapist. She works in private practice in Michigan and has approximately 10

years of clinical experience. She works from a Cognitive-Behavioral play therapy orientation and

perceives herself as incorporating Attachment Theory within her treatment planning ‘often.’

Simone has acquired approximately 24 hours of education in Attachment Theory. She typically

provides services to children ages six to 10 years old. She utilizes Child-Parent Relationship

Therapy, Circle of Security, and Theraplay. Additionally, her attachment-based work is inspired

by the writings of Bruce Perry and Daniel Siegel.

Simone spoke to the importance of fostering a secure attachment through integration of

Attachment Theory within her play therapy clinical practice. She stated that she was motivated to

89
learn more about Attachment Theory due to presenting concerns of the population with which

she works.

I began to notice that there were many parents who came in too, either adopting parents

who are adopting children, or foster parenting, or kinship adoptions, or kinship care, and

then parents who had had some kind of separation point with their own children. Or they

themselves had experienced separation and destruction in their attachment and it was

effecting maybe their parenting or their own life.

Simone expressed a penchant for incorporating animal-assisted therapy from an attachment

perspective into her treatment planning. She said, “you establish trust with the animal before,

then with the human.”

Simone described the phases of her integration process as assessment, psycho-education

and modeling, active therapy, and termination. The assessment phase began during intake, when

Simone gathered information through use of intake questionnaires about the child’s and “even

beyond that, the family members’ own history” to discern the child’s and the family’s attachment

dynamics. Simone stated that she used psycho-education within the intake process and in

ongoing consultation sessions with the caregivers, as well as in individual sessions with the

child. Simone specifically reported using psycho-education about the brain from an attachment-

perspective. Within the psycho-education phase of Attachment Theory integration, Simone also

used modeling to enhance the caregiver’s learning about a healthy attachment through

experience. Simone said, “You’re actually modeling that sense of safety. Creating a place of

safety.” Simone described the next phase as the “active therapy” stage of the integration process.

Within this stage, Simone used play, art, and animal-assisted therapy in addition to individual

and caregiver-child dyadic sessions to address specific presenting needs of the child and the child

90
and family. Once the goals of the child and the child and family are reached, the termination

phase of therapy begins. Simone emphasized the importance of a proper termination. Simone

referred to this phase as “vital.” She addressed the ending of therapy with caregivers from the

perspective of wanting to leave the door open for future return. Simone stated that she

specifically told caregivers that if any new presenting issues arise, or as new developmental

milestones are reached, the child or the child and family may wish to return to continue.

Ginger

Ginger, a 63 year old Caucasian female, is a Psychiatric Nurse and Registered Play

Therapist practicing in Washington D.C. She works in private practice and considers her

theoretical orientation to play therapy to be “Theraplay, Dyadic, and others.” At the time the

interview was completed, she was in the process of completing a Theraplay certification

program. Ginger has approximately 15 years of clinical experience and serves primarily children

aged six to 10 years old and their families. She has completed over 36 clock hours of education

and reported that she integrates Attachment Theory within her treatment planning ‘almost

always.’

Ginger discussed the value of integrating Attachment Theory in play therapy clinical

practice as being pertinent due to the relationship-focused nature of human beings. She stated,

“Everything that we do, healthy, unhealthy, whatever, is within the context of relationships.”

Ginger spoke about her use of Attachment Theory across most presenting issues that she

addressed in her practice.

Let’s put it this way. It’s easier for me to tell you when I would not do it. When I would

not do it would be a parent who has no interest, um, that is not their expressed concern.

91
 I would say half of my work is about med management with things like Attention-Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and then the other half is a lot of parents work. Parents

slash joint kid work.

Ginger labeled the stages of her process of integration of Attachment Theory in her

clinical practice as intake, assessment, education and intervention, re-assessment, and tapering

off. Ginger stated that her assessment process begins in intake.

I guess I start with intake, and I find out if a parent is calling about a kid, then I insist on

seeing the parent first. So, the parent comes in and in my mind, the minute I’m working

with them, the minute I’m interviewing them, my mind is sort of going toward the nature

of the attachment.

She used both informal and formal methods for assessing attachment styles with her clients and

their families. Ginger reported that once she has gathered information from the intake session

through questionnaires and conversation, she either continues the assessment process using the

formal Marschack Interaction Method or less formal, more observational methods. An example

of informal observation she used was described as “looking at behaviors increasing and

diminishing and then the parent’s attunement to the child.” In either case, Ginger also mentioned

that assessment is ongoing throughout the entire therapeutic process from an attachment

perspective. Using information from the assessment, Ginger stated that she likes to tailor

interventions to address the needs of the client. From an attachment-based perspective, this

tailoring of interventions included using Theraplay techniques that Ginger had modified, as well

as using modified Filial Therapy and Child-Parent Relationship Therapy techniques. Ginger also

discussed providing feedback to caregivers in the education and intervention stage. Ginger stated

that she rarely terminated permanently with her clients. She mentioned that when she does end

92
therapy, it tends to be a sort of break in therapy rather than a long-term ending. Ginger stated that

two indicators for potential termination included the initial goals of therapy had been met and the

caregivers were displaying more confidence in using their caregiving skills. However, Ginger

described that when her clients reached a point in therapy where their relationships were

reflecting security, then the therapy sessions would occur “less often” and the therapeutic process

would essentially be tapered off. Ginger made it clear that she leaves the door open for

caregivers and children to return to therapy if any new presenting issues or concerns arise.

The participants’ self-labeled stages of integration of Attachment Theory are summarized

below in Table 2.

Table 2

Participants’ Self-labeled Stages of Process of Integration of Attachment Theory

Pseudonym Self-Labeled Stages of Integration

Raquel Intake → Assessing Attachment Itself → Feedback → Intervention → Facilitating

Change Through Relationship → Termination

Kara Establishing Safety → Building Trust → Regulation and Mastery → Termination

Ezra Intake → Assessment → Intervention → Tapering Off/ Termination

Juanita Making This a Safe and Predictable Environment → Harder Work → Integration

→ End of Therapy

Nikki Creating Safety → Assessing → Creating and Implementing a Plan → Generalizing

Simone Assessment → Psychoeducation and Modeling → Active Therapy → Termination

Ginger Intake → Assessment → Education and Intervention → Re-Assessment →

Tapering Off

93
 Theory Development

Each participant was asked a series of questions regarding how they incorporate

Attachment Theory within play therapy treatment planning. Data analysis began during the

interview process, as I began memoing themes that occurred within and across participant

responses. Engaging in transcription allowed for a deepening of analytic insight into the data. I

continued memoing throughout the transcription process, making note of any follow-up

questions that I wanted to ask, as well as patterns that I noticed within individual and across

multiple participant responses. Post-transcription member checks were completed with all

participants via e-mail. I also began the formal coding process post-transcription. I used line-by-

line coding first and then moved on to focused coding, or coding the initial codes obtained from

line-by-line coding. I utilized the constant comparative method and continued to note patterns I

witnessed within individual and across multiple participant responses. The categories of data

emerged from these patterns. Development of the theory occurred as I considered the tacit and

explicit patterns in the processes reported across participant responses and co-constructed the

relationships between the core theoretical categories through use of theoretical sampling via

follow-up interviews with participants. A follow-up interview was completed with six

participants. Saturation occurred once clearly defined categories had emerged within and across

participant interviews and the relationships among those categories had been distinguished

through use of theoretical sampling and follow-up interviews.

Coding

Data analysis began during the interview process. As I listened to participant responses

and asked clarifying questions, themes occurred within the initial interview. I used memoing to

94
take note of these patterns. This process occurred with each consecutive interview and patterns

across interviews were also noted through use of memoing. Once transcription was complete, I

began the formal coding process as soon as possible. The initial phase of formal coding consisted

of line-by-line coding using gerunds and in vivo codes. Next, I engaged in focused coding,

wherein I noted patterns in the initial codes and created a more succinct set of focused codes that

described the initial codes. From the focused codes a set of categories emerged. Those categories

were further honed, through contemplation of patterns in the data obtained, reviewing memos,

and further discussion with participants, to create a set of core categories. Figure 1 illustrates the

movement from selected focused codes to core categories. Those core categories, in relationship

to one another, formed the finalized grounded theory. The relationships among the core

categories were co-constructed through further discourse with participants through use of follow-

up interviews. Memoing occurred throughout the entire process. Figure 2 displays the process of

data analysis that was followed for constructing this grounded theory.

95
Figure 1. Example of data analysis illustrating movement from selected codes to core categories.

96
Figure 2. Data analysis process for constructing grounded theory.

Categories

The majority of the categories that emerged from the initial and focused codes were

labeled to reflect the phases of the integration process, as participants referred to them. The

categories are valuing the use of Attachment Theory, establishing safety, assessing, facilitating

97
skills building, generalizing skills to outside relationships, ending therapy, and hindering

integration.

Valuing the use of attachment theory. All seven participants valued the use of

Attachment Theory within their treatment planning process. This category was broken down into

three subcategories: always incorporating knowledge of Attachment Theory, healing for future

success, and fostering brain development.

Always incorporating knowledge of attachment theory. Many of the participants spoke

about the importance of incorporating their knowledge of Attachment Theory within their

practice as if they could not imagine addressing client issues without using such knowledge.

They saw benefit, and even necessity, in framing their treatment planning through Attachment

Theory, regardless of the presenting issue. Nikki stated, “It’s essential! I can’t not incorporate it.

It’s always there. It’s something that I’m mindful of the entire session.” Ezra and Raquel also

commented on the importance of incorporating Attachment Theory.

I think when I try to conceptualize the cases that come into my practice, I mostly, very

definitely, look through this attachment lens, pretty much regardless of what’s going on.

I’m looking at the attachment as the foundation. Because I connect deeply with that

humanistic piece of the child has within them, or the individual has within them, that

ability to heal, but it does need to happen in what I’m going to call a safe place, a safe

relationship. (Ezra)

Well, considering that children, part of the way they develop, is centered around their

relationships with their caregivers as their primary sense of security, it’s how they get

their sense of themselves and the world. So, if we ignore that whole component we’re

98
 really missing a huge piece of their developmental history, their entire wellbeing, their

sense of self. (Raquel)

Healing for future success. The importance of healing attachment disruptions for

enhanced self-understanding that can lead to future successes in relationships was also noted.

Two participants described the benefit of creating healthier dynamics now, so that relational

skills may trickle down and positively effect future generations. This intergenerational effect was

seen as integral to the value of incorporating Attachment Theory knowledge within treatment

planning.

Well, I think that if a parent has a healthy attachment with their child and vice versa, the

parent is going to be more protective and also help their child grow and achieve the best

that they’re capable of achieving. I think the child then gains a sense of inner self and

awareness of their self so that they can have good relationships with other people and

hopefully when they have children good relationships with their children. So it’s

propagating, I guess. (Juanita)

Everything that we do, healthy, unhealthy, whatever is within the context of relationships.

So, if you’re taking your practice orientation believing in that everything comes from

how we interact with people in the world, then it’s almost like an assumption that the first

relationship, being that of child and parent, is going to set the stage for a lifetime of

successful relationships. So, you have to do it. (Ginger)

Fostering brain development. The ability to utilize knowledge of Attachment Theory to

positively attach later in life, and to heal any pre-existing attachment wounds, was viewed as

hopeful. In accordance with Perry and Hambrick (2008), two participants spoke to the benefit of

a healthy attachment relationship in terms of fostering brain development. The ability to create

99
new neural pathways was cited as adding value to integrating Attachment Theory within clinical

practice.

Just how we attach to our primary caregivers and how that plays out through our lives

and especially now with the neuroscience going on about how we can, the plasticity and

how we can change our attachment, you know… that we can really attach later in life

even though we haven’t had it earlier. It was just so hopeful to me, which I really loved

about it. It really aligned with just my paradigm of life and therapy. (Nikki)

I think it’s not only important, I think it’s essential. I think it’s really hopeful in our work

that we can create [attachments], especially with the experiential work and the play

therapy and expressive arts therapy because you’re actually facilitating a whole new way

of helping the brain to be able to process. (Simone)

Establishing safety. Establishing safety quickly became a theme across participant

interviews. Not only was this category described as being essential to integrating Attachment

Theory within clinical treatment planning, it was considered to be a necessary precursor to the

integration process. Nikki described the process of establishing safety as beginning “the minute

you say hello.” She also stated, “That’s just something that I think we have to have constantly, so

you’re creating the safety, but I think you’re constantly maintaining the safety.”

Raquel spoke to the gravity of establishing safety first when she provided a case example

of a four-year-old girl who was exhibiting severe behavioral issues at home. This young girl was

showing “some pretty oppositional signs toward step-mom and step-mom’s son to the point of

pushing them down the stairs and it was dangerous.” Raquel described beginning counseling

using Child-Centered play therapy and stated, “It was good because we actually got to work on

that trauma piece first because it’s really important before you get into attachment work that you

100
have safety there.” As the play therapy process progressed, and after extensive work on the

child’s history of sexual trauma that emerged through the use of non-directive play, Raquel

moved into using Theraplay with the girl and her stepmother. She decided to move into using

Theraplay only after safety within the therapeutic environment was established. Raquel believed

the establishment of safety allowed for deeper work to take place within the play therapy

process. Raquel said, “Now I was a very safe person for her and it really just allowed us to get to

a new place of treatment for her.” In Raquel’s example, the establishment of safety was re-

occurring, first within the therapeutic relationship and then within the caregiver-child

relationship. Ezra believed that in order for an individual to be able to fully self-actualize in the

play therapy process, safety needed to be established within the therapeutic relationship.

I do connect deeply with that humanistic piece of the child has within them, or the

individual has within them, that ability to heal. But it does need to take place in what I’m

going to call a safe place, a safe relationship. (Ezra)

Having safety in the therapeutic relationship, as well as with the caregiver, was considered

paramount in conducting attachment-based play therapy work. Safety allowed clients to be more

present within the therapy process.

I’m constantly thinking, ‘How can I help this family, first of all, become safe for each

other?’ ‘How can I create more safety in this family?’ And if there’s not safety in the

family then what’s not safe and we explore that. So I first want to create that safety so

that the family really can show up. So whoever they are really can show up. (Nikki)

Participants reported encouraging clients to take risks in discovering themselves and trying new

tasks later in the course of therapy. Without the sense of safety, or security, of the therapeutic

relationship the child, or caregiver, would be less likely to explore. This concept, that security

101
leads to exploration, is consistent with the therapist serving as a secure base from which the child

or caregiver is supported in self and self and other exploration.

Assessing. Participants assessed attachment styles through use of both formal and

informal methods. The most cited formal methods for assessing attachment styles were the

Marschack Interaction Method (MIM) and the Adult Attachment Inventory. Other formal

assessment methods mentioned included the Child Behavior Checklist and the Trauma

Symptoms Checklist for Children. The most widely cited method for informally assessing

attachment styles was paying attention to body language cues between the caregiver and the

child (such as eye contact and display of affection) and the openness of the child to establishing a

relationship with the therapist. Participants also continued re-assessing, through formal or

informal methods, throughout the integration process to discern therapeutic progress.

Therapeutic progress was noticed through observing cues that there was attachment repair or

enhancement. The responses for this category were broken into five sub-categories: intake,

caregiver’s attachment style, child’s attachment style, caregiver-child relationship, and assessing

progress.

Intake. The attachment assessment process begins during intake. For the purpose of this

category, intake refers to the initial contact the play therapist has with the child’s caregivers, as

well as the first few sessions the child or family has with the play therapist. The various methods

utilized to assess during intake included obtaining psychosocial and developmental history,

observations, genograms, and conversation with the caregivers. Ezra stated, “I do a social

history, which is more developmental… I’ll ask how they reached developmental milestones, at

what time, any ongoing illnesses? Family traumas?”

102
 I’m going to be getting a thorough developmental history of the child. So, I want to find

out what was going on all the way up from the point of pregnancy through labor and

delivery through the first early years, through the whole gamut. Have there been any

major changes? Traumas? Changes in caregivers? Breaks in relationships? So we’re

looking at everything from prenatal to current time. (Raquel)

Caregiver’s attachment style. Kara stated, “I take the attachment piece into

consideration for both the parent and the child.” Attachment Theory described the importance of

understanding the attachment dynamics created by the interaction of attachment styles (Levy &

Orlans, 1998). If a play therapist focused solely on the attachment of the child, without focusing

on the attachment style of the caregiver, then a true understanding of the context within which

the child’s attachment developed, and is continuing to develop, would be lost.

After I’ve met with the child and maybe see some issues with the relationship then I may

come back at that point and assess through a parent session and kind of say, “Hey, what

was your experience as a child? Tell me about your history with your parents.” So I want

to get a history of the parents themselves. You can’t give what you didn’t get. (Raquel)

I try to go back at least three generations…the child, their parents, their parents, and

sometimes even to the parents’ grandparents just so that I can get a feel for what it was

like to live in these families.” (Ezra)

Child’s attachment style. In addition to the information obtained in intake, the child’s

attachment style can become apparent through his or her exhibited relational skills, or lack

thereof, especially when first meeting the therapist. Observations of specific body language cues

were used to assess for a child’s attachment style. Those cues included open or closed body

language, eye contact, and willingness to participate and engage in the new relationship. Both

103
exhibiting closed behavior and displaying very little boundaries, and being extremely open to the

new relationship, were considered indicative of an attachment issue. Ginger said, “How many

hoops do I have to jump through to get the kid to be okay with me?” Ezra commented on cues

she watched for, even before the initial session began.

The cues that I look for really even start when they enter my waiting room. And I’m

looking at…are they anxiously attached? Are they avoidant? Are they ambivalent?... I’m

watching for how the child separates from the caregiver… I’m looking for—is there eye

contact? Is there that open body piece versus am I cutting myself off? (Ezra)

Caregiver-child relationship. Participants also assessed the caregiver-child relationship

by observing body language cues and the relational dynamics between the child and caregiver.

These observations took place in the waiting room environment, as well as in the play therapy

room. The ability for the child and caregiver to be attuned to one another, and to remain engaged

together, served as an indicator as to the health of their attachment relationship. Nikki stated that

she watched for disengagement as a cue. She said, “Anytime um, a child or a parent is

connecting and on track and then for whatever reason disengages, or overcompensates. Ezra

looked for attunement between the child and the caregiver. She said, “Is there that dance, so to

speak, going on between the parent and the child where the parent is um, very much matching

the child and in tune with them?” Patterns across moments of disengagement were used to

discern any possible triggers that may have caused the dissociation or avoidant behavior to occur

in the child or the caregiver. Attention was also focused on the response of the individual who

was not disengaging; in other words, how did they react to the disengagement? In addition,

attention was paid to the temperaments of the caregiver and child and whether or not their

temperaments were in harmony with one another.

104
 So when I first met this kid it was very clear to me that there was an attachment issue

because mom, for lack of a better way to describe her, was practically a mouse. Just quiet

and low and methodical, and the kid was way crazy. So there was a real, just totally not

in tune. (Ginger)

Through gaining a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses in the child-caregiver

relationship, participants were able to conceptualize where to focus their efforts in the play

therapy process.

Where are they missing each other? Where are the places they’re not connecting? (Nikki)

It also is looking at less positive influences the parent has encountered, so that I can gain,

or get a grasp of where they are with attachment. Then I can get a grasp of where the

child is with attachment, so that when I’m working with them I’m trying to match them

up and help complete, or give them the best services so that we’re not banging our heads

against a wall. (Juanita)

Assessing progress. Assessing progress was an ongoing process throughout the

integration of Attachment Theory. Participants looked for both verbal and non-verbal feedback

from the child and caregivers to assess for progress. At times feedback was requested from the

caregivers regarding their perception of change and progress occurring outside of the play

therapy sessions. Participants also paid attention to behavioral changes occurring in the play

therapy sessions as well as changes in the relational dynamics between the caregiver and the

child. Behavioral changes that were in sync with the therapeutic goals were considered to be

indicative of progress. Changes in the caregiver-child dyadic relationship that reflected a more

secure attachment pattern were considered to be markers of therapeutic progress. Raquel said,

“…the child seems to be more relaxed in the play, they’ll be able to hold eye contact, which is a

105
big one…we’ll see their comfort level with touch increase, that positive, healthy touch”. Kara

watched for the ability to repair in relationships. She stated, “All relationships have a break. But

the break doesn’t break you. There’s a repair, and that repair can fix it and it doesn’t feel

significant.” When the child or caregiver began to be able to accomplish tasks that were

previously more difficult for either of them to complete, progress was considered to have

occurred. Nikki stated, “A lot of the things we’ve been working on they’re able to do on their

own, inside session and outside session and I know by self-report.” Raquel used self-report

measures. She said, “I get a self-report inventory from the parents every session, so not only

what their behaviors have been but also what their experience of the child is.” Kara said, “ I’m

able to see that child has become regulated when in situations where they’ve already been in

where they were unable to regulate.” The gaining of information via observation also served the

function of assessing therapeutic progress from an attachment perspective.

Facilitating skills building. Participants integrated Attachment Theory knowledge

within their treatment planning to address attachment issues or to work on enhancing attachment.

One method for facilitating the enhancement of an attachment relationship or attachment style

was through facilitating skills building with the individual and their caregivers. Sometimes the

learning of relational skills is facilitated through engaging caregivers directly in play therapy

sessions. At other times the play therapist provides skills for the caregiver to use with the child

outside of play therapy sessions. The intent of the skills provided to caregivers is to enhance the

child-caregiver relationship. Simone said, “They do a lot of calming techniques, both of them, so

if either one of them is getting stirred up then they know some things to do physiologically to

calm down.” Ginger stated that she works to help caregivers set limits within the relationships, as

is evident when she reported, “…at that time was to sort of go to the domain of structure and

106
help mom to, helped mom with her communication, really with this kid. You know, how to talk

to her, how to set the limits.” Ezra stated, “I’m teaching them what I’m going to say is the next

level of being empathic or the child- centered response, as the child plays, or even in their daily

interactions.”

And if in my assessment if that body language is missing, I’ll be as explicit as saying,

“Slow down, take a deep breath, look at your child as you’re talking and try to mirror sort

of where they’re at,” to get that parent-child dance going, so to speak. (Ezra)

Facilitating skills building was further broken into the following sub-categories: focusing on

strengths, tailoring interventions, and modeling.

Focusing on strengths. Participants incorporated a strengths-based approach to working

with caregivers and their children from an attachment perspective. That presented through using

a caregiver to enhance a child’s self-awareness. Focusing on existing strengths within the

relationship was also used as a starting place from which to begin the attachment-based work.

Nikki said, “Sometimes they do have a secure attachment and then we can work from that.”

If I’ve got a parent that seems to be very connected and engaged with their child, then it’s

just trying to get them to kind of come in more purposefully in those areas to help point

out where the child is succeeding, where they’re valuable, where they’re worthwhile.”

(Raquel)

Focusing on strengths was also used to bolster caregiver confidence in the attachment-based

work. For instance, Ezra stated, “I try very hard to be positive and build the parents up.”

Raquel stated that when she works with caregivers and provides them with feedback, she

“focus[es] on at least two areas where things are going really well.” Raquel also stated,

107
 We’re going to look at one place where it didn’t go so well, but we’re going to focus on

the positives regardless. We’re going to try and get more of those positives and work in

the strength area first and then typically we find the other areas will come along with

treatment.

Tailoring interventions. Attachment-based interventions often were tailored to fit the

specific needs of the client. The phrase “meet them where they’re at” was used throughout

several participants’ responses. Raquel stated, “Basically, I’m going to come in and meet the

child where they’re at.” Ezra said that she asks herself, “Where am I going to meet that client

where they’re at?” Tailoring interventions referred to individual attachment-based interventions

as well as dyadic interventions aimed at addressing presenting concerns. Skills to enhance

attachment were provided through the use of tailored interventions. Simone said, “It can be

unique and depends on each person too because it’s based on helping them reach their goal.”

Ginger explained, “A lot of our work is about self-regulation and I’ve introduced mindfulness

work and I’ve targeted mom and her together to do that.” Raquel spoke about her process for

tailoring intervention when she said, “…it’s a targeted way to say, this is where they’re lacking,

this is their true brain age, if you will, and then we can come in with an intervention specific to

those four areas.”

I think about what is breaking down the attachment, or what has blocked the attachment

from being secure. And then I kind of think, and so, that is going to help me to

understand what is going to help the attachment be secure. It’s kind of like flipping a

coin… okay, this isn’t working and so let’s flip it over and see what would help it work.

And then I think about the child and or family and then try to do something based on

what I think is going to work. (Nikki)

108
In addition to tailoring interventions to address specific needs, interventions were tailored to

encourage the continued engagement of the clients. Nikki stated, “a lot of the interventions have

to do with what the child and the family already like and tend towards.” She also said, “I will be

in with a client and on the spot I can create an intervention based on what’s going on in the room

pretty quickly.”

I would only do one nurturing activity in a thirty-minute session because he couldn’t

tolerate it. And even that I would water down the nurturing activity and break it up,

because it was too much. But once he felt safe, I could fold more nurturing activities into

the overall session. (Kara)

I do modify it and add a bit more playfulness, and granted, the trainings are always very

structured, but in my office we have fun, and we laugh when the bubbles go up, we try to

poke the bubbles with different things…to get that just having fun with each other piece

going. (Ezra)

Modeling. Modeling was used to provide an added layer of first-hand education for the

caregivers. The therapist not only explained the skills to the caregivers; the therapist

demonstrated the skills so the caregivers were able to witness the use of those skills. The

therapist also used the skills with the caregivers so the caregivers were able to experience being

on the receiving end of those same skills. Simone said, “The parents will be like, ‘I noticed what

you said. I noticed the way’…so they’ll notice how I’m attuning to their child. Um, or they’ll

notice how I attune to them.” Kara stated, “The parent has to be attuned and consistently

responding and I have to be attuned and consistently respond.” Modeling was also used to

provide caregivers with the opportunity to experience what it feels like to be in a stable

attachment relationship with the play therapist.

109
 I have a safe relationship with the parents before we do this vulnerable piece (attachment

work). In some respects too, I’m hoping that they’re experiencing…not that I’m

necessarily attaching to a parent, but the entire time I’m trying to model attachment

behaviors, attachment energy, all those types of things for them. And that is throughout

the entire process. (Ezra)

Generalizing skills to outside relationships. An important component of reaching

attachment-oriented goals in the play therapy process was to reach a point where the child could

generalize relational skills learned in session to relationships outside the therapeutic relationship.

The play therapist served as an example attachment relationship from which the client could gain

an internal framework for what a healthy attachment relationship is like. The hope was that the

child would then be able to establish additional healthy relationships outside of the play therapy

process, first and foremost with a caregiver. Raquel stated, “My hope is to repair the system and

to make it a healthy system so that the child can be attached to their parent. That’s my goal from

the very beginning.”

I end up creating myself up as that attachment figure for the child and so I’m hoping that

I can personally launch them and give them that attachment base that they don’t have. It’s

not that I am trying to become their parent. It’s just so they can experience what a healthy

attachment looks like so I can sort of fill that gap a little bit and then launch them from

there. (Raquel)

Because if I’m working with the child and I’m working on attachment with the child then

that’s really going to help the child, I think in their life. Um, to be able to take that

forward if I can help the child and the caregiver to attach then now they both know a

110
 secure connection and they can both take that forward so it just multiplies exponentially.

(Nikki)

…basically being able to help them generalize that to other relationships and that is really

when you need somebody else in the room. If it’s just me with the child then being able

to generalize that safety to somebody else so that they know that it’s not just in the play

room that this can happen, but it can happen in the real world too.” (Nikki)

Raquel clarified that she perceives working with young children to be a little different than

working with teenagers. Raquel is willing to work with teenagers even when their caregivers are

not engaged in the play therapy process. Raquel believes teenagers have the ability to understand

and generalize the attachment qualities within the therapeutic relationship to outside

relationships. By contrast, Raquel mentioned that it can be harmful to initiate an attachment

relationship with a young child without knowing that you can engage a caregiver in the process.

“You don’t want to establish a relationship with the child unless you know you can transfer it to

somebody else.” Raquel was not alone in this belief. Ezra said, “And this, what happens in the

office, is their experimental ground, so to speak, and we need to have what happens here develop

something within them that says it can now happen outside this office.”

Ezra also clarified the relational boundaries of her role as the play therapist, “I don’t want

therapy to become their primary relationship. I don’t want to step into the caregiver role. I want

them to feel safe with me, but I want them attaching with the caregiver.”

Ending therapy. Termination is a term used in play therapy to refer to the ending of

therapy. Two participants specifically chose not to refer to the ending of therapy with this term

as they viewed “termination” as having a negative connotation. The majority of participants used

termination to refer to the ending of therapy. Attachment Theory refers to significant moments

111
within attachment relationships and separation is one of those critical moments (Bowlby, 1988).

The manner in which a relationship is ended, or the manner in which the ending is experienced,

can create or augment an attachment disruption (Levy & Orlans, 1998). The play therapists in

this study stated that they take great care in providing a positive ending experience for the

children and families with whom they work. The ending of therapy was considered by

participants to be a final means for solidifying and re-affirming the child and caregivers’

experiencing of the dynamics of a healthy attachment relationship.

Because what’s harmful, for lack of a better word, to do is to have this child to create a

safe place here in therapy and then to just drop out… or to not have the appropriate

termination process occur, because we’re working on this whole idea of trust. (Ezra)

“We celebrate the work that we’ve done and the relationship and I let them know that I’m

so thankful that we got to work together. And we also process before the last session, you

know, how does it feel to think about ending our playtime together? And I think it’s

really important to teach them to say goodbye and not to say, ‘see you later’ because I

think it’s an easy way for us to not deal with endings in our society. To be able to say

goodbye and say goodbye well. That’s what I do with kids. (Nikki)

Hindering integration. The primary barrier to integrating Attachment Theory within

treatment planning was caregiver unavailability. “Unavailable” refers to either the physical or

emotional inability to be present in the play therapy treatment process. Often, this unavailability

was referred to as resistance due to caregiver’s own attachment issues. When this occurred,

caregivers tended to refer those clients to see other practitioners who they perceived might be a

better fit for addressing the caregiver’s concerns.

112
 I think, really, quite honestly, parents are my biggest barrier to integrating attachment

work because sometimes they have such big hang-ups on their own that they just, they

can’t do it. And I have empathy for that, I really do. Sometimes they come in and they’re

like, ‘This is just too awkward. I don’t play with my kid. That’s just weird. It’s

uncomfortable.’ And they’re not open to changing it. (Raquel)

I think when someone is so disorganized that it’s hard for them to tolerate the connection

and so um, I think sometimes it’s just not the right time for them to do the work… That

can be really frustrating and that’s sometimes when you see a parent pull a child from

therapy. (Nikki)

Then another barrier I struggle with is the parent’s own attachment breaks and how I,

because I am the child’s therapist, because the child is my priority first, but the amount of

parent work that is needed… and then that sometimes becomes a billing difficulty. (Kara)

In addition to caregiver unavailability, fiscal concerns, a lack of education, and a lack of

understanding of the importance of attachment were cited as potential barriers to implementing

an attachment-based perspective in treatment planning. Medicaid was cited as the primary barrier

to being reimbursed for services provided. Simone said, “Sometimes funding is an issue. You

know, wanting us to use a medical model and diagnose things.”

Talking from a structural, bureaucratic way, working with children…what’s billable and

what’s not billable. How long you can work with the family if you’re billing certain

services through Medicaid, or whatever. (Kara)

Ginger described a lack of education in her graduate school program as being a potential barrier

other play therapists may face to integrating Attachment Theory within their clinical practice.

113
 When I did mine the textbook I used for family therapy, that book talked about Bowen

and Family Systems but there was no chapter that I remember hearing something that was

clearly targeting the primary relationship, attachment-based. Juanita described

caregivers’ lack of understanding of the purpose of enhancing attachment as a potential barrier to

integrating Attachment Theory within clinical practice.

Awareness of how important attachment is from the foster parents or the biological

parents. That is definitely another piece that hinders attachment work. So many people

bring their children to counseling and say ‘fix them.’ Then you try to explain how trauma

has affected them and their ability to trust and how that has affected their ability to have a

relationship and then they just… I do trauma training, and um, the foster parents say,

‘yeah, yeah. I get it.’ But they still say ‘fix this!’ (Juanita)

Core Categories and Final Theory Development

The initial categories were further honed to develop the final theory through further

analytic review of transcripts, discussion with participants via follow-up interviews, and

additional examination of memos. Several of the original categories and subcategories that

emerged were condensed into the following four core categories: establishing safety, gaining and

providing information, facilitating growth through relationship, and saying goodbye. In

accordance with Charmaz’s (2014) guidelines for sound analytic insight to generate a grounded

theory, only categories that subscribed to the criteria of “fit and relevance” (p. 133) were

integrated into the final core categories. Valuing integration of Attachment Theory and hindering

integration were not found to be a part of the actual process of Attachment Theory integration

and therefore were not included in the final theory. However, these two categories do provide

contextual information about the process and therefore are discussed briefly in a section below.

114
The four core categories reflect the stages of integrating Attachment Theory within play therapy

treatment planning and clinical practice. This section describes what occurs within each stage of

the integration process, with a focus on decision-making, as well as the relationship of the stages

to one another. The description of movement from one phase to another is provided within each

section describing a phase of the process. References to participant statements are included to

provide in vivo data support within the stages. Additionally, a summary of the movement

through the integration process is provided at the end of this section. Figure 3 illustrates the act

of moving through the integration process. The relationships between the final theoretical

categories were further understood through follow-up interviews with participants. Follow-up

interviews were completed with six participants. Attention was paid to both explicit and implicit

relationships verbalized directly or shown across each participant’s reported case example of

their integration process. No participant was found to follow a strictly linear integration process.

Nikki stated, “I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive steps… there definitely is a lot of

overlap.” Ginger said, “I would say it’s not really linear.”

Establishing Safety

The initial phase of the integration process is establishing safety. This phase is considered

a necessary precursor for initiating any attachment-based clinical work and begins, according to

Nikki, “the minute you say hello.” Safety in this context refers to physical and emotional safety.

Physical safety includes safety within the therapeutic environment as well as with the caregivers

and family. Emotional safety includes emotional safety with the therapist as well as with the

caregivers and family. Simone stated, “I want to take a little time to allow that family to have an

initial phase of therapy, or the individual, where they begin to develop therapeutic safety and

trust.” Safety includes avoiding harm. During this initial phase of the integration process,

115
commitment is sought from the caregiver to diminish the likelihood of premature termination,

which could exacerbate an attachment disruption and cause emotional and psychological harm to

the child.

“I tell them that I will not contract with you unless you give me the opportunity to have at

least two termination sessions… Because that is just another way we injure the child if

we’re not modeling and teaching that there can be relationships that end without a rip”

(Simone).

Establishing safety sets the stage for the beginning of trust building, which is a

cornerstone of the therapeutic relationship, particularly within attachment work. Once safety is

established, the therapist seeks to maintain safety throughout the process. Play therapists

encourage clients to “show up” within the therapeutic process and allow them to be who they are

through the safety created. Continued safety is a necessity for completing attachment-enhancing

therapy. Clients are encouraged to take risks in exploring their self and self and others within this

established safety of the therapeutic relationship and the play therapy environment. Nikki stated,

“You’re creating the safety but I think you’re constantly maintaining the safety, even when

you’re finishing and wrapping up with a client you’re constantly maintaining that safety.”

Gaining and Providing Information

Gaining and providing information begins with initial contact with the client and family.

This core category includes assessing attachment quality through formal and informal methods,

re-assessing attachment, and educating caregivers and receiving feedback from the child and

caregiver. Ginger said, “I feel like so many things are woven together. Intake is about gathering

information and making an assessment.”

116
 From the time that they walk in the door and I’m explaining therapy, from then on, in

addition to creating safety, I’m also assessing for what the attachment is like, so I think

simultaneously it’s like, ‘what is this attachment like?’ (Nikki)

Assessing attachment quality. Assessment typically begins within the intake session, or

initial session. Assessment refers to the use of both formal and informal assessments. Some of

the formal assessments that can be used are the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), the

Marschack Interaction Method (MIM), and the Adult Attachment Inventory (AAI). Informal

assessment occurs through observing relational dynamics between the child and their caregivers.

Simone stated, “I’ve added a new level to it, which is watching parents who are so addicted to

their technology that they are distracted from their child.” Nikki said, “I’m assessing for what’s

getting in the way of the connection.”

…observing the parent and the child together. How much eye contact do they make with

one another? Um, is there any touch? Is there warmth? Where do they sit in the room?

Those kinds of things are a part of assessment as well. (Simone).

Intake questionnaires and genograms, in conjunction with conversation, may also used to obtain

attachment-related information about the child, as well as the caregiver. The types of information

the therapists look for, from an attachment perspective, includes the child’s developmental

history (pre-natal to current time), trauma history, social history (focusing on relational breaks as

attachment indicators), and the caregiver’s attachment history. Ezra stated, “I do a social history,

which is more development… I’ll ask how they reached developmental milestones, at what time,

any ongoing illnesses? Family traumas?”

I think that getting a really good history allows a lot of information. If we do a really

thorough assessment before birth, what was happening in the family’s life during the time

117
 they were expecting the baby, during the first year of life of the child. What were the

stressors? Were they working? Were they home? Were they, um, living one parent

overseas? You know…I just think that gathering a lot of information about what the

environment for the child was like. And then also what was happening emotionally for

the parent at that time. Were they under stress? (Simone)

Assessing the child’s attachment style through informal observation, as described by a few

participants, begins the moment the therapist meets the child for the first time. Information such

as body language cues (eye contact, open or closed body language), and the length of time it took

the child to warm up to the relationship with the therapist was used by several participants to

assess the child’s attachment style. Raquel said, “…when I first meet the child the informal

assessment is going to begin and it’s more subjective because there’s not an instrument involved

and that is ongoing.” Ginger spoke about observing and assessing the child’s receptivity to a new

relationship when she said, “How many hoops do I have to jump through to get the kid to be

okay with me?” Regardless of the presenting issue, all participants tended to integrate their

knowledge of Attachment Theory following a similar process. The types of interventions were a

bit more directive when focusing on a specific attachment disruption. This is further discussed in

the ‘tailoring interventions’ portion of this theoretical framework.

Re-Assessment. Assessment is ongoing and occurs throughout the integration process to

assess for progress. This type of assessment is referred to within this theory as re-assessment.

Re-assessment is sparked through receiving feedback from the child or the caregiver. This

information gathering can occur through observational or formal methods. For instance, one

participant reported using a parental report scale to assess and re-assess the caregiver’s

perceptions of his or her child regularly throughout the treatment planning process. Raquel said,

118
“I get a self-report inventory from the parents every session, so not only what their behaviors

have been but also what their experience of the child is.” Other participants reported observing

changes in the child’s play, using pre- and post- art techniques, or using a child’s disclosures as

indicators of new emerging issues or that progress had occurred. Special attention was paid to

enhanced trust and security within the therapeutic relationship, increased taking of risks within

the therapeutic environment, and self-disclosures regarding enhanced attachment in the home

environment to discern progress from an attachment-based perspective. Nikki stated, “I am

definitely assessing the entire time.” Raquel said, “…we’ll see the child being able to regulate

themselves and the behaviors have changed and the parents are understanding where their child

is coming from and can regulate themselves.”

I do a lot of art therapy techniques and a lot of play therapy…I watch for where they

position themselves in position to the family. Watching for attachment in art therapy

techniques and using those at the beginning and endings of treatment and seeing the

changes in those. (Simone)

Educating caregivers. Providing information occurs through educating caregivers and

teaching relational skills. This is an ongoing process and typically occurs through caregiver

consultations, held every three to five sessions. As new understanding or conceptualization of the

client, the client’s presenting issue, and the caregivers’ ability to relate to the child emerges, then

new psycho-education may be provided to the caregiver. This psycho-education may be provided

in the form of educating about a presenting concern or through teaching the caregiver or family

members new relational skills to employ with the child. Simone stated, “It isn’t uncommon for

me to do things that foster relationship. So that’s why I like Child-Parent Relationship Therapy

because you’re teaching attunement.”

119
 I think it is the art of the relationship that helps you to know there is something missing.

Either I’m not getting something or they’re not receiving something and so either we go

back to get more information, which is assessment, or we um, ask questions to sort of

clarify where we need to be, do we need to be looking for more information or trying new

strategies? Or did we totally miss some clue as to direction… so, um, that’s so I think the

reassessment is as the heart of every one step to the next step to the next step. You’re

taking your cues from how things are going. Um, to sort of make your decisions.”

(Ginger)

Moving from the gaining and providing information phase to the facilitating growth

through relationship phase of the process of integration is somewhat linear, but is also cyclical.

Once the therapist has obtained initial assessment and begins conceptualizing the client’s

concerns and how to address those concerns, the process of growth through relationship begins.

However, as growth emerges through relationships, then re-assessment may occur. Once re-

assessment occurs, there may be a need to gain or provide information to or from the child or

caregiver for clarification or educational purposes. From there, as new information is obtained,

new conceptualization occurs, or conceptualization is confirmed, and the desired growth

continues to be facilitated through relationship through use of tailored interventions to address

specific needs. This cycle does not end until the goals of play therapy are met.

Once I have a pretty decent idea of what the dynamic is within the relationship, which

could take one session or quite a few sessions, then I’m creating a plan. So after that first

session, um, for sure, the first and second session, I’ve got some ideas about how I want

to help the dyad or triad or however many people are in there deal with the attachments

they have but then also create that more secure attachment. (Nikki)

120
Facilitating Growth Through Relationship

Throughout the process, the therapist uses the therapeutic relationship as an example

attachment relationship for the child as well as the caregiver. The play therapist takes great care

to provide consistency in his or her responses to the child’s needs, and the caregiver’s needs as

well. Through consistent responding and attunement to the child’s and caregiver’s needs, the

child and caregiver are able to gain a new relational experience. It is through this “attachment

experience” that the child’s and caregiver’s perceptions of self and self and others, or internal

working models, can begin to shift to reflect enhanced security. Nikki said, “This is what a

secure attachment feels like. We’re going to fill this hole right here and now between the two of

us.”

Every time you look at me, call for me, or want something from me I will be here

because it’s constancy. It’s not I’m sometimes here and sometimes not. And what you do

does not determine how I care for you. (Nikki)

Additionally, the therapist facilitates relational skills building for both the child and the

caregiver, and fosters the development of a healthier attachment relationship between the

caregiver and child. Sometimes this means including the caregiver in the session directly. At

other times, it involves working with the caregiver and the child separately, and providing the

caregiver with skills to use outside of the play therapy sessions. When participants perceived that

they were addressing a specific attachment disruption as the primary presenting concern, they

tended to incorporate more directive Theraplay techniques with the caregiver and child together

in session. The focus, in these instances, was on assessing the relationship through the four

dimensions of Theraplay: structure, challenge, engagement, and nurture. Once the deficit areas

and strength areas were understood within the relationship, the Marschack Interaction Method of

121
assessment was typically used. Then, specific Theraplay activities were provided to address

those needs. Participants tended to tailor the interventions they used to address specific needs of

the child and the caregiver, whether working with them together or separately. This tailoring of

interventions to “meet the client where they’re at” is consistent with being attuned to the client’s

needs. Attunement is an indicator of a healthy attachment relationship (Booth & Jernberg, 2010;

Levy & Orlans, 1998). The participants were attuned to the needs of both the child and the

caregiver. Several participants mentioned that they perceived the process of attachment-

enhancing work to benefit both the child and the caregiver. In other words, it was reported that

the caregiver and child were each able to enhance their individual internal working models as

well as to enhance their dyadic relationship together.

But I also think there’s a piece where their (the caregiver’s) past attachment wounds can

heal as they’re in a healthier attachment relationship. So I don’t think it’s necessarily

always just parent down, but it can go both ways. Because I think that, for lack of a better

word, I’m going to call it an energy, an experience, and as I experience it in that

attachment piece in safety in other relationships, it… it changes me. When I say ‘me’ I’m

talking about the parent. (Ezra)

Many of the parents don’t have a template. They might have their own history of

attachment problems. So with that in mind, it’s really giving them an opportunity to

practice in a very affirming relationship… the warmth of the therapeutic relationship, um,

to be able to practice how to foster a relationship for parent and child.” (Simone)

Saying Goodbye

Once the initial goals that were set at the beginning of play therapy are met, the

termination process occurs.

122
 Often times the parental report and the child’s report and even observing…I’m thinking

again of that one young man who had multiple caregivers and that disrupted adoption.

There was just a time when it was very… they both reported that, and it was very

observable, that they felt much more comfortable with one another and they felt an

affection that before had not been present. (Simone)

The termination process is referred to within this theory as saying goodbye to honor the unique

nature of the termination process as reported by participants from an attachment perspective. The

first step in the termination process is to be sure that the child has generalized the skills learned

in therapy to outside relationships, primarily the caregiver-child relationship. This is to ensure

that the child has learned that positive relationships, or healthy attachments, can occur in

relationships outside of the therapeutic environment. Throughout the process of saying goodbye,

the caregiver and therapist work as a team to monitor the child’s adjustment to the ending. As

long as no new presenting issues arise, the saying goodbye process proceeds. Saying goodbye

involves allowing time to acknowledge the ending. The therapist and child have multiple

sessions together when they process the upcoming ending. They focus on the progress that was

made in therapy, their relationship, and any feelings surrounding the process of saying goodbye.

Special attention is paid to honoring the time they spent together through celebration. The

celebration serves as a type of final nurturing, supportive act. Sometimes physical nurturing

occurs through the presence of food. Nurturing is an attachment-enhancing activity (Booth &

Jernberg, 2010). The therapist and the child plan for their last session ahead of time, together.

So once we’ve met those goals then we’re going to look at terminating treatment as long

as nothing else has come up along the way. So that’s how we’ll know… that the goals we

set from intake will have been met. (Raquel)

123
 So when I end with a client that is a process as well in being able to let them know that

we had a really great experience and we had a really fun time and it’s kind of and they

usually kind of know and want to go on with their life. They want to play with their

friends. So we kind of slowly wind down with ‘this has been so fun’ and we recap with

what we have done, where they were when they first came in, all the different changes.

And then we celebrate the relationship so a lot of times we’ll have food or something like

that. I’ll ask the child, “How do you want to spend our last session?” “We celebrate the

work that we’ve done and the relationship and I let them know that I’m so thankful that

we got to work together. (Nikki)

If a new presenting issue arises, then the play therapist returns to the cyclical process of gaining

and providing information and facilitating growth through relationship phases.

If we’re both very comfortable with the process and where we’re at then we’ll start

shifting to the termination piece. But because I’ve had the ongoing conversation, they

know that we’re not just going to stop but we’ll lengthen out the space between sessions

until pretty much, okay, this is our last time. We celebrate usually as a family unit when

there is attachment going on, but always with the understanding that all they have to do is

call and then I’ll open up that file, that case again. (Ezra)

Saying goodbye is the final step in solidifying the healthy attachment experience for the

child and the caregiver. The therapist makes sure that several sessions are used to focus on

saying goodbye. The final sessions are used to send the child and caregiver off in a supportive

manner. In essence, it is a “celebration” of the “attachment experience” they had created and

engaged in together. Some participants focused on ensuring that the caregivers and child

understood that they are always welcome back if they need further services, while others

124
emphasized the importance of saying goodbye without giving any potential false hope of seeing

one another again. Whether saying goodbye was perceived as temporary or permanent, the focus

was on providing a supportive ending experience to the therapeutic relationship. Simone said, “I

tell people all the time, ‘Sometimes when you hit a new developmental stage they may want to

return to therapy’ because again, it brings up some new things.”

Valuing Integration and Hindering Integration Serve as Contextual Understanding

Both the valuing integration and hindering integration categories provide a context

through which to understand the occurrence of the integration of Attachment Theory within the

play therapy treatment planning process. Valuing integration of Attachment Theory may be

viewed as a motivator for integrating Attachment Theory within the treatment planning process.

Many of the participants reported viewing their integration of Attachment Theory within the

process as being integral to any work they completed, particularly when working with a child

and his or her caregiver. This suggests that perhaps exposure to Attachment Theory training

fosters the desire to integrate such knowledge into the treatment planning process. On the

opposite end of the spectrum, clear themes emerged within the hindering integration category.

Caregiver unavailability, either emotional or physical, and financial barriers through Medicaid

reimbursement were the most cited barriers to implementing an attachment-based perspective

within the treatment planning process. When caregivers were unable or unwilling to engage in

the therapeutic process, participants tended to refer those clients to other practitioners for

services. Ezra stated, “Personally I would probably refer them out.” Raquel said, “Well,

sometimes I do refer them out. If it gets to the point where they’re saying ‘I just can’t do this.’”

125
Figure 3. Movement through attachment theory integration into play therapy treatment planning.

126
Moving Through the Theory

The general flow through the stages of the integration process was found to be somewhat

linear with a cyclical component linking the second and third stages. Figure 3 illustrates the

movement through the stages of the finalized theory. Establishing safety, the first stage, is

considered to be a precursor to completing any attachment-based work. The safety created is

sought to be maintained throughout the integration process. One way to perceive the establishing

safety phase is that it serves as a protective blanket covering the entire attachment-based

therapeutic process.

Gaining and providing information is the second phase of the integration process. This

phase includes the play therapists gathering and providing of information through intake,

assessment processes, educating caregivers, and providing and receiving feedback. Assessing

and re-assessing was considered to be ongoing and therefore serves as a cyclical bridge between

the gaining and providing feedback and facilitating growth through relationship phases. Initial

assessment was used to move from the conceptualizing phase of intake to facilitating growth

through relationship. Re-assessment of progress, gaining and providing information, and

conceptualizing to decipher how to tailor interventions to fit the client’s needs lead the second

and third phases to be cyclical with one another. Once the initial goals of therapy are met and

there are no additional goals for therapy, the fourth and final phase, saying goodbye, occurs.

Primary Theoretical Orientation and Integration of Attachment Theory

Participants’ primary theoretical orientation did not appear to affect their overall

integration process of Attachment Theory. However, the majority of participants practiced from

a Prescriptive play therapy perspective. Perhaps the effect of theory on the integration process

was shrouded due to the already flexible nature of the Prescriptive approach. The majority of

127
participants tended to integrate Attachment Theory across their clinical practice, regardless of the

presenting concern. Some evidence was found of the effects of primary theoretical orientation on

the tailoring of interventions from an attachment-based perspective. Simone practiced from a

Cognitive-Behavioral perspective and tended to focus strongly on addressing negative cognitions

about self and self and others in interventions from an attachment perspective. Raquel mentioned

utilizing cognitive-behavioral techniques in her practice, but did not state that these techniques

were of primary focus when working from an attachment perspective.

Linking Participant-Labeled Stages to the Final Theory

Each participant labeled her own perceived stages of the process of integration of

knowledge of Attachment Theory within her practice. Participants’ self-labeled stages are shown

in Table 2. Although the labeling of the stages differed, upon close examination of initial reports,

researcher memos, and follow-up discussion with participants, the general points of integration

were found to be similar across all participants. Participants’ reported points of integration and

how each participant’s reported phases fit within the stages of the finalized theory are shown in

Table 3. Note that Simone does not appear, at first glance, to establish safety before beginning

attachment-based work. This is due to the fact that this table represents initial explicit

descriptions the participants used to label their integration process. Upon further examination of

Simone’s interview transcripts and follow-up discussion, Simone reported that she does begin

the integration process by establishing safety.

I don’t want to jump in too fast with lessons. I want to take a little time to allow that

family to have an initial phase of therapy, or the individual, where they begin to develop

therapeutic safety and trust.

128
Some participant stages were found to occur in two of the stages of the final theory. One

example can be seen in Nikki’s self-labeled stage of creating and implementing a plan. Creating

the plan involved gaining and providing information, whereas the implementing a plan portion of

this phase was found to fit into the facilitating growth through relationship phase of the final

theory. The overlapping presence of Nikki’s creating and implementing a plan stage

demonstrates the cyclical movement between the gaining and providing information and

facilitating growth through relationship phases of the final theory. Nikki’s creating and

implementing a plan stage involved discerning and “filling in the holes” in the relationship.

Thus, gaining information and assessing occurred to decipher what the holes were and then the

relationship was used to facilitate growth, or to fill in those holes. In addition to Nikki, Juanita

and Kara also presented stages that overlapped in the phases of the final theory. Kara’s building

trust stage was described to include modeling and consistent responding to the caregiver and the

child, as well as assessing the caregiver’s needs. The use of modeling and consistent responding

to the caregiver is indicative of the facilitating growth through relationship phase of the final

theory, whereas the assessing of the caregiver’s needs fits into the gaining and providing

information phase of the final theory. Kara’s regulation and mastery phase included using skills

that were learned from the therapist in relationships outside of the therapeutic relationship in

addition to the practicing of those same skills within the therapeutic relationship. Thus, the

portion of this stage where the therapist educates the client on relational skills was found to fall

within the gaining and providing information phase of the final theory and the portion that

includes the practicing of the skills within the therapeutic relationship was found to fall within

the facilitating growth through relationship phase of the final theory. Juanita’s harder work and

integration phases were found to overlap within the gaining and providing information and

129
facilitating growth phases of the final theory. Juanita stated that her harder work phase included

changing negative cognitions to more positive cognitions. She used education within this process

of changing the cognitions, which falls into the gaining and providing information category of

the final theory. She also facilitated growth through the relationship within her harder work

phase to foster the development of a more positive sense of self and self and others. Also,

Juanita’s integration phase included learning skills and using those skills outside the therapeutic

relationship. Thus, her integration phase fell into gaining and providing information (educating)

and facilitating growth through relationship, as those skills were practiced within the therapeutic

relationship.

130
Table 3

Participant-reported Stages and the Respective Integration Points Within the Finalized Theory

Stages of the Final Theory

Establishing Gaining and Facilitating Saying Goodbye

Safety Providing Growth
Information Through
Pseudonym Relationship

Raquel Intake Assessing Intervention, Termination

Attachment Facilitating
Itself, Feedback Change Through
Relationship

Kara Establishing Building Trust, Building Trust, Termination

Safety Regulation and Regulation and
Mastery Mastery

Ezra Intake Assessment Intervention Tapering Off/

Termination
Juanita Making This a Harder Work, Harder Work, End of Therapy
Safe and Integration Integration
Predictable
Environment

Nikki Creating Safety Assessing, Creating and Generalizing

Creating and Implementing a
Implementing a Plan
Plan

Simone Assessment, Psychoeducation Termination

Psychoeducation and Modeling,
and Modeling Active Therapy

Ginger Intake Assessment, Education and Tapering Off

Education and Intervention
Intervention,
Re-Assessment

131
 Therapeutic Relationship from an Attachment-Based Perspective

Regardless of primary theoretical orientation, all participants perceived the therapeutic

relationship to serve as an attachment experience for the child and caregiver, and growth was

facilitated primarily through the use of the therapeutic relationship and the caregiver-child

relationship. Juanita was the only participant who did not tend to work with caregivers unless

working to reunite children in the foster care system with their biological caregivers or when

they were being placed in “pre-adoptive” or “forever” homes. In lieu of working with caregivers,

Juanita emphasized facilitating self-esteem development and growth through the therapeutic

relationship from an attachment-perspective, as the therapeutic relationship may be the only

stable relationship in her client’s life at the time. Juanita stated, “Sometimes the attachment that

they have with us allows them to take some more risks.”

How do you fill a sponge up too much? I think the kids that come to us are just so dry

and they just don’t have that inside of them and if we can give them a little bit and then a

little bit more then… because the whole idea is not so much that they’re attaching to us.

It’s that they’re learning that they’re wonderful and they’re important and they’re terrific.

(Juanita)

Juanita, unlike other participants who tended to primarily utilize caregivers within their

attachment-enhancing interventions, focused on enhancing sibling attachment relationships, as

the children in foster care may not have other long-term relationships. She stated,

…we’ll do it with the sibling instead and have the siblings together. If they remain

together then the attachment is with each other so they can develop a healthy attachment

relationship that way.

132
All participants viewed the attachment with the therapist to be a temporary attachment

relationship and stated that the goal was to generalize the attachment to a more long-term

relationship in the child’s life before termination occurred.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the play therapists’ integration

process of their knowledge of Attachment Theory into their treatment planning. Seven

Registered Play Therapists, each with a minimum of 18 clock hours of education in Attachment

Theory, were interviewed to co-construct a grounded theory describing the process of

Attachment Theory integration into play therapy treatment planning. Purposeful sampling was

used to select participants from various geographical locations, theoretical orientations, and

practice settings. Two rounds of interviewing were used to obtain data. The initial set of

interviews occurred with each of the seven participants. Theoretical sampling was used to

conduct a second round of interviews with six participants, for a total of thirteen interviews. The

second round of interviews focused on gaining clarification regarding categories and the

relationship between the core categories of the finalized theory. In accordance with Charmaz’s

(2014) constructivist approach to grounded theory, the data analysis procedures included line-by-

line initial coding, focused coding, emergence of categories, and final theory development

through relating the core categories. The stages of the process of integration of knowledge of

Attachment Theory within play therapy treatment planning were found to be: establishing safety,

gaining and providing information, fostering growth through relationship, and saying goodbye.

The relationship between, or movement through, these stages was explicated. Specific

occurrences within each stage were outlined. Additional contextual information regarding the

133
integration process was provided through addressing themes that arose in participants’ responses

regarding the valuing integration and hindering integration categories.

134
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

In this chapter the purpose of the study is reiterated and a summary of results is provided.

The research findings are discussed and related to pertinent literature. Implications for play

therapists and educators are discussed, and suggestions for future research are provided. The

limitations of the study are examined and a personal reflection is presented as a conclusion.

Purpose

The primary purpose of this study was to explore and define how play therapists with

knowledge of Attachment Theory integrate such knowledge into their treatment planning.

Treatment planning was defined in a broad sense to encompass treatment planning across all

clinical practice, and was not limited to written or electronic treatment plan documentation.

Attention was paid to the decision-making process behind each participant’s integration of

knowledge. The primary research question was: How do play therapists with knowledge of

Attachment Theory incorporate that knowledge into their play therapy treatment planning?

Additional research questions explored the value, if any, play therapists placed on incorporating

Attachment Theory within their treatment planning, as well as discovering any barriers that

might hinder the integration process.

Summary of Methods

The constructivist approach to grounded theory was selected to explore and describe the

process of integration of Attachment Theory within play therapy treatment planning. A screening

survey was sent by e-mail to Association for Play Therapy members. I interviewed seven

selected participants. Two rounds of interviews were conducted, for a total of 13 interviews.

135
Data analysis was completed following Charmaz’s (2014) suggested methods for constructivist

grounded theory. The final theory was co-constructed with participants through use of data

obtained in the interviews, researcher memos, and constant comparative methods.

Discussion of Results

The grounded theory that was co-constructed with participants and described the process

of integration of Attachment Theory had four primary stages. Those stages were labeled

establishing safety, gaining and providing information, facilitating growth through relationship,

and saying goodbye. The transitioning through the theory from one stage to the next was found

to be semi-linear, with a cyclical component among the gaining and providing information and

facilitating growth through relationship stages. The final stage of the theory, saying goodbye,

began when the initial goals of therapy had been met. In the following sub-section, findings are

discussed as they pertain to each stage of the theory: establishing safety, gaining and providing

information, facilitating growth through relationship, and saying goodbye.

Stages of the Theory

Establishing Safety. Establishing safety was found to be a necessary precursor to

initiating attachment-based play therapy work. Three participants explicitly stated that creating

safety was their primary stage of the integration process. The other four participants did not

initially state that this was their beginning stage; however, they described the act of creating

safety in their initial contact with clients as one focus from an attachment-perspective. Therefore,

the integration of Attachment Theory into treatment planning was found to begin with the

establishment of safety. Establishment of safety refers to physical and emotional safety with the

caregiver as well as within the therapeutic relationship and the therapeutic environment.

136
 The therapist serves as the facilitator for establishing safety in the therapy environment

and caregiver-child relationship. Thus, the therapist is working to establish a sense of security in

the therapeutic environment as well as in the caregiver-child relationship. From an attachment-

based perspective, the working or exploratory phase of play therapy can not begin without that

sense of security. Bowlby (1988) discussed the importance of having a secure base from which

to be able to venture out and to explore one’s environment. It is through this exploration that

learning occurs (Bowlby, 1988; Johnson & Whiffen, 2003). According to Johnson and Whiffen

(2003), one of the primary tenets of Attachment Theory is the experiencing of a sense of security

within the attachment relationship; the relationship also offers a safe haven for the individual

from which the environment can be explored. It is within the therapeutic relationship, or safe

haven, that the individual is able to emotionally regulate and to experience a sense of safety

(Crenshaw & Stewart, 2015). Once an individual is calm, that individual’s mental faculties and

self are free to explore the environment using the relationship as a secure base (Bowlby, 1988;

Johnson & Whiffen, 2003; Whelan & Stewart, 2014). The self, as well as the self and others, are

a part of the play therapy environment and were perceived by participants in this study as more

likely to be explored only after a sense of safety or security had been established. Establishing

safety was perceived by several participants to be a precursor to completing any attachment-

based play therapy work. The notion of “precursor” is an important finding. Whelan and Stewart

(2014) discussed the use of the therapeutic relationship, in the Circle of Security intervention, as

a safe haven and a secure base for the child throughout play therapy sessions. Participants in this

study perceived establishing safety as being the beginning of providing attachment-based

services. Although Whelan and Stewart (2014) discussed the use of the relationship as a safe

137
haven and a secure base throughout play therapy services, they did not explicitly identify safety

as a precursor to beginning attachment-based services.

Gaining and Providing Information. The gaining and providing information phase

includes intake, assessment, and re-assessment for progress. The process of gaining and

providing information is not a new idea in play therapy treatment planning. The intake session,

in conjunction with ongoing consultation sessions throughout the course of treatment, is meant to

provide the play therapist with opportunities to gain information and provide information to the

caregiver (Ray, 2011). The gaining and providing information stage of the theoretical framework

developed from this study focuses on the types of information to which the counselor pays

attention when incorporating knowledge of Attachment Theory.

Intake. The intake process marks the beginning of the gaining and providing information

phase of the integration of Attachment Theory within play therapy treatment planning.

According to Ray (2011), intake interview includes obtaining a thorough understanding of the

presenting concerns of the caregivers and a thorough developmental history of the child. The

findings of this study are consistent with those aspects of Ray’s (2011) intake process. The

finding of this study that adds to our understanding of the intake process from an attachment-

perspective is that the developmental and social history of the child is evaluated through the

Attachment Theory framework. In other words, the therapist looks for specific breaks in

relationships for the child, as well as the caregivers, as indicators of attachment-related

experiences that may have shaped the individual’s current attachment pattern. Several

participants discussed assessing for the caregiver’s attachment history as well as that of the child,

to gain contextual information as to the nature of the relational environment in which the child

had developed.

138
 Assessment and Re-Assessment. From an attachment-based perspective, participants

used developmental history, psychosocial history, self-report measures, and both formal and

informal methods for assessing the attachment dynamics of the child, the caregivers, and the

child and the caregivers together. Initial assessment was found to occur in the intake session and

in the first few sessions. Ray (2011) discussed the use of developmental information to assess the

child’s current state of development, as well as to understand previous patterns in the child’s

development that may have contributed to the child’s current state. The primary difference when

working from the attachment-perspective is the lens through which such information is filtered.

From an attachment perspective, factors such as trauma and any breaks in relationships were

cited by participants as providing additional understanding of the child’s development. The

initial assessment of the quality of the attachment bond between the caregiver and the child has

been addressed in previous literature. The Marschack Interaction Method (MIM), which was also

the most widely reported formal assessment used by participants, is the assessment utilized when

providing Theraplay (Booth & Jernberg, 2010).

Although initial assessment has been discussed from an attachment perspective, the re-

assessment phase has not been discussed from an attachment-based perspective. Participants

utilized formal and informal methods for re-assessing progress from an attachment perspective

throughout the course of treatment. The informal methods utilized included observing the child’s

and caregiver’s relational dynamics, as well as the child’s initial and ongoing receptivity to

relationship with the therapist. Specific behavioral cues that were generally considered to

indicate a more secure attachment relationship were increased eye contact, increased receptivity

to relationship, and increased attunement to others. One participant indicated that a child who

was too receptive to relationship might have an indiscriminate attachment style. Other methods

139
for re-assessment included observing changes in the child’s play and using art therapy methods

to discern change. One participant used art as an assessment intervention as a sort of pre- and

post- test. She stated that she would have the child draw a picture of the family initially, and then

periodically throughout the course of treatment would ask the child to again draw a picture of the

family. She would assess for progress from an attachment-based perspective by watching for

changes in proximity and relationship of the child and the caregiver in the pictures. The findings

regarding tools for re-assessment might be used to create an assessment form for play therapists

to use from an attachment-based perspective. Such an assessment tool might clarify how to

observe progress when integrating Attachment Theory into treatment planning.

Facilitating Growth Through Relationship. According to Landreth (2012), most of

what children learn in a play therapy relationship is not cognitive; rather, it is “a developing

experiential, intuitive learning about the self that occurs over the course of the therapeutic

experience (p. 87).

The necessity of establishing a strong rapport through which to communicate with the

child is not a new concept within the field of play therapy. Landreth (2012) described the

importance of creating a relationship through which the child is able to become increasingly self-

aware and is able to harness his or her inner capabilities to strive toward change. Landreth

described the relationship as the primary means for facilitating growth in play therapy from a

Child-Centered perspective. The findings of this study suggest that play therapists operating

from varying theoretical orientations, who are integrating an attachment-based perspective, work

to create a similar relationship with the child. Also, when working from an attachment-based

perspective, the focus is not solely on the therapeutic relationship between the therapist and the

child; the focus is also on enhancing the relationship between the caregiver and the child.

140
Participants reported their perception that it is through these relational experiences, or

“attachment experiences,” that the child’s and caregiver’s internal working models are facilitated

to change toward enhanced security.

Current attachment-based interventions focus on enhancing the child-parent relationship

through enriching attunement and relational skills, whereas the findings of this study

demonstrate that therapists working from an attachment-based perspective utilize all

relationships to facilitate growth across the play therapy process. One example in the findings

was that the majority of participants reported using modeling within and across relationships to

enhance the learning of attunement and relational skills for the benefit of caregivers. This

occurred outside of sessions as well as within dyadic play therapy sessions. The therapist

provided attunement to both the caregiver and the child in the hope that providing such an

“attachment experience” would lead to enhancement of the attachment relationship between the

child and caregiver. This finding supports Crenshaw and Stewart’s (2015) suggested use of

attunement skills with the child in play therapy sessions, as well as with the caregiver during

consultation sessions. Although Crenshaw and Stewart (2015) developed the attachment

framework based on their own experiences providing attachment-based services, these authors

did not report any research findings regarding this technique. Thus, the findings of this study

lend support for the applicability of the attachment framework technique of attunement across

relationships, as suggested by Crenshaw and Stewart (2015).

Saying Goodbye. Termination is the term used frequently in literature to describe the

ending of play therapy services. Landreth (2012) defined termination as the “discontinuing of the

[therapeutic] relationship” (p. 361) and noted that the termination process varies in length from

practitioner to practitioner. Some therapists consider the final session to be the termination of the

141
therapeutic relationship, whereas others view a series of final sessions as comprising the

termination process. Ray (2011) recommended a minimum of three termination sessions, and

possibly more depending on the length of time the child has been in play therapy. Participants in

this study focused on saying goodbye. The nature of the ending of a relationship can cause or

worsen an attachment disruption (Johnson & Whiffen, 2003; Levy & Orlans, 1998). Participants

took great care to avoid harming the client when ending the therapeutic relationship. In fact, one

participant reported she refuses to contract for services without an up-front commitment that the

child will have an appropriate length of time for termination. The majority of participants in this

study took care to celebrate the relationship they had created with the child and caregivers. At

times food was included in the final celebrations, which could be viewed as a final form of

nurturing from an attachment-perspective. Several participants also reported that they made sure

clients understood that they would be welcomed back if any new presenting issues arose. This

viewpoint is consistent with the idea that the therapist serves as a safe haven and secure base for

the family to which they may return to whenever deemed necessary.

Additional Findings

Additional findings are discussed in this section. These findings are described in the

following sub-sections: an abstract process with concrete points, valuing integration of

Attachment Theory, and hindering the integration process.

An Abstract Process with Concrete Points. Enhancing attachment between a child and

his or her caregiver early in life can serve as a protective measure against a variety of mental

health concerns and can enhance that child’s ability to engage in future relationships (Aguilar,

Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000; Carlson, 1998; Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Deklyen &

Greenberg, 2008; Johnson & Whiffen, 2003; Levy & Orlans, 1998; Ogawa et al., 1997; Renken

142
et al., 1989; Warren, Huston, Egeland, & Sroufe, 1997). Prior to this study, no theoretical

framework existed to describe how play therapists integrate their knowledge of Attachment

Theory in their treatment planning, from intake through termination. Although several

attachment-based interventions exist, literature was lacking that would foster understanding of

how play therapists actually apply their knowledge of Attachment Theory across treatment

planning (Parker, 2012). Additionally, Haslam and Harris (2010) decried the dearth of research

investigating play therapists’ values regarding the use of Attachment Theory in their practice.

The cyclical portion of the theoretical framework I generated occurs between the gaining

and providing information and facilitating growth through relationship stages. Assessment

provides the initial bridge between these two stages. Ongoing conceptualization and re-

assessment occur throughout the bulk of the process, continuously moving through the gaining

and providing information and facilitating growth through relationship stages until the goals of

therapy are reached. This is a new description of a process that occurs when working from an

attachment-based perspective. Although most of the integration process was found to be abstract,

concrete application of Attachment Theory occurs in a few very specific areas. The first is the

assessment aspect of the gaining and providing information phase, specifically through use of

formal assessments. The second occurs within the facilitating growth through relationship phase

when attachment-based interventions are used. Participants tended to tailor interventions to fit

the specific needs of the client. This tailoring of interventions consisted of conceptualizing the

client’s needs through an ongoing cycle of re-assessment and attunement to the child’s,

caregiver’s, and the caregiver-child’s relationship needs. Almost all participants reported

tailoring Theraplay activities to fit their client’s areas of growth.

143
 Valuing Integration of Attachment Theory. Haslam and Harris (2011) reported a

deficit in knowledge “about what beliefs and attitudes drive the practice decisions of play

therapists around their work with families” (p.52). In this study, themes were discovered in play

therapists’ perceived value of integrating Attachment Theory in clinical practice. One theme was

that addressing presenting concerns from an attachment-based perspective is perceived to benefit

the child and caregiver, and to enhance the child-caregiver relationship. Participants also

reported that they valued using their knowledge of Attachment Theory because it helped to

position the child for successes in future relationships. Participants valued the trickle-down effect

of enhancing attachment dynamics in the caregiver-child relationship so that the child could, in

the future, pass on a secure attachment to his or her child. One participant described secure

attachment to be “propagating.” Thus, play therapists’ valuing the utility of Attachment Theory

knowledge to benefit the child, the caregiver, and the child-caregiver relationship provides

further insight into possible motivations for working from an attachment-based perspective.

Hindering the Integration Process. Parker (2012) suggested that barriers may exist to

integrating Attachment Theory in clinical practice; she encouraged research to further investigate

the existence of such barriers. In this study, the two primary barriers to integrating knowledge of

Attachment Theory within play therapy treatment planning are caregiver unavailability and

financial barriers. Two participants reported experiencing a fiscal barrier due to being unable to

be reimbursed by Medicaid for attachment-based services. Six of the seven participants reported

caregiver unavailability, either physically or emotionally, to be a primary barrier to integrating

Attachment Theory knowledge within their clinical practice.

The Grounded Theory and Play Therapy Treatment Planning

144
 Charmaz (2014) recommended, as a final step in the development of the grounded theory,

relating findings back to relevant literature. At first glance the stages of the theory constructed

from this research may seem to mimic or be very similar to existing information regarding play

therapy practices. One explanation for this similarity may be due to the fact that participants

were asked to describe their process of integration into their treatment planning. “Treatment

planning” suggests certain aspects of clinical practice, such as assessment, intervention, and

termination. Thus, the similarities across participants’ responses may be partially attributable to

the wording of the question asked. This section describes findings in relation to pertinent

literature regarding Attachment Theory and play therapy treatment planning, and regarding

theoretical orientation and use of Attachment Theory knowledge.

Play Therapy Treatment Planning

The APT (2012) recommended, as part of best practices, that play therapists utilize

treatment plans and regularly update caregivers throughout the play therapy process regarding

progress toward treatment goals. The findings of this study confirm that play therapists who

utilize Attachment Theory in their treatment planning engage caregivers throughout the

treatment planning process, through gaining and providing information. The participants also

monitored and reported progress to the caregivers through use of consultation sessions. One

participant, Juanita, who worked with children in the foster care system, did not hold

consultation sessions unless she was engaging the child’s caregivers in the play therapy process.

She provided updates to the child’s case manager periodically throughout the play therapy

process. With respect to engaging caregivers, APT (2012) also recommended that

“play therapists recognize that clients often have family members and other significant

adults that have influence in the client’s psychosocial growth and development, and strive

145
 to gain understanding of the roles and involvement of these other individuals so that they

may provide positive therapeutic support where appropriate.” (p.7)

The participants in this study engaged caregivers throughout the treatment planning process and

several participants acknowledged that working from an attachment-based perspective benefited

the caregiver as well as the child. This finding suggests that integrating Attachment Theory

knowledge may provide therapeutic support to the caregiver as well as the child throughout the

play therapy process. Several of the participants also reported that they perceived their

knowledge of Attachment Theory to be of benefit to the therapeutic process any time they were

working with a child, because the child is developing in the context of relationships with the

caregivers. As a result, having knowledge of Attachment Theory, as well as understanding how

to utilize such knowledge in treatment planning, may provide play therapists with an added

ability to provide support to the children and families with whom they work.

Ray (2011) described diagnosing as an integral part of play therapy treatment planning,

primarily for reimbursement purposes. The participants in this study did not focus on any set of

presenting issues or specific diagnoses as indicators of an attachment disruption. However,

several participants did refer to working with adopted children and their families and reported

that when adoption came up in the history of the client, they immediately began conceptualizing

from an attachment perspective. One participant, Juanita, spoke specifically about working with

children in the foster care system. No participants in this study focused on specific diagnoses that

motivate them to work from an attachment-based perspective.

Theoretical Orientation and Use of Attachment Theory Knowledge

Participant use of Attachment Theory knowledge across presenting issues suggests that

Attachment Theory may be broadly applicable. The participants’ primary focus, from an

146
attachment perspective, was on increasing the child’s positive sense of self and self and others

and enhancing the relational dynamics between child and caregiver. This is consistent with

Landreth and Bratton’s (2006) Child-Parent Relationship Therapy tenet, “focus on the doughnut,

not the hole” (p.131). This means to focus on the person and their strengths instead of the

problem. Landreth (2012) noted that when a child feels better about his or her self, he or she

exhibits more adaptive behaviors. The participants in this study practiced from differing

theoretical orientations, yet utilized the therapeutic relationship within the play therapy process

as the means through which to facilitate change. The only difference observed due to theoretical

orientation was the slight change in tailoring of interventions to address client concerns from an

attachment-perspective. For instance, the participant who practiced from a primarily Cognitive-

Behavioral play therapy orientation focused on changing the child’s cognitions about self and

self and others. This suggests that the play therapists’ primary theoretical orientations may

influence the types of interventions they use when working from an attachment-based

perspective.

Implications

Play Therapists

Ryan and Bratton (2008) stated, “Attachment theory and research is a well established

framework for understanding children's normal and atypical social/emotional development. It is

used extensively by clinicians to design interventions, understand interactions, and assess clinical

progress" (p. 28). Parker (2012) asserted that there was a lack of understanding regarding the

integration of Attachment Theory within treatment planning. The final theory developed from

this research study could be used by play therapists and play therapist supervisors to more fully

understand the process of integrating Attachment Theory in the treatment planning process. This

147
process has not been described in previous literature. Play therapists may also utilize the co-

constructed theory of integration as a reference for caregivers throughout the play therapy

process. It could be used in the intake session as a tool to introduce caregivers to the process of

becoming engaged in the play therapy process. It could also be used in regularly scheduled

consultation sessions as a tool to show caregivers where they are in the process of progressing

through treatment. Utilizing the theory in this manner may provide a clear informed consent for

the caregivers to become engaged in the play therapy treatment process. It may also provide an

additional mechanism through which to educate and update caregivers on the process and

progress of working from an attachment-based perspective. Additionally, an assessment form

could be developed for play therapists to use to report progress from an attachment-based

perspective; such a form might prove useful in observing and reporting progress across therapy.

Educators

The Association for Play Therapy does not require education in Attachment Theory as a

requirement for obtaining the Registered Play Therapist credential. Participants reported

perceived benefits to the caregiver, the child, and the caregiver-child relationship when working

from an attachment-based perspective. These reported benefits, coupled with the extant literature

describing the protective factors of addressing attachment issues early in life, indicate the

importance of integrating knowledge of Attachment Theory in play therapy treatment planning.

Ginger reported a lack of exposure to education in Attachment Theory in her graduate program.

All other participants reported obtaining the vast majority of their knowledge of Attachment

Theory through continuing education workshops and conferences attended. This suggests there is

limited exposure to Attachment Theory education in graduate school programs in the mental

health disciplines. Clients might be better served if graduate students in mental health disciplines

148
are provided opportunities to learn about Attachment Theory and the process of integrating such

knowledge in their treatment planning. The theory co-constructed in this study could serve as a

framework from which to educate students and play therapists as to how they may integrate

Attachment Theory knowledge in their clinical practice.

Recommendations for Future Research

The stages of integration of Attachment Theory that I co-constructed with my participants

describe only the integration processes of the participants in this particular study. Future studies

might examine the generalizability of these stages of the integration of Attachment Theory

across play therapists, as well as the treatment planning practices of other mental health

practitioners.

Caregiver unavailability, either emotional or physical, and financial barriers through

Medicaid reimbursement were the most frequently cited barriers to implementing an attachment-

based perspective within the treatment planning process. Six of the seven participants reported

caregiver unavailability, most often perceived as emotional unavailability, as a primary barrier to

integrating Attachment Theory. Those participants tended to refer those caregivers and their

children elsewhere for services. Further qualitative research to discover effective methods for

navigating caregiver emotional unavailability and to determine the most effective advocacy

strategies to establish Medicaid reimbursement for attachment-based therapies may strengthen

therapists’ ability to address attachment issues in play therapy. If such strategies are already

described in the literature, a quantitative research study may prove useful in discerning the

efficacy of certain strategies in terms of obtaining financial re-imbursement through Medicaid.

Several of the findings of this study were related to Child-Centered Play Therapy and the

relational dynamics created to facilitate growth from the child-centered perspective. Future

149
research to discover additional distinguishing, or similar, characteristics between the Child-

Centered Play Therapy relationship and the relationships fostered when utilizing an Attachment

Theory perspective could serve to further characterize and describe the qualities of working from

an attachment-based perspective in play therapy. A qualitative approach to research would be

appropriate for obtaining rich data that could be used to describe the similarities and differences

between the Child-Centered Play Therapy relationship and the relationship created when

working from an Attachment-based perspective. Gaining a greater understanding of any

additional similarities among these theoretical approaches to relationships may help to establish

the reason a primary Attachment Theory orientation to play therapy does not exist. Perhaps it is

already too similar to an existing theoretical orientation, so that particular aspects of the theory

are integrated secondarily rather than developing a primary attachment-based perspective.

If there is a dearth of exposure to Attachment Theory in graduate school coursework, a

meta-analysis of Attachment Theory in course syllabi could be conducted to identify a gap in the

curriculum. The findings of this research study indicate the broad applicability of Attachment

Theory across presenting issues and theoretical orientations. Previous research reported the

benefit of addressing attachment issues early in life (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000;

Carlson, 1998; Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Deklyen & Greenberg, 2008; Johnson & Whiffen, 2003;

Levy & Orlans, 1998; Ogawa et al., 1997; Renken et al., 1989; Warren, Huston, Egeland, &

Sroufe, 1997). Creating curriculum and understanding how and when to expose graduate

students to Attachment Theory may further prepare new professionals to provide beneficial

services to their child clients and their caregivers.

Limitations

150
 One limitation of this study was the use exclusively of semi-structured interviews to

obtain data from participants. It may have proved useful to obtain additional data through

reviewing participants’ intake questionnaires, observing participants in their interactions with

clients when working from an attachment-based perspective, or reviewing (with permission)

written treatment plans that these play therapists created. Another limitation of this study was the

small number of participants. Although I perceived data saturation to occur, additional findings

may have emerged had additional participants been included.

Personal Reflections

I thank each of the participants for sharing their time and knowledge with me throughout

this research process. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to learn from them. Undertaking

this research definitely has enhanced my understanding of how Attachment Theory can be

integrated across play therapy treatment planning. I hope that this research will provide insight to

others interested in learning about the incorporation of Attachment Theory in play therapy

treatment planning. I plan to use what I have learned within my clinical practice as a play

therapist, future supervisor, and future educator.

When I began this research, I had no idea just how complicated and rich the information

would be that I would obtain through the interviews I conducted. I was also surprised at how

similar many of the participants’ reports were. The data analysis process was complex and the

reporting of results was difficult given the vast amount of data obtained. I did my best to

accurately represent participants’ reports and to provide as much information as possible.

The grounded theory process amazed me! It was truly exciting to see order emerge from

participant reports. I recommend the use of grounded theory to any practitioner looking to

discover and explain a process. At times, I doubted the significance of my findings. I had to

151
revisit the data and existing literature several times, and remind myself that addressing any

deficit in the field is a contribution. The final theory generated through this research is more

abstract than I anticipated. I had hoped to demonstrate a more concrete process for therapists to

use. Attachment Theory is a multi-faceted theory with many aspects that can be incorporated into

treatment planning. One participant reported in her follow-up interview that participating in this

research was helpful for her because she gained further insight into her own process of

integration. She mentioned that having to think of how she went about integration was helpful to

her because she often acts out of instinct when operating from an attachment-based perspective.

Before conducting this study I had hoped to be able to explain that same instinctive process of

integration, and hope that this goal has been met.

Summary

This chapter began with an overview of methods used to conduct the research. Research

findings were summarized and discussed. Aspects of the final constructed theory were related to

pertinent literature. Additional findings, as well as implications for play therapists and educators,

were described. The limitations of the study were addressed, and a personal reflection concluded

the chapter.

152
 References

Aguilar, B., Sroufe, L., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (2000). Distinguishing the early-onset/

persistent and adolescence-onset antisocial behavior types: From birth to 16 years.

Development and psychopathology, 12, 109-132.

Ainsworth, M. (1967). Infancy in Uganda. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ainsworth, M., & Wittig, B. (1969). Attachment and the exploratory behavior of one-year-olds

in a strange situation. In B. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behavior, 4. London:

Methuen, 113-136.

Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A

psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Association for Play Therapy. (2012). Play therapy best practices. Retrieved October 18, 2014

from http://www.a4pt.org/?page=Research

Association for Play Therapy (2014a). Why play therapy? [Brochure]. Association for Play

Therapy: Author.

Association for Play Therapy (2014b). Play therapy defined. Retrieved from

http://www.a4pt.org/ps.playtherapy.cfm

Association for Play Therapy (2014c). RPT/S credentialing guide: Registered play therapist (rpt)

& supervisor (rpt-s).

Axline, V. (1969). Play therapy. New York, NY: Random House.

Bates, J., Bayles, K., Bennett, D., Ridge, B., & Brown, M. (1991). Origins of externalizing

behavior problems at eight years of age. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The

development and treatment of childhood aggression (93-120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

153
Bates, J., Maslin, C., & Frankel, K. (1985). Attachment security, mother-child interaction, and

temperament as predictors of behavior problem ratings at age three years. In I.

Bretherton, & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research.

Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209),

167-193.

Belsky, J., & Fearon, R. (2002). Infant-mother attachment security, contextual risk, and early

development: A moderational analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 293-310.

Benedict, E. (2006). Object relations play therapy: Applications to attachment problems and

relational trauma. In C. Schaefer, & H. Kaduson (Eds.). Contemporary play

therapy: Theory, research, and practice (3-27). New York: Guilford Press.

Booth, P., & Jernberg, A. (2010). Theraplay: Helping parents and children build better

relationships through attachment-based play. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their character and home-life. International

Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 19-52.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of Psycho-

Analysis, 39, 350-373.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2: Separation, anxiety and anger. New York, NY:

Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development.

New York: Basic Books.

154
Bratton, S., & Landreth, G. (1995). Filial therapy with single parents: Effects on parental

acceptance, empathy, and stress. International Journal of Play Therapy 4 (1), 61-80.

doi:10.1037/h0089142

Bratton, S., Landreth, G., Kellam, T., & Blackard, S. (2006). Child parent relationship therapy

(cprt) treatment manual: A 10 session filial therapy model for training parents. New

York: Taylor & Francis.

Bratton, S., Ray, D., Rhine, T., & Jones, L. (2005). The efficacy of play therapy with children:

A meta-analytic review of treatment outcomes. Professional Psychology: Research

and Practice, 36 (4), 376-390. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.4.376

Brisch, K. (2011). Treating attachment disorders: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). New York:

Guilford.

Brody, V. (1978). Developmental play: A relationship-focused program for children. Child

Welfare, LVII (9), 591-599.

Brody, V. (1992). The dialogue of touch: Developmental play therapy. International Journal of

Play Therapy, 1, 21-30.

Brown, S. & Vaughan, C. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and

invigorates the soul. New York, NY: Penguin.

Carlson, E. (1998). A prospective longitudinal study of attachment disorganization/

disorientation. Child Development, 59, 121-134.

Cassidy, J. (2008). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of

attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 3-22). New York, NY:

Guilford.

155
Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, Research, and

Clinical Applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Langenhove (Eds.),

Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27-65). London: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin, &

Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-535). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2012). Grounded theory coding [PDF document]. Retrieved from

http://www.sparc.tcd.ie/generations/assets/pdf/KCharmaz_HANDOUTS-

Coding_Workshop-Trinity.pdf

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cochran, J., Cochran, N., Nordling, W., McAdam, A., & Miller, D. (2010). Monitoring two

boys’ processes through the stages of child-centered play therapy. International Journal

of Play Therapy, 19(2), 106-116.

Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., Marvin, R., & Powell, B. (1998). The circle of security: Caregiver

attending to the child’s needs. Retrieved from: www.circleofsecurity.org

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of

favoured races in the struggle for life (1st ed.). London: John Murray.

156
Deklyen & Greenberg, (2008). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In J. Cassidy, &

P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications

(2nd ed., pp. 637-665). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Drewes, A. (2006). Play-based interventions. Journal of Early Childhood and Infant Psychology,

2, 139- 156.

Dugan, E., Swanson, K., & Short, E. (2011, December). Play therapy caregiver consultations.

Play Therapy, 6 (4), 22-25. Retrieved from

http://www.mlppubsonline.com/display_article.php?id=887091

Evans, A., Elford, J., & Wiggins, D. (2008). Using the internet for qualitative research. In C.

Willig & R. Stainton (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research in

psychology (pp. 315-333). London, UK: Sage.

Fagot, B., & Kavanaugh, K. (1990). The prediction of antisocial behavior from avoidant

attachment classifications. Child Development, 61, 864-873.

Freud, S. (1909). Analysis of a phobia in a five year old boy. London: Hogarth Press.

Froehle, T., & Rominger, R. (1993). Directions in consultation research: Bridging the gap

between science and practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 693–699.

George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). The attachment interview for adults. Unpublished

manuscript, University of California, Berkley.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Glazer, H., & Stein, D. (2010). Qualitative research and its role in play therapy research.

International Journal of Play Therapy, 19(1), 54-61.

Goldberg, S., Lojkasek, M., Minde, K., & Corter, C. (1990). Predictions of behavior problems in

157
 children born prematurely. Development and Psychopathology, 1, 15-30.

Grossman, K., Grossman, K, Kindler, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2008). A wider view of

attachment and exploration: The influence of mothers and fathers on the development of

psychological security from infancy to young adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp.

857-879). New York, NY: Guilford.

Grossman, K., Grossman, K., & Waters, E. (2005). Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The

major longitudinal studies. New York, NY: Guilford.

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment

with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59-82. DOI:

10.1177/1525822X05279903.

Guldberg, K., & Mackness, J. (2009). Foundations of communities of practice: Enablers and

barriers to participation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(6), 528-538.

Harlow, H. (1960). Primary affectional patterns in primates. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 30 (4), 676-684. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1960.tb02085.x

Haslam, D., & Harris, S. (2011). Integrating play and family therapy methods: A survey of play

therapists’ attitudes in the field. International Journal of Play Therapy, 20(2), 51-65.

doi: 10.1037/

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment

process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.

Hua Liu, C., & Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism and its criticisms

examined. International Education Journal, 6(5), 386-399.

158
Johnson, S., & Whiffen, V. (2003). Attachment processes in couple and family therapy. New

York, NY: Guilford.

Kottman, T. (2011). Play therapy: Basics and beyond (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American

Counseling Association.

Kuzel, A. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing

qualitative research (31-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lambert, S., LeBlanc, M., Mullen, J., Ray, D., Baggerly, J., White, J., & Kaplan, D. (2007).

Learning more about those who play in session: The national play therapy in counseling

practices project (phase 1). Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 42- 46.

Landreth, G. (2012). Play therapy: The art of the relationship (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor

& Francis.

Landreth, G., & Bratton, S. (2006). Child parent relationship therapy (cprt): A 10 session filial

therapy model. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Leblanc, M., & Ritchie, M. (2001). A meta-analysis of play therapy outcomes. Counseling

Psychology Quarterly, 14(2), 149-163.

Levy, T., & Orlans, M. (1998). Attachment, trauma, and healing: Understanding and treating

attachment disorder in children and families. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League

of America, Inc.

Lewis, M., Feiring, C., McGuffog, C., & Jaskir, J. (1984). Predicting psychopathology in six-

year-olds from early social relations. Child Development, 55, 123-136.

Lorenz, K. (1935). The companion in the bird’s world: The fellow-member of the species as

releasing factor of social behavior. Journal für Ornithologie, 83, 137-213.

doi:10.1007/BF01905355

159
Lowenfeld, M. (1950). The nature and use of the Lowenfeld world technique in work with

children and adults. Journal of Psychology, 30, 325-331.

Mahler, M., & Furer, M. (1968). On human symbiosis and the vicissitudes of individuation. New

York: International Universities Press.

Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1985). Adult attachment interview: Scoring and classification

manual. Unpublished manual, Department of Psychology, University of California,

Berkeley.

Main, M. & Soloman, J. (1990). Procedure for identifying infants disorganized/disoriented

during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. Greenburg, D. Cicchetti, & E.

Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention

(pp. 95-124). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Malchiodi, C. (2005). Expressive therapies: history, theory, and practice. In C. Malchiodi

(Ed.), Expressive Therapies (pp. 1-15). New York: The Guilford Press.

Marschak, M. (1960). A method for evaluating child-parent interactions under controlled

conditions. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 97, 3-22.

Martin, E. (2005). Intergenerational patterns of attachment: A prediction of attachment styles

across three generations using the adult scale of parental attachment and the marschak

interaction method rating system. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi,

2005). Dissertation Abstracts International.

Martin, E., Snow, M.S., Sullivan, K. (2008). Patterns of relating between mothers and preschool-

aged children. Early Child Development and Care 178(3), 305-314.

160
Martin, E. (2007). Understanding intergenerational attachment disorders: The use of filial

therapy and child parent relationship therapy when treating insecure attachment styles.

Retrieved from http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas07/Martin.htm

Mayan, M. (2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Mills, J., Bonner, A., & Francis, K. (2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory.

International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1), 1-10.

Morisset, C., Barnard, K., Greenberg, M., Booth, C., & Speiker, S. (1990). Environmental

influences on early language development: The context of social risk. Development and

Psychopathology, 2, 127-149.

Moustakas, C. (1955). Emotional adjustment and the play therapy process. Journal of Genetic

Psychology, 86, 79-99.

Moustakas, C. (1973). Children in play therapy. New York: Jason Aronson.

Munns, E. (2003). Theraplay: Attachment enhancing play therapy. In C. Schaefer (Ed.),

Foundations of play therapy (156-174). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Neswald-McCalip, R. (2001). Development of the secure counselor: Case examples supporting

pistole and watkins’s (1995) discussion of attachment theory in counseling supervision.

Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 18-27.

Nordling, W. J., & Guerney, L. F. (1999). Typical stages in the child-centered play therapy

process. Journal for the Professional Counselor, 14, 17–23.

Oaklander, V. (1992). Windows to our children: A Gestalt approach to children and adolescents.

New York, NY: Gestalt Journal Press (Original work published 1978).

O’Connor, K., & Braverman, L. (1997). Play therapy theory and practice: A comparative

presentation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

161
O’Connor, K. (2000). The play therapy primer (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

O’Connor, K. (2009). Ecosystemic play therapy. In K. O’Connor & L. Braverman (Eds.), Play

therapy theory and practice: Comparing theories and techniques (2nd ed., 367-450). New

York, NY: Wiley.

Ogawa, J., Sroufe, L., Weinfeld, N., Carlson, E., & Egeland, B. (1997). Development and the

fragmented self: Longitudinal study of dissociative symptomatology in a nonclinical

sample. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 855-879.

Parker, J. (2012). Factors associated with play therapists’ use of family-systems play

therapy interventions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

http://scholarworks.uno.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2628&context=td

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity—one’s own [PDF document]. Retrieved from

http://h1213.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/58510211/

Peshkin%20Article%20-%20Subjectivity-1%20copy.pdf

Phillips, R. & Landreth, G. (1995). Play therapists on play therapy: I. A report of methods,

demographics and professional practices. International Journal of Play Therapy, 4 (1),

1-26.

Phillips, R. & Landreth, G. (1998). Play therapists on play therapy: II. Clinical issues in play

therapy. International Journal of Play Therapy, 6 (2), 1- 24.

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitations in childhood. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pietromonaco, P., Uchino, B., & Schetter, C. (2013). Close relationship processes and health:

Implications of attachment theory for health and disease. Health Psychology, 32 (5), 499-

513. doi:10.1037/a0029349

162
Proctor, E. (2004). Leverage points for the implementation of evidence-based practice. Brief

Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4, 227–242.

Ray, D. (2011). Advanced play therapy: Essential conditions, knowledge, and skills for clinical

practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

Redlich-Amirav, D., & Higginbottom, G. (2014). New emerging technologies in qualitative

research. The Qualitative Report, 19, 1-14.

Renken, B., Egeland, B., Marvinney, D., Mangelsdorf, S., & Sroufe, L. (1989). Early childhood

antecedents of aggression and passive-withdrawal in early elementary school. Journal of

Personality, 57, 257-281.

Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to

psychiatric disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598-611.

Rutter, M. (1987). Clinical implications of attachment concepts: Retrospect and prospect. In

L. Atkinson & K. Zucker (Eds.), Attachment and psychopathology (pp. 17-46). New

York: Guilford.

Ryan,V. & Bratton, S. (2008). Child-centered/non-directive play therapy for very young

children. In C. Schaefer, J. Kelly-Zion, & J. McCormick & A. Ohnogi (Eds.), Play

therapy for very young children. Maryland, USA: Rowman and Littlefield.

Ryan, S., Gomery, T., & Lacasse, J. (2002). Who are we? Examining the results of the

association for play therapy membership survey. International Journal of Play Therapy,

11(2), 11-41.

Schaefer, C. (Ed.). (2003a). Foundations of play therapy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Schaefer, C. (Ed.). (2003b). Play therapy with adults. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Snow, M., Sullivan, K., Martin, E., & Helm, H. (submitted). The Adult Scale of

163
 Attachment Psychometric Properties, Factor Analysis and Multidimensional

Scaling. Attachment & Human Development.

Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). Attachment disorganization. New York: Guilford.

Steen, L. (2010). Parent consultations: Beyond engagement. Association for Play Therapy

October Mining Report. Published October 10, 2010. Retrieved from http://a4pt.site-

ym.com/?page=MiningReportArchives

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suri, R. (2012). Sandplay: an adjunctive therapy to working with dementia. International

Journal of Play Therapy, 21 (3), 117-130.

Thomson, S. (2011). Sample size and grounded theory [PDF document]. Retrieved from

http://www.joaag.com/uploads/5_1__Research_Note_1_Thomson.pdf

Turner, B. (2005). The handbook of sandplay therapy. Cloverdale, CA: Temenos Press.

Trawick-Smith, J. (2013). Early childhood development: A multicultural perspective (6th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Urquiza, A., & Timmer, S. (2012). Parent-child interaction therapy: Enhancing parent-child

relationships. Psychosocial Intervention, 21 (2), 145-156.

VanFleet, R. (2014). Filial therapy: Strengthening parent-child relationships through play (3rd

ed.). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Voprosy

Psikhologii, 12, 6-18.

Vygostsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press.

Warren, E., Huston, L., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. (1997). Child and adolescent anxiety disorders

and early attachment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

164
 Psychiatry, 36, 637-644.

Wettig, H., Franke, U., & Fjordbak, B. (2006). Evaluating the effectiveness of theraplay. In

C. Schaefer & H. Kaduson (Eds.). Contemporary play therapy: Theory, research, and

practice (103-135). New York: Guilford.

Whelan, W., & Stewart, A. (2015). Attachment security as a framework in play therapy. In

D. Crenshaw & A. Stewart (Eds.). Play therapy: A comprehensive guide to theory and

practice (114-128). New York: Guilford.

Wiger, D. (2009). The clinical documentation sourcebook (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Winnicott, D. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in

the theory of emotional development. New York: International Universities Press.

Yasenik, L. & Gardner, K. (2012). Play therapy dimensions model: A decision-making guide for

integrative play therapists. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Yeh, C., & Inman, A. (2007). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation in counseling

psychology: Strategies for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 369-403.

Zilberstein, K. & Messer, E. (2010). Building a secure base: Treatment of a child with

disorganized attachment. Clinical Social Work Journal, 38, 85- 97.

Zilcha-Mano, S., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2011). Pet in the therapy room: An attachment

perspective on animal-assisted therapy. Attachment and Human Development, 13 (6),

541-561. doi:10.1080/14616734.2011.608987

165
 APPENDIX A

Semi-Structured Interview Guide

Background/ Knowledge:

What is your background in learning Attachment Theory?

What trainings, if any, have you had in Attachment Theory?

What value do you place, if any, on the importance of incorporating Attachment Theory

within your clinical practice?

Integrating Attachment Theory:

Describe how you integrate Attachment Theory within your clinical practice.

Define the stages of integration of Attachment Theory within your clinical practice.

Describe what occurs within each stage of integration you identified.

Describe your decision-making process in applying your knowledge of Attachment

Theory within your clinical practice. For example: What indications, if any, do

you look for to decide whether or not to approach a client or family from an

attachment-based perspective?

Please provide a case example of a time you incorporated Attachment Theory within

your clinical practice.

Barriers to Integration

What barriers, if any, have you encountered, or do you imagine other clinicians may

encounter, to integrating Attachment Theory within clinical practice?

166
 APPENDIX B

Hello APT member,

My name is Karen Swanson Taheri and I am a doctoral candidate in Counselor Education under the
direction of Professor Barbara Herlihy in the Department of Educational Leadership, Counseling,
& Foundations at the University of New Orleans.

I am requesting your participation in my dissertation study titled How Play Therapists Integrate Knowledge of
Attachment Theory Into Clinical Practice: A Grounded Theory. The purpose of this study is to decipher the
decision-making process used by play therapists in their clinical work with children and families from an attachment
theoretical perspective and to generate a framework to describe the integration process that may serve as a guide for
play therapists and families. The only criteria for participating in the screening survey is membership in the
Association for Play Therapy. I developed this screening survey (adapted from Parker’s (2012) Play Therapists
Decision-Making Inventory-R) specifically for the purpose of screening participants for my qualitative dissertation.
Through the survey, I am asking play therapists to respond to questions about their demographic information and
training in and use of Attachment Theory within their clinical practice.

At the end of the screening survey (the final question), you will have an opportunity to enter your e-mail address if
you are willing to participate in an initial qualitative interview. The initial interview will be scheduled through e-
mail, will be conducted via videoconferencing technology (such as Skype or iPhone Facetime), will be audio
recorded for transcription and data analysis purposes, will last approximately 45 minutes, and will consist of a series
of semi-structured interview questions regarding your background education and perceptions about Attachment
Theory, as well as your decision-making process for incorporating knowledge of Attachment Theory into your
clinical practice. A more brief, follow up interview will be requested which will last approximately 15 minutes. The
intent of the follow up interview is for the researcher to clarify any questions from the initial interview and for
participants to provide additional information pertinent to the research. Additional brief interviews may be requested
if further information or clarification is needed to complete the research. Participants will be provided with the final
theoretical framework generated that describes play therapists’ integration of Attachment Theory within their
clinical practice.

My hope is that the information obtained from this research will provide valuable information regarding use of
attachment theory within play therapy clinical practice for members of the Association for Play Therapy and that the
resulting framework may be of use to educators, clinicians, and families.

Possible benefits of participating in the study are that you may become increasingly aware of your own practice
patterns and values regarding the use of Attachment Theory within your clinical practice. A possible risk of
participating in the study is that you may become fatigued as the study requires an initial lengthy interview
(approximately 45 minutes) and a minimum of one follow up interview. Another potential discomfort, or risk, of
participating in the study is that you may experience frustration in the event that any technological difficulties occur.

Your participation in this study is voluntary at all times. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the
study at any time, there will be no penalty. The results of the research study will be provided to participants, may be
re-analyzed for future research, and may be published, but your name will not be used. The questionnaire is
anonymous.
Follow this link to the Survey:(enter link)
Or copy and paste the URL into your internet browser: (enter URL)

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call Dr. Herlihy at (504) 280-6661 or myself at
(512) 771-1018.Thank you for your time, consideration, and interest in this study!

Karen Swanson Taheri, LPC, Registered Play Therapist

Doctoral Candidate
The University of New Orleans

167
 APPENDIX C

Play Therapists’ Demographics, Education, and Use of Attachment Theory

Q1 Sex
Male (1)
Female (2)

Q2 Age

Q3 Ethnicity
African American (1)
Asian American (2)
Caucasian (3)
Hispanic (4)
Native American (5)
Middle Eastern (6)
Pacific Islander (7)
Other (8) ____________________

Q4 Current Credentials (Please check all that apply)

Counselor Intern (CI) (1)
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT) (2)
Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) (3)
Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) (4)
National Certified Counselor (NCC) (5)
National Certified School Counselor (NCSC) (6)
Registered Play Therapist (RPT) (7)
Registered Play Therapist Supervisor (RPT-S) (8)
School Psychologist (9)
Psychologist (10)
Psychiatric Nurse (11)
Other (12)

Q5 How many years of experience do you have in providing play therapy services?
None (1)
1 – 5 years (2)
5 – 7 years (3)
8 – 10 years (4)
10 – 15 years (5)
16 – 20 years (6)
21 – 30 years (7)
over 30 years (8)

Q6 In what setting do you primarily provide play therapy?

Agency (1)

168
Private Practice (2)
School (3)
University (4)
Hospital (5)
Other (6)

Q7 When providing play therapy, what theoretical orientation do you use most often?
Child-Centered (1)
Jungian (2)
Adlerian (3)
Cognitive- Behavioral (4)
Ecosystemic (5)
Psychodynamic (6)
Object Relations (7)
Gestalt (8)
Prescriptive (9)
Unsure of theoretical orientation (10)
Other (11)

Q8 Primarily, what ages are the clients to whom you provide play therapy services?
0-5 (1)
6-10 (2)
11-15 (3)
16-20 (4)
21-25 (5)
Other (6)

Q9 How many clock hours of education in Attachment Theory have you received? (Ex: an entire
graduate-level course devoted to Attachment Theory alone may provide approximately 30 hours
of education, whereas a single 3-hour workshop, or 3 hours of a class lecture, would provide 3
clock hours of education).
None (1)
1-3 (2)
3-9 (3)
9-18 (4)
18-24 (5)
24-36 (6)
more than 36 (7)

Q10 How often do you incorporate your knowledge of Attachment Theory into your play therapy
clinical practice and/or treatment planning process?
(1= Never; 2= Rarely; 3= Sometimes; 4= Often; 5= Almost Always)
1 (1)
2 (2)
3 (3)
4 (4)

169
5 (5)

Q11 In what state do you currently practice?

Q12 If you are interested in participating in the interview portions of this research study, please
provide your e-mail address. Providing your e-mail address here serves as consent for a
researcher to contact you via e-mail to initiate an initial interview, which will be conducted via
videoconferencing (Skype of iPhone Facetime), will be audio recorded for transcription and data
analysis purposes, and will last approximately 45 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. You
may withdraw your participation at any time without penalty. Providing your e-mail does not
ensure that you will be contacted.

170
 APPENDIX D

IRB Exemption Letter

171
 APPENDIX E
Hello APT member,

My name is Karen Swanson Taheri and I am a doctoral candidate in Counselor Education under the
direction of Professor Barbara Herlihy in the Department of Educational Leadership, Counseling,
& Foundations at the University of New Orleans.

You are receiving this e-mail because you provided your e-mail in response to the final question on the screening
survey for my dissertation study titled How Play Therapists Integrate Knowledge of Attachment Theory Into
Clinical Practice: A Grounded Theory. You have been selected to participate within the research study.

The purpose of this study is to decipher the decision-making process used by play therapists in their clinical work
with children and families from an attachment theoretical perspective and to generate a framework to describe the
integration process. The hope is that the generated framework may serve as a guide for educators, play therapists,
and families.

Participation in the study involves an initial interview (that will last approximately 45 minutes), and a minimum of
one additional follow-up interview will be requested (that will last approximately 15 minutes). Additional brief
interviews (10 to 15 minutes) may be requested if further clarification or information for the research study is
needed. Each of the interviews will be conducted via videoconferencing technology (such as Skype or iPhone
Facetime) and will be audio recorded for transcription and data analysis purposes.

My hope is that the information obtained from this research will provide valuable information regarding use of
Attachment Theory within the clinical practice of play therapy for members of the Association for Play Therapy that
may be of use to educators, clinicians, and families.

Possible benefits of participating in the study are that you may become increasingly aware of your own practice
patterns and values regarding the use of attachment theory within your clinical practice. A possible risk of
participating in the study is that you may become fatigued as the study requires an initial lengthy interview
(approximately 45 minutes) and a minimum of one follow up interview. Another potential discomfort, or risk, of
participating in the study is that you may experience frustration in the event that any technological difficulties occur.

The results of this research study and data obtained may be re-analyzed for future research, will be provided to
participants, and may be published but your name will not be used. Your participation in this study is voluntary
at all times. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, there will be no penalty.

Response to this e-mail to schedule an initial interview indicates your consent to participate within this
research study and to be audio recorded during interviews for research purposes. The audio recordings will be
deleted once transcription has occurred. The interviewer will transcribe the interview as soon as possible once the
interview has been completed.

I will use videoconferencing technology in a secure and private place to conduct interviews. I recommend that you
do the same to reduce the risk of a break in your confidentiality. If you have a preference for a type of
videoconferencing program that you would like to use other than Skype or iPhone Facetime, please notify me of
your preference and I will do my best to make the necessary accommodations.
If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call Dr. Herlihy at (504) 280-6661 or myself at
(512) 771-1018. Upon completion of my dissertation I will provide you with a copy of the final theoretical
framework generated.
To schedule your initial interview please reply to this e-mail with dates/times that will work best for you
within the next three to four weeks.

Thank you for your time,

Karen Swanson Taheri
Doctoral Candidate
The University of New Orleans

172
 APPENDIX F

Dear APT member,

My name is Karen Swanson Taheri and I am a doctoral candidate in Counselor Education under the
direction of Professor Barbara Herlihy in the Department of Educational Leadership, Counseling,
& Foundations at the University of New Orleans.

You are receiving this e-mail because you provided your e-mail in response to the final question on the screening
survey for my dissertation study titled How Play Therapists Integrate Knowledge of Attachment Theory Into
Clinical Practice: A Grounded Theory. You have not been selected to participate within the research study. I really
appreciate you taking the time to complete the screening survey!

Upon completion of my dissertation I will provide you with a copy of the final theoretical framework generated.

Best Wishes,

Karen Swanson Taheri

Doctoral Candidate
The University of New Orleans

173
 APPENDIX G

Example Memo
February 17, 2015

This participant has an interesting contribution to the study as her agency she works in

typically works with children in the foster care system who have experienced trauma. One of the

questions that has sort of lingered in the back of my mind from the initial three interviews was

the idea of the therapist being/serving as a temporary attachment figure for the child. A couple of

participants used the language ‘transfer’ to describe the termination process and the transferring

of their relationship or attachment bond to a more stable/permanent individual in the child’s life

as part of that process. This participant was able to describe how she sees her role in working

with children that she may not necessarily get to transfer that relationship for. She used the word

‘vessel’ to describe herself. She also spoke about how she does not think the goal is for the child

to attach to her, but she also recognized that she may be the only stable figure in that child’s life

for a while. At first I wasn’t quite sure whether or not she viewed the potential for an abrupt

termination as being potentially harmful to the child. On one hand she mentioned that she

thought it could cause harm, and on another she described viewing her role as being so important

that she didn’t think working with the child could cause harm, whether there was an abrupt

ending or not. It is as if she perceived the relationship itself to be so beneficial that the child’s

experiencing the relationship outweighed the possibility of an abrupt ending. She said “how do

you fill a sponge up too much?” She also mentioned that she works to generalize the relationship

but acknowledged that it’s not always possible. I’ll need to continue paying attention to the

manner in which relationships are generalized and the way endings occur within the therapeutic

relationship.

174
 APPENDIX H

Research Audit

Date Event Outcome of Event or

Memo Excerpt

12/9/14 Dissertation Proposal Defense Successfully passed proposal

12/10/14 Applied for UNO IRB Successfully submitted

approval application via e-mail

12/11/14 Received IRB approval Received approval via e-mail

1/2/15 Applied for the APT member Successfully submitted

e-mail list application via e-mail

1/4/15 Created Survey Created using Qualtrics

1/20/15 Received APT e-mail list Received via e-mail in Excel

spreadsheet format

1/21/15 Disseminated Survey Successfully disseminated

survey to 5,707 members of
the APT via e-mail

1/25/15 to 2/11/15 Screening Memo: “I’ve gotten

international participants
interested in completing
interviews; how exciting! I
hope that I am able to find a
male participant that meets
criteria to interview. All of the
willing participants who meet
the criteria are women…and
most are Caucasian and
working in private practice
from a Child-Centered
theoretical orientation.”

2/4/15 E-mailed participants to Several responses, several

schedule interviews non-responses

2/7/15 Resent the initial e-mail call to Several responses, several

participants to schedule non-responses

175
 interviews

2/5/15 to 2/24/15 Scheduled Seven Initial Scheduled via e-mail

Interviews

2/9/15 First Interview Successfully completed

interview using iPhone
FaceTime

2/10/15 Re-emailed participants that Successfully sent via e-mail

had not responded

2/11/15 Second Interview Some technology difficulties;

completed interview via
iPhone FaceTime for first
portion of interview and audio
only for latter portion

Memo: “The idea of

establishing safety was a very
prominent theme.”

2/11/15 Transcribed First Interview Transcribed using Microsoft

Word

Memo: “Caregivers acting as

barriers to the integration
process; I wonder if this will
be a theme with other
participants too.”

2/15/15 Transcribed Second Interview Transcribed using Microsoft

Word

Memo: “Caregivers as a
barrier to integration came up
again.”

2/16/15 – 3/2/15 Coding transcripts and Hand-coding/ Linked Core

Linking of Categories Categories

2/16/15 E-mailed member check to Successfully sent to

first participant participant via e-mail;
participant approved

176
2/17/15 Third Interview Successfully completed
Interview 3 using Skype

Memo: “The idea of an

‘attachment experience’ really
fits well with what I’ve been
hearing other participants say
about the therapeutic
relationship they create.”

2/17/15 Fourth Interview Successfully completed

interview 4 using audio only
at participant’s request

Memo: “Creating safety,

generalizing skills, engaging
caregivers, caregivers as
barriers, funding barriers,
taking risks”

2/18/15 Fifth Interview Successfully completed

interview 4 using iPhone
FaceTime

Memo: “Pre-mature
termination causing harm and
working to avoid that harm;
creating safety. This is
something I’ve come up
against in my own practice. I
agree that it can be
‘heartbreaking’ when
caregivers pull their child
from therapy without a proper
goodbye.”

2/19/15 Follow Up Interview 1 Successfully completed

2/19/15 Transcribed Third Interview Transcribed using Microsoft

Word

2/19/15 Transcribed Fourth Interview Transcribed using Microsoft

Word

2/20/15 Transcribed Fifth Interview Transcribed using Microsoft

Word

177
2/21/15 Sixth Interview iPhone voice only

Memo: “Neuroscience and

attachment/ using a brain
model; teaching self-nurture to
caregivers”

2/22/15 Seventh Interview iPhone voice only

Memo: “Tailoring
interventions and meeting
clients where they’re at;
assessing from beginning and
conceptualizing”

2/23/15 Emailed member check to Successfully sent to

second participant participant via e-mail;
participant approved

2/23/15 Emailed member check to Successfully sent to

third participant participant via e-mail;
participant approved

2/23/15 Emailed member check to Successfully sent to

fourth participant participant via e-mail;
participant approved

2/23/15 Emailed member check to Successfully sent to

fifth participant participant via e-mail;
participant approved

2/23/15 Transcribed Sixth Interview Transcribed using Microsoft

Word

2/23/15 Transcribed Seventh Interview Transcribed using Microsoft

Word

2/24/15 Emailed member check to Successfully sent to

sixth participant participant via e-mail;
participant approved

2/24/15 Follow Up Interview 2 iPhone voice only

2/24/15 Follow Up Interview 3 iPhone voice only

178
2/25/15 Follow Up Interview 4 iPhone FaceTime

2/25/15 Emailed member check to Successfully sent to

seventh participant participant via e-mail;
participant approved

3/1/15 Follow Up Interview 5 iPhone voice only

3/1/15 Follow Up Interview 6 iPhone voice only

3/1/15 Transcribed Follow Up Transcribed using Microsoft

Interview 1 Word

3/1/15 Transcribed Follow Up Transcribed using Microsoft

Interview 2 Word

3/1/15 Transcribed Follow Up Transcribed using Microsoft

Interview 3 Word

3/1/15 Transcribed Follow Up Transcribed using Microsoft

Interview 4 Word

3/2/15 Transcribed Follow Up Transcribed using Microsoft

Interview 5 Word

3/2/15 Transcribed Follow Up Transcribed using Microsoft

Interview 6 Word

179
 VITA

Karen Swanson Taheri grew up in Southeast Texas. She obtained her Bachelor of

Journalism degree with a focus in Photography from the University of Texas at Austin in 2006.

She graduated in 2009 with a Master of Arts degree in Counseling from the University of Texas

at San Antonio. Karen is a Registered Play Therapist and a Licensed Professional Counselor. She

specializes in providing services to children and their families and looks forward to supervising

and educating future clinicians and play therapists.

180