AAS量表的说明翻译，急求！！！

Question

请大家翻译一下以下文字，请用心理学的专业术语，非常急需，谢谢！
2. A general description of later revisions to this measure is provided by Collins (1996) but she does not provide enough detail for the revised measure to be presented here.
Factor analysis of the results led to the emergence of three main factors which were interpreted by the authors as capacity to be close (close); capacity to depend on others (depend); and anxiety over relationships (anxiety). Of these dimensions, the close and depend dimensions correlated fairly closely (r = 0.41, N = 406). Examination of the questionnaire components that had contributed to each of these factors indicated that the depend and close factors contained items drawn from the secure and avoidant attachment style descriptions whilst the anxious factor contained items drawn from the secure and anxious/ambivalent descriptions.
Collins and Read undertook an extensive statistical analysis of the data they gathered, in order to investigate the relative merits of viewing attachment style as dimensions or nominal categories. To investigate the dimensional perspective, they used a discriminant analysis technique and identified two significant discriminant functions. The first distinguished the avoidant from the secure and anxious styles and the second distinguished the anxious from the secure and avoidant styles. Using this technique to reclassify subjects based on questionnaire item scores resulted in 73% of the sample being correctly classified.
To check for descrete classifications, they used cluster analysis. A technique to determine the optimum number of clusters indicated that either three or four clusters should be used. Collins and Read opted for a three cluster solution and found the characteristics of the resulting clusters corresponded well with Hazan and Shaver's three categories of attachment.
Even though their three dimensional factors (close, depend and anxiety) did not directly correspond well to any existing categorical or dimensional models of attachment theory, Collins and Read concluded that “we believe the dimensions measured by the Adult Attachment Scale capture much of the core structures that are thought to underly differences in attachment styles.” (p. 650).
Note that later researchers have criticised Collins and Read's three dimensions on the grounds that they do not conform to either the three- or the four-style classification systems. Only the anxiety dimension was as expected (corresponding to anxious/ambivalent) whilst the close and depend dimensions (which were correlated) apparently represented two different measures of avoidance (Carver, 1997)
Reported reliability scores from other studies using this instrument have been moderate (Chongruska, 1994; Sperling, Foelsch & Grace, 1996) and the latter authors also found convergent validity between this measure and their own Attachment Style Inventory (Sperling & Berman, 1991).
或者请大家去这个网站看;http://www.richardatkins.co.uk/atws/page/43.html

Answer 1

2 。的一般说明修改后采取这一措施是由柯林斯（ 1996年） ，但她没有提供足够详细的修改措施将提交这里。
因素分析结果导致出现三个主要的因素，并解释了作者的能力将关闭（关闭） ;能力取决于其他人（取决于） ;和焦虑的关系（焦虑） 。这些层面密切相关，取决于层面相当密切（注册商标= 0.41 ，氮= 406 ） 。考试问卷组成部分，有助于所有这些因素表明，依靠和密切因素载项目从安全和回避型依恋风格的描述，而焦虑因子载项目从安全和焦虑/矛盾的说明。
柯林斯和阅读进行了广泛的统计分析的数据收集，以便调查的相对优点观景器风格层面或名义类别。为了探讨三维角度看，他们使用了一种判别分析技术，并确定了两个重要的判别函数。第一个杰出的回避由安全和焦虑的风格和杰出的第二急于从安全和回避风格。使用这种技术的基础上改科目问卷项目分数导致73 ％的样本被正确归类。
若要检查离散分类，他们用聚类分析。的技术，以确定最佳的若干集群表示，就是三或四组应使用。柯林斯和阅读选择了三个集群解决方案，发现的特点，所产生的集群通信与Hazan和剃须刀的三种类型的附件。
尽管他们的三维因素（关闭，取决于和焦虑）没有直接对应以及任何明确的或现有的三维模型的依恋理论，柯林斯和阅读的结论是， “我们相信，尺寸测量的成人依恋量表捕获的大部分核心结构，被认为是underly不同依恋类型。 “ （第650 ） 。
请注意，后来的研究人员批评柯林斯和阅读的三个方面的理由是，它们不符合或者三年或四年的风格分类系统。只有焦虑的方面是预期（相当于焦虑/矛盾）而关闭，取决于尺寸（其中相关）显然是代表两个不同的措施，避免（ 1.3666 ， 1997年）
报告的可靠性分数由其他研究使用此仪器已中度（ Chongruska ， 1994年;斯珀林， Foelsch与格蕾丝， 1996年） ，后者的作者还发现收敛有效性这一措施之间以及他们自己的依恋风格量表（斯珀林＆伯曼， 1991年） 。