TY - JOUR
T1 - Research Review: Why do prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment differ? A narrative review
AU - Coleman, Oonagh
AU - Baldwin, Jessie
AU - Dalgleish, Tim
AU - Rose-Clarke, Kelly
AU - Widom, Cathy Spatz
AU - Danese, Andrea
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.
PY - 2024/8/16
Y1 - 2024/8/16
N2 - Background: Childhood maltreatment contributes to a large mental health burden worldwide. Different measures of childhood maltreatment are not equivalent and may capture meaningful differences. In particular, prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment identify different groups of individuals and are differentially associated with psychopathology. However, the reasons behind these discrepancies have not yet been comprehensively mapped. Methods: In this review, we draw on multi-disciplinary research and present an integrated framework to explain maltreatment measurement disagreement. Results: We identified three interrelated domains. First, methodological issues related to measurement and data collection methods. Second, the role of memory in influencing retrospective reports of maltreatment. Finally, the motivations individuals may have to disclose, withhold, or fabricate information about maltreatment. Conclusions: A greater understanding of maltreatment measurement disagreement may point to new ways to conceptualise and assess maltreatment. Furthermore, it may help uncover mechanisms underlying maltreatment-related psychopathology and targets for novel interventions.
AB - Background: Childhood maltreatment contributes to a large mental health burden worldwide. Different measures of childhood maltreatment are not equivalent and may capture meaningful differences. In particular, prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment identify different groups of individuals and are differentially associated with psychopathology. However, the reasons behind these discrepancies have not yet been comprehensively mapped. Methods: In this review, we draw on multi-disciplinary research and present an integrated framework to explain maltreatment measurement disagreement. Results: We identified three interrelated domains. First, methodological issues related to measurement and data collection methods. Second, the role of memory in influencing retrospective reports of maltreatment. Finally, the motivations individuals may have to disclose, withhold, or fabricate information about maltreatment. Conclusions: A greater understanding of maltreatment measurement disagreement may point to new ways to conceptualise and assess maltreatment. Furthermore, it may help uncover mechanisms underlying maltreatment-related psychopathology and targets for novel interventions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85201304919&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jcpp.14048
DO - 10.1111/jcpp.14048
M3 - Review article
SN - 0021-9630
VL - 65
SP - 1662
EP - 1677
JO - Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
JF - Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
IS - 12
ER -
