Research Review: Why do prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment differ? A narrative review

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 - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85201304919

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 -