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

Author:

Coleman Oonagh1ORCID,Baldwin Jessie R.12ORCID,Dalgleish Tim34ORCID,Rose‐Clarke Kelly5ORCID,Widom Cathy Spatz67ORCID,Danese Andrea189ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience King's College London London UK

2. Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology University College London London UK

3. Medical Research Council Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit University of Cambridge Cambridge UK

4. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust Fulbourn UK

5. Institute for Global Health University College London London UK

6. Psychology Department, John Jay College City University of New York New York NY USA

7. Graduate Center City University of New York New York NY USA

8. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience King's College London London UK

9. National and Specialist CAMHS Clinic for Trauma, Anxiety, and Depression South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust London UK

Abstract

BackgroundChildhood 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.MethodsIn this review, we draw on multi‐disciplinary research and present an integrated framework to explain maltreatment measurement disagreement.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsA 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.

Funder

UK Research and Innovation

National Institute of Justice

National Institute on Aging

NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre

Medical Research Council

NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre

Mental Health Research UK

Wellcome Trust

National Institute of Mental Health

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3