Why do prospective and retrospective measures of childhood maltreatment differ? Qualitative analyses in a cohort study

Abstract

BackgroundResearch indicates that prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment often identify different groups of individuals, yet the reasons for these discrepancies remain understudied. ObjectiveThis study explores potential sources of disagreement between prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment, utilising qualitative data from interviewers' notes. Participants and settingThe Environmental Risk Longitudinal Twin Study includes 2232 children followed from ages 5–18. Prospective measures relied on caregiver interviews and researcher observations from ages 5–12, while retrospective measures involved self-reports via the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire at age 18. MethodsWe purposively sampled written interviewer notes from 36 participants who reported more types of maltreatment retrospectively than prospectively (‘new reports’ group) and 31 participants who reported fewer types retrospectively than prospectively (‘omitted reports’ group). We conducted a framework analysis of the notes, comparing between the two groups to explore explanations for measurement disagreement. ResultsThree categories of themes emerged related to measurement discrepancies: challenges with prospective measures, highlighting reasons given by the ‘new reports’ group for why maltreatment went undetected or was not adequately responded to prospectively; challenges with retrospective measures that highlight difficulties with openness and accuracy of self-reports; and differences in appraisals of violence or distressing childhood experiences between the two groups that might lead to new or omitted retrospective reports. ConclusionsOur findings underscore potential mechanisms underlying the disagreement between prospective and retrospective measures, contributing to better understanding of these different constructs and more balanced interpretation of related findings.