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

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES Child Abuse & Neglect Pub Date : 2024-10-03 DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.107070
Oonagh Coleman , Jessie R. Baldwin , Terrie E. Moffitt , Louise Arseneault , Helen L. Fisher , Kelly Rose-Clarke , Andrea Danese
{"title":"Why do prospective and retrospective measures of childhood maltreatment differ? Qualitative analyses in a cohort study","authors":"Oonagh Coleman ,&nbsp;Jessie R. Baldwin ,&nbsp;Terrie E. Moffitt ,&nbsp;Louise Arseneault ,&nbsp;Helen L. Fisher ,&nbsp;Kelly Rose-Clarke ,&nbsp;Andrea Danese","doi":"10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.107070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Research indicates that prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment often identify different groups of individuals, yet the reasons for these discrepancies remain understudied.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study explores potential sources of disagreement between prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment, utilising qualitative data from interviewers' notes.</div></div><div><h3>Participants and setting</h3><div>The 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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We 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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Three 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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our 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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51343,"journal":{"name":"Child Abuse & Neglect","volume":"157 ","pages":"Article 107070"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Abuse & Neglect","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213424004605","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Research indicates that prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment often identify different groups of individuals, yet the reasons for these discrepancies remain understudied.

Objective

This study explores potential sources of disagreement between prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment, utilising qualitative data from interviewers' notes.

Participants and setting

The 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Three 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.

Conclusions

Our 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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿童虐待的前瞻性和回顾性衡量标准为何不同?一项队列研究的定性分析。
背景:研究表明,对虐待的前瞻性和回顾性测量通常会识别出不同的个人群体,但造成这些差异的原因仍未得到充分研究:本研究利用访谈者笔记中的定性数据,探讨了虐待的前瞻性测量和回顾性测量之间出现分歧的潜在原因:环境风险纵向双胞胎研究包括对 2232 名 5-18 岁儿童的跟踪调查。前瞻性测量依赖于 5-12 岁期间对照顾者的访谈和研究人员的观察,而回顾性测量则涉及 18 岁时通过儿童创伤问卷进行的自我报告:我们有目的性地抽取了 36 名参与者("新报告 "组)和 31 名参与者("遗漏报告 "组)的书面访谈记录,前者回顾性报告的虐待类型多于后者("新报告 "组),后者回顾性报告的虐待类型少于后者("遗漏报告 "组)。我们对笔记进行了框架分析,对两组笔记进行了比较,以探索衡量分歧的原因:出现了三类与测量差异相关的主题:前瞻性测量的挑战,强调了 "新报告 "组给出的虐待未被发现或前瞻性响应不充分的原因;回顾性测量的挑战,强调了自我报告的开放性和准确性方面的困难;以及两组之间对暴力或令人痛苦的童年经历的评价差异,这可能会导致新的或遗漏的回顾性报告:我们的研究结果强调了前瞻性测量和回顾性测量之间存在分歧的潜在机制,有助于更好地理解这些不同的概念,并对相关研究结果做出更平衡的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
10.40%
发文量
397
期刊介绍: Official Publication of the International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect The International Journal, provides an international, multidisciplinary forum on all aspects of child abuse and neglect, with special emphasis on prevention and treatment; the scope extends further to all those aspects of life which either favor or hinder child development. While contributions will primarily be from the fields of psychology, psychiatry, social work, medicine, nursing, law enforcement, legislature, education, and anthropology, the Journal encourages the concerned lay individual and child-oriented advocate organizations to contribute.
期刊最新文献
Victimization, immigration status, and psychosocial well-being: A representative study among finnish adolescents. Factors associated with decisions to refer possible abusive head trauma to a hospital-based child protection team in Aotearoa New Zealand Predictors of mental health during young people's transition from out-of-home care in Austria The risk and protective factors, response to disclosure, and interventions for sibling sexual abuse: A systematic review. Familial sex trafficking in the United States: A scoping review guided by the Three Ps Framework to end human trafficking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1