Marissa D Nivison, Clarissa R Filetti, Elizabeth A Carlson, Deborah B Jacobvitz, Glenn I Roisman
{"title":"重新审视童年虐待的回顾性评估与前瞻性评估之间的一致性。","authors":"Marissa D Nivison, Clarissa R Filetti, Elizabeth A Carlson, Deborah B Jacobvitz, Glenn I Roisman","doi":"10.1017/S0954579424001032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A recent meta-analytic review demonstrated that retrospective assessments of childhood abuse acquired during adulthood - typically via self-report - demonstrate weak agreement with assessments of maltreatment gathered prospectively. The current report builds on prior findings by investigating the agreement of prospectively documented abuse from birth to age 17.5 years in the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation with retrospective, Adult Attachment Interview-based assessments of childhood abuse administered at ages 19 and 26 years. In this sample, an agreement between prospective and retrospective assessments of childhood abuse was considerably stronger (<i>κ</i> = .56) than was observed meta-analytically. Retrospective assessments identified prospectively documented sexual abuse somewhat better than physical abuse, and the retrospective approach taken here was more sensitive to identifying abuse perpetrated by primary caregivers compared to non-caregivers based on prospective records.</p>","PeriodicalId":11265,"journal":{"name":"Development and Psychopathology","volume":" ","pages":"1190-1199"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11615158/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agreement between retrospective and prospective assessments of childhood abuse revisited.\",\"authors\":\"Marissa D Nivison, Clarissa R Filetti, Elizabeth A Carlson, Deborah B Jacobvitz, Glenn I Roisman\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0954579424001032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A recent meta-analytic review demonstrated that retrospective assessments of childhood abuse acquired during adulthood - typically via self-report - demonstrate weak agreement with assessments of maltreatment gathered prospectively. The current report builds on prior findings by investigating the agreement of prospectively documented abuse from birth to age 17.5 years in the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation with retrospective, Adult Attachment Interview-based assessments of childhood abuse administered at ages 19 and 26 years. In this sample, an agreement between prospective and retrospective assessments of childhood abuse was considerably stronger (<i>κ</i> = .56) than was observed meta-analytically. Retrospective assessments identified prospectively documented sexual abuse somewhat better than physical abuse, and the retrospective approach taken here was more sensitive to identifying abuse perpetrated by primary caregivers compared to non-caregivers based on prospective records.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Development and Psychopathology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1190-1199\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11615158/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Development and Psychopathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579424001032\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development and Psychopathology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579424001032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
最近的一项荟萃分析综述表明,对成年后获得的童年虐待行为的回顾性评估(通常通过自我报告)与前瞻性收集的虐待行为评估的一致性较弱。本报告以之前的研究结果为基础,调查了《明尼苏达风险与适应纵向研究》(Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation)中前瞻性记录的从出生到 17.5 岁期间的虐待行为与基于成人依恋访谈(Adult Attachment Interview)的、在 19 岁和 26 岁时进行的童年虐待行为回顾性评估之间的一致性。在这一样本中,前瞻性和回顾性童年虐待评估之间的一致性(κ = .56)比荟萃分析中观察到的要强得多。回顾性评估对有前瞻性记录的性虐待的识别率略高于对身体虐待的识别率,与基于前瞻性记录的非照顾者相比,本研究采用的回顾性方法对识别主要照顾者实施的虐待更为敏感。
Agreement between retrospective and prospective assessments of childhood abuse revisited.
A recent meta-analytic review demonstrated that retrospective assessments of childhood abuse acquired during adulthood - typically via self-report - demonstrate weak agreement with assessments of maltreatment gathered prospectively. The current report builds on prior findings by investigating the agreement of prospectively documented abuse from birth to age 17.5 years in the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation with retrospective, Adult Attachment Interview-based assessments of childhood abuse administered at ages 19 and 26 years. In this sample, an agreement between prospective and retrospective assessments of childhood abuse was considerably stronger (κ = .56) than was observed meta-analytically. Retrospective assessments identified prospectively documented sexual abuse somewhat better than physical abuse, and the retrospective approach taken here was more sensitive to identifying abuse perpetrated by primary caregivers compared to non-caregivers based on prospective records.
期刊介绍:
This multidisciplinary journal is devoted to the publication of original, empirical, theoretical and review papers which address the interrelationship of normal and pathological development in adults and children. It is intended to serve and integrate the field of developmental psychopathology which strives to understand patterns of adaptation and maladaptation throughout the lifespan. This journal is of interest to psychologists, psychiatrists, social scientists, neuroscientists, paediatricians, and researchers.