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。

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":"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。","authors":"Oonagh Coleman , Jessie R. Baldwin , Terrie E. Moffitt , Louise Arseneault , Helen L. Fisher , Kelly Rose-Clarke , 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":"{\"title\":\"Why do prospective and retrospective measures of childhood maltreatment differ? Qualitative analyses in a cohort study\",\"authors\":\"Oonagh Coleman , Jessie R. Baldwin , Terrie E. Moffitt , Louise Arseneault , Helen L. Fisher , Kelly Rose-Clarke , 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}","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

摘要

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。

查看原文本刊更多论文

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

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Child Abuse & Neglect Multiple-

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.