Association of Prospectively versus Retrospectively Reported Childhood Maltreatment with Functioning and Psychopathology in Early Adulthood

• In Event: The Convergence of Retrospective and Prospective Measures: An Examination of Normative and Atypical Caregiving Experiences

Abstract

Introduction. Childhood maltreatment can be measured using either prospective or retrospective reports. Both measures are prone to different limitations (e.g., nondisclosure) and potential biases (e.g., mood-congruent recall). There is growing evidence that associations of childhood maltreatment with adulthood outcomes might differ depending on report type. Research that contrasts the validity and utility of prospective versus retrospective reports of childhood maltreatment is therefore crucial in order to inform the design of future studies investigating the lifelong consequences of childhood maltreatment. Thus, the present study examined the agreement between prospective informant-reports and retrospective self-reports of childhood maltreatment; and compared their utility for predicting numerous functional and psychiatric outcomes in early adulthood.

Hypotheses. (i) Agreement between prospective and retrospective reports of maltreatment will be low, with the measures identifying largely non-overlapping groups of maltreated children; (ii) Compared to prospective informant-reports, retrospective self-reports will be more strongly associated with functional and psychiatric outcomes in early adulthood.

Study population. Participants were from the Environmental Risk (E-Risk) Longitudinal Twin Study. E-Risk is a birth cohort of 2,232 children born in the United Kingdom and followed up at ages 5, 7, 10, 12, and 18. E-Risk families are nationally-representative in terms of socioeconomic conditions. Attrition has been minimal, with 93% of the original cohort still taking part at age 18.

Methods. Childhood maltreatment was assessed via: (i) prospective informant-reports from caregivers, researchers, and clinicians when children were aged 5, 7, 10 and 12; and (ii) retrospective self-reports of maltreatment occurring up to age 12, obtained at age 18 using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Both measures enquired about physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, emotional neglect, and physical neglect. Functional outcomes were measured at age 18, reflecting both psychosocial disadvantage (adolescent poly-victimisation, social isolation, low life satisfaction, loneliness, and low sleep quality) and vocational disadvantage (low educational achievement, NEET status [not in education, employment or training], teenage parenthood, and criminal cautions and convictions). Five psychiatric problems were also assessed at age 18, including depression, anxiety, self-injury, alcohol/cannabis dependence, and conduct disorder.

Results. There was only slight to fair agreement between prospective and retrospective reports of childhood maltreatment: all Kappa's ≤ 0.31 (Table 1). For instance, only 28% of individuals with a prospective report of maltreatment later self-reported this maltreatment at age 18. Regardless of report type, childhood maltreatment was associated with significantly elevated odds for poor functional outcomes and psychiatric problems at age 18. However, functional outcomes representing psychosocial disadvantage were much more strongly associated with retrospective self-reports (OR=8.25, 95% CI=4.93-13.82, p<0.001) versus prospective informant-reports (OR=2.03, 95% CI=1.36-3.04). Likewise, psychiatric problems were more strongly associated with retrospective self-reports versus prospective informant-reports of maltreatment. For instance, the odds ratio for self-injury associated with any maltreatment was OR=5.48 (95% CI=3.88-7.75, p<0.001) for retrospective self-reports compared to OR=2.42 (95% CI=1.57-3.79, p<0.001) for prospective informant-reports. In contrast, functional outcomes representing vocational disadvantage showed no such distinction according to report type (Table 2). The potential mechanisms underlying these differential associations, together with clinical and research implications, will be discussed.

Authors

• Joanne Newbury, University of Bristol
  Presenting Author

• Rachel Latham, King’s College London
  Non-Presenting Author

• Emma Quilter, King's College London
  Non-Presenting Author

• Louise Arseneault, King's College London
  Non-Presenting Author

• Terrie E Moffitt, King's College London
  Non-Presenting Author

• Avshalom Caspi, Duke University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Andrea Danese, King's College London
  Non-Presenting Author

• Jessie R Baldwin, University College London (UCL)
  Non-Presenting Author

• Helen L Fisher, King's College London
  Non-Presenting Author