Identification of child maltreatment using prospective and self-report methodologies: a comparison of maltreatment incidence and relation to later psychopathology.

OBJECTIVES: One of the greatest methodological problems in the study of childhood maltreatment is the discrepancy in methods by which cases of child maltreatment are identified. The current study compared incidents of maltreatment identified prospectively, retrospectively, or through a combination of both methods.
METHOD: Within a cohort of 170 participants followed from birth to age 19, incidents of maltreatment which occurred prior to age 17.5 were identified via prospective case review and interviewer ratings of retrospective self-reports. Multi-informant measures of behavior problems were obtained at age 16, and diagnostic assessments of psychopathology were completed at age 17.5.
RESULTS: While the maximal number of maltreatment cases was identified by using a combination of all available identification methods, the prospective method was the single most comprehensive method for identifying the most cases of childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect. Those who were identified as maltreated by a combination of both prospective and self-report methods experienced the greatest number of incidences of maltreatment (i.e., 49% of this group experienced more than one type of maltreatment) and displayed the most emotional and behavioral problems in late adolescence (i.e., 74% met diagnostic criteria for a clinical disorder).
CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the variability in the incidence rates of maltreatment and the psychological outcomes that result from utilizing different methods of identification. The most severe cases of maltreatment are likely to be identified by both prospective and retrospective methods; however, cases that are identified solely through retrospective self-report may have unique relations to psychopathology in late adolescence. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Reliance on a single method to identify childhood maltreatment incidents often overlooks many cases. Comparing both prospective case reviews and retrospective self-reports in late adolescence, the most severe cases of multiple incidents of abuse were most likely to be identified by both methodologies. The less severe maltreatment incidents were more likely to be missed, either by prospective methods or, more frequently, by self-report methods. Practitioners must be continually sensitive to possible abuse histories among their clients, seeking out information from multiple sources whenever feasible. Additionally, the potential effects of abuse disclosure on pre-existing or developing psychopathology should be considered.