BackgroundChildhood maltreatment contributes to a large mental health burden worldwide. Different measures of childhood maltreatment are not equivalent and may capture meaningful differences. In particular, prospective and retrospective measures of maltreatment identify different groups of individuals and are differentially associated with psychopathology. However, the reasons behind these discrepancies have not yet been comprehensively mapped.MethodsIn this review, we draw on multi‐disciplinary research and present an integrated framework to explain maltreatment measurement disagreement.ResultsWe identified three interrelated domains. First, methodological issues related to measurement and data collection methods. Second, the role of memory in influencing retrospective reports of maltreatment. Finally, the motivations individuals may have to disclose, withhold, or fabricate information about maltreatment.ConclusionsA greater understanding of maltreatment measurement disagreement may point to new ways to conceptualise and assess maltreatment. Furthermore, it may help uncover mechanisms underlying maltreatment‐related psychopathology and targets for novel interventions.

中文翻译：

---

研究回顾：为什么虐待的前瞻性和回顾性措施有所不同？叙述性评论


背景儿童虐待给全世界造成了巨大的心理健康负担。儿童虐待的不同衡量标准并不等同，可能会体现出有意义的差异。特别是，虐待的前瞻性和回顾性措施可以识别不同的个体群体，并且与精神病理学有不同的相关性。然而，这些差异背后的原因尚未得到全面的了解。方法在本次综述中，我们利用多学科研究并提出了一个综合框架来解释虐待测量的分歧。结果我们确定了三个相互关联的领域。首先，与测量和数据收集方法相关的方法论问题。其次，记忆在影响虐待回顾性报告中的作用。最后，个人可能不得不披露、隐瞒或捏造有关虐待的信息的动机。结论对虐待测量分歧的更好理解可能会指出概念化和评估虐待的新方法。此外，它可能有助于揭示虐待相关精神病理学的潜在机制和新干预措施的目标。