Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T05:43:42.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

EPA-0888 – Validity of Retrospective Statements in Test and Interview of Adults with Institutional Care in Childhood

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

I. Smetackova
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology Faculty of Education, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
H. Novotna
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology Faculty of Education, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
L. Myskova
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology Faculty of Education, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
J. Onder
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology Faculty of Education, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
H. Kuzelova
Affiliation:
Clinic of Psychiatry 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
R. Ptacek
Affiliation:
Clinic of Psychiatry 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Many research results show problematic nature of retrospective answers (Hardt, Rutter, 2004). Statements based on memories suffer from lower accurate correspondence with real events; however such statements express a subjective meaning which individuals give to their experiences. This ambivalence must be considered within the research design and during interpretation of data.

In the research, we examine the impact of institutional care during childhood on social and psychological development in adulthood. The sample consisted of 127 adults who spent their childhood or its part out of the original family. All individuals filled the set of standardized psychodiagnostic tools, including CTQ and Rohner's method of family diagnostics and extended anamnestic questionnaire. After four weeks, selected 20 individuals were asked for interviews covering similar topics as previous tests.

Data gathered via oral and written inquiries were compared. The analysis shows the differences in described experiences on three levels: 1. the factual nature of experiences (process of events, time and space localization), 2. the emotional load of experiences (expressed feelings), 3. the hierarchy of experiences (different subjective meanings and mutual relations). It was find out that correspondence between oral and written answers decreases if questions with certain parameters are used. Moreover, crucial finding is that the validity of retrospective answers increases if methods for data collection are cumulated.

Supported by J&T Foundation

Type
P12 - Ethics and Psychiatry
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2014
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.