Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37186463›Full record

SynthesisJournal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines2023

Subjective and objective experiences of childhood adversity: a meta-analysis of their agreement and relationships with psychopathology.

Emma R Francis, Anna Tsaligopoulou, Sarah E Stock, Jean-Baptiste Pingault, Jessie R Baldwin

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
24.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Critical windows: timing of child maltreatment exposure and adult mental health.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Research Review: Assessment of early-life adversity and trauma - cumulative risk and dimensional approaches.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Emma R FrancisDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Anna TsaligopoulouDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Sarah E StockDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Jean-Baptiste PingaultDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.
Jessie R BaldwinDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5703-5058
King's College London · GBUniversity College London · GBYale University · US

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research Council MR/N013867/1MRF_ MRF-160-0002-ELP-PINGAWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 215917/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearchers use both subjective self-report and objective measures, such as official records, to investigate the impact of childhood adversity on psychopathology. However, it is unclear whether subjective and objective measures of childhood adversity (a) show agreement, and (b) differentially predict psychopathology.

methodTo address this, we conducted a pre-registered meta-analysis to examine the agreement between subjective and objective measures of childhood adversity, and their prediction of psychopathology. We searched in PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase for articles with both subjective measures (self-reports) and objective measures of childhood adversity (comprising official records, or reports from multiple informants unrelated to the target individual), and measures of psychopathology.

resultsWe identified 22 studies (n = 18,163) with data on agreement between subjective and objective measures of childhood adversities, and 17 studies (n = 14,789) with data on the associations between subjective and objective measures with psychopathology. First, we found that subjective and objective measures of childhood adversities were only moderately correlated (e.g. for maltreatment, r = .32, 95% CI = 0.23-0.41). Second, subjective measures of childhood adversities were associated with psychopathology, independent of objective measures (e.g. for maltreatment, r = .16, 95% CI = 0.09-0.22). In contrast, objective measures of childhood adversities had null or minimal associations with psychopathology, independent of subjective measures (e.g. r for maltreatment = .06, 95% CI = -0.02-0.13).

conclusionsOur findings suggest that the effects of childhood adversity on psychopathology are primarily driven by a person's subjective experience. If this is the case, clinical interventions targeting memories and cognitive processes surrounding childhood adversity may reduce the risk of psychopathology in exposed individuals.

Indexed as

Adverse Childhood ExperiencesMental DisordersHumansPsychopathologySelf ReportChildhood adversitymeta-analysisobjective measurespsychopathologysubjective measures

Identifiers

PMID37186463
PMCPMC10617978
OpenAlexW4367055988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.