Perspective matters: Differences between child- and caregiver-reports of emotion regulation mediating the relationship between cumulative childhood trauma and mental health problems in foster children.

BACKGROUND

Cumulative childhood trauma predicts mental health problems in children, mediated by emotion regulation (ER). To assess trauma history and mental health in children, different informants may be addressed, assessing data from different perspectives. Despite differences between child- and caregiver-reports as robust finding in child psychology, it remains unclear to which extent perspective matters when examining these variables and related associations.

OBJECTIVE

The current study was set to (1) examine whether ER mediates the relationship between cumulative childhood trauma and mental health problems in children, (2) test whether results differ with examined perspective, and (3) investigate if meaningful patterns of child-caregiver-reported discrepancies can be identified.

METHODS

Data were collected from 145 children living in foster care by child- and caregiver-reports using standardized measures to assess trauma history (CTQ), ER (FEEL-KJ), and mental health problems (CBCL). Mediation and latent profile analysis were calculated.

RESULTS

Mediation analysis identified ER as mediator for internalizing and externalizing mental health problems. Using data from different perspectives, mediation models differed considerably regarding significance, direction, and magnitude of effects. Using latent profile analysis, meaningful patterns of child-caregiver-reported discrepancies were identified and associated with children's sociodemographic and psychopathological characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Adaptive and maladaptive ER distinctively mediate the relationship between cumulative childhood trauma and mental health problems in children. Perspective matters when examining these variables and child- and caregiver-reports are not interchangeable. Practitioners and researchers should be aware of inherent limitations when using data from distinct perspectives. Informant discrepancies can carry meaning and should not be ignored, but examined and interpreted instead.