In a study focusing on under-reporting, Ernhart, et al. (1988) tested the predictive validity of maternal self report for child outcomes. Both antenatal report and retrospective report almost 5 years later predicted number of craniofacial anomalies, whereas only the retrospective report significantly predicted other anomalies (Ernhart, et al., 1998). In a later study, retrospective report at 13 months post-partum predicted significantly delayed psychomotor development assessed with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development at 13 months of age, and slower cognitive processing speed on a cross-modal transfer task on the Fagan Tests of Infant Intelligence averaged across tests at 6.5 and 12 months of age (Jacobson, et al., 2002). Yet the authors conclude that retrospective report at 13 months post-partum was less accurate and less valid in predicting cognitive outcome than antenatal report (Jacobson, et al., 1991; 2002). Curiously, mothers’ retrospective report provided during a pregnancy about peri-conceptional drinking, that is, before a woman knew she was pregnant, is often considered more reliable and to have greater predictive power for outcomes than in-pregnancy, antenatal report alone (e.g., Jacobson et al., 1991;
