Compared to antenatal report – sometimes called “prospective” or “concurrent” report – retrospective report of maternal alcohol consumption about a prior pregnancy has been considered less precise or less accurate or less valid by some investigators (e.g., Jacobson et al., 1991; 2002; Little, 1976; Little, et al., 1977). It has been argued that altered motivation after birth leads to greater accuracy or validity of retrospective report (Rosett & Weiner, 1984). Differences between one antenatal report and another collected anywhere from one week to four months later within the same pregnancy (test-retest design) have been interpreted to mean retrospective report is either less accurate due to forgetting or altered motive to deny use (e.g., Robles & Day, 1990; Streissguth, 1976) or “more accurate” (e.g., Alvik, et al, 2006a) although there is no independent standard with which to judge accuracy. Differences in the ability of various reports about drinking during pregnancy to predict child outcomes, however, can indicate the relative validity of each report.
