Another possible explanation for greater retrospective than antenatal report is that mothers may be trying to explain current cognitive or behavioral problems in the child and so unintentionally exaggerate prior use. However, Alvik, et al. (2006b) reported that the mothers’ levels of anxiety concerning their perceptions about “abnormality” in their children at 6 months of age did not influence the differences in retrospective versus concurrent antenatal report, and greater retrospective report was also found in gynecological patients with no children being involved (Czarnecki, et al., 1990). Czarnecki, et al. (1990) is relevant because with no children to potentially bias report, a mother’s knowledge of her child’s status alone may not account for greater retrospective report, although of course, such a bias is still possible. Further, in the current study and in Ernhart, et al. (1988), the retrospective maternal self-report of drinking was significantly related to pregnancy or later child outcomes that would not be directly influenced by maternal perceptions or expectations (i.e., birth measures, facial anomalies and teacher reports) so these outcomes minimize or avoid the impact of this potential
