Prospective studies of CSA, by definition involve those cases in which investigators have exposed facts and believable testimony, usually including that of the child victim, that verify CSA has actually occurred. Follow-up research some years later then queries the victim/survivor about the CSA, in order to determine whether and to what degree there is a memory of the verified CSA by the victim. Because of the difficulty of conducting such prospective studies, only three have been done: Williams (1994); Widom and Morris (1997); and Goodman et al. (2003). The Williams study has been variously criticized in ways that challenge the meaning of the 38-percent nondisclosure rate. The Widom and Morris study has been criticized by Goodman et al. for failing to probe carefully enough to ensure than any disclosed abuse matched the "target case" in the population. Goodman et al. corrected for the latter problem by constructing a careful method for ascertaining whether or not disclosures concerned the "target case." It is less clear, however, whether Goodman et al. also avoided problems that interfere with confidence in the verification of the CSA. Overall, however, prospective studies fail to provide the empirical evidence needed to draw firm conclusions about the likelihood that victims of CSA will have a memory of their abuse. This is because the conditions surrounding verification introduce factors (e.g., exposure, legitimization, believability, support, and victim conversations about the experience) that tend to impress the CSA upon the child's consciousness. CSA experiences that are not subject to such verification procedures may be less likely to be brought to consciousness and may be subject to psychological mechanisms that obstruct recall. Therefore, the findings of prospective studies regarding memories of CSA should not be used in determining policy regarding statutes of limitation on the prosecution of CSA cases that involve a significant reporting delay. 2 notes and 10 references