The results of the study reveal fairly large differences in child maltreatment rates according to the methodology used to identify the occurrence of maltreatment. In a comparison of single identification methodologies (i.e., prospective only or retrospective only), the prospective only method identified a greater number of cases of maltreatment than the retrospective method. The total number of cases identified through a combination of prospective and retrospective report methods reported greater frequencies of maltreatment identification than those identified using the retrospective method only lending support to previous research findings that the employment of a single method to detect instances of child maltreatment is frequently inadequate or incomplete, and may under-represent the actual incidence of maltreatment in a population. The study represents a rare opportunity to combine methods for identifying maltreatment, and offers the reassuring conclusion that the most severe cases are identified via a combination of both methods. In addition, the caveat is reiterated that no single method provides a more complete picture of maltreatment histories, and the differences among cases identified by varying methods may be significant. One of the greatest methodological problems in the study of childhood maltreatment is the discrepancy in methods by which cases of child maltreatment are identified. Utilizing a cohort of 170 participants followed from birth to age 19, incidents of maltreatment identified prospectively, retrospectively, or through a combination of both methods were compared. Tables and references