Evaluation of the sexual consequences of surgery: retrospective and prospective strategies

Abstract

To assess the impact of a stressor, it is desirable to evaluate affected individuals' status both prior to and following a stressful event. Because of the difficulties inherent in prospective designs, investigators often ask people who have experienced an aversive event to evaluate their prestressor adjustment retrospectively. Do such retrospective evaluations provide a reasonable alternative to prospective assessment? To answer this question we compared retrospective and prospective data gathering procedures in the evaluation of sexual adjustment after prostate surgery. One hundred fifty-two married males who had undergone prostatectomy for benign prostatic enlargement completed a battery of measures which evaluated pre- and postsurgical sexual adjustment either prospectively (i.e., before and after surgery) or retrospectively (i.e., ratings made after surgery of both pre- and postsurgical adjustment). Retrospective assessment indicated considerable sexual deterioration pre- to postsurgery. In subjects tested prospectively, however, the results showed that surgery had little impact on sexual adjustment. Moreover, direct comparisons of retrospective and prospective methodologies reveal that discrepancies are due to differences in evaluations of presurgery status, with retrospective evaluation yielding more favorable ratings than prospective assessment. The results highlight a variety of biases which may affect self-ratings of pre- and post-stressor adaptation and show that discrepancies associated with the two methodologies have important implications for understanding the impact of a stressor on adjustment.