Figure 1. A report, a baseline, and a change are different records
Prospective studies separate retrospective perceived growth from measured change, while keeping each event, sample, interval, and outcome distinct.
| Source | Design and denominator | What was compared | Observed relation | Main non-proof |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S2 | Two-month prospective study; n=122 event subgroup | PTGI retrospective report versus measured pre-to-post domain change | Generally unrelated | No claim that growth never occurs |
| S3 | Two-wave student study; n=282 baseline; n=219 to 221 raw follow-up; n=214 to 218 full-sample analytic; 66 raw event reports; n=61 to 64 analytic event subset | Perceived PTG, perceived general growth, and measured pre-to-post change | Perceived PTG was not significantly related to the other two change records | No generalization beyond the small student event subgroup |
| S4 | Stem-cell-transplant study; n=187 first; n=157 second; n=91 third | PTGI at follow-up versus repeated domain measures | Weak composite relation; three of five paired domains not significantly related | No cross-trauma prevalence claim; attrition remains material |
| S7 | Three waves over six months; Wave 1 n=804; 32,099 daily assessments | Perceived PTG versus later current-standing and aggregated daily-state change | Did not predict later observed change in the tested models | No conclusion about longer horizons or every subgroup |
- Scope
- Four prospective or measurement-burst studies published from 2009 through 2024
- Units
- Participants, completed questionnaires, experience-sampling assessments, and direction-of-result labels
- Denominator
- Study-specific only; the rows must not be summed: S2 n=122; S3 baseline n=282, 219 to 221 raw follow-up returns, 214 to 218 full-sample analytic comparisons, 66 raw event reports, and n=61 to 64 in trauma-subset analytic comparisons; S4 n=187 first, 157 second, and 91 third; S7 Wave 1 n=804 and 32,099 assessments
- Date
- Sources first published online from 2009-06-08 through 2023-07-20, with S7 in a 2024 issue; observed 2026-09-05
- Transformation
- Findings are paraphrased with study-specific direction labels; no pooling, standardization, interpolation, or cross-study ranking is performed
- Uncertainty
- Events, samples, follow-up windows, measures, attrition, and statistical models differ across rows
- Limitations
- The matrix is illustrative rather than exhaustive, and none of the samples represents every kind of adverse event or recovery context.
- Does not prove
- The figure does not show that positive change never happens, determine whether a particular report is accurate, predict any person's recovery, or tell a reader what care to seek.
Sources
- Does Self-Reported Posttraumatic Growth Reflect Genuine Positive Change?. Psychological Science. Published 2009-06-08; observed 2026-09-05.
- Perceptions of Change after a Trauma and Perceived Posttraumatic Growth: A Prospective Examination. Behavioral Sciences. Published 2019-01-15; observed 2026-09-05.
- Retrospective and prospective measures of post-traumatic growth reflect different processes. BMC Psychiatry. Published 2021-01-11; observed 2026-09-05.
- Does Perceived Posttraumatic Growth Predict Observed Changes in Current-Standing and State Posttraumatic Growth?. Clinical Psychological Science. Published 2023-07-20; observed 2026-09-05.