Validity and reliability of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in 5-6 year olds: differences by gender or by parental education?

Cathelijne Mieloo, Hein Raat, Floor van Oort, Floor Bevaart, Ineke Vogel, Marianne Donker, Wilma Jansen, Cathelijne Mieloo, Hein Raat, Floor van Oort, Floor Bevaart, Ineke Vogel, Marianne Donker, Wilma Jansen

Abstract

Introduction: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a relatively short instrument developed to detect psychosocial problems in children aged 3-16 years. It addresses four dimensions: emotional problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention problems, peer problems that count up to the total difficulties score, and a fifth dimension; prosocial behaviour. The validity and reliability of the SDQ has not been fully investigated in younger age groups. Therefore, this study assesses the validity and reliability of the parent and teacher versions of the SDQ in children aged 5-6 years in the total sample, and in subgroups according to child gender and parental education level.

Methods: The SDQ was administered as part of the Dutch regularly provided preventive health check for children aged 5-6 years. Parents provided information on 4750 children and teachers on 4516 children.

Results: Factor analyses of the parent and teacher SDQ confirmed that the original five scales were present (parent RMSEA = 0.05; teacher RMSEA = 0.07). Interrater correlations between parents and teachers were small (ICCs of 0.21-0.44) but comparable to what is generally found for psychosocial problem assessments in children. These correlations were larger for males than for females. Cronbach's alphas for the total difficulties score were 0.77 for the parent SDQ and 0.81 for the teacher SDQ. Four of the subscales on the parent SDQ and two of the subscales on the teacher SDQ had an alpha <0.70. Alphas were generally higher for male children and for low parental education level.

Discussion: The validity and reliability of the total difficulties score of the parent and teacher SDQ are satisfactory in all groups by informant, child gender, and parental education level. Our results support the use of the SDQ in younger age groups. However, some subscales are less reliable and we recommend only to use the total difficulties score for screening purposes.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Licence K. Promoting and protecting the health of children and young people. Child: Care, Health and Development. 2004;30:623–635.
    1. Goodman R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997;38:581–586.
    1. Stone LL, Otten R, Engels RC, Vermulst AA, Janssens JM. Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4- to 12-year-olds: a review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2010;13:254–274.
    1. Edmunds S, Garratt A, Haines L, Blair M. Child Health Assessment at School Entry (CHASE) project: evaluation in 10 London primary schools. Child Care Health Dev. 2005;31:143–154.
    1. Goodman R, Scott S. Comparing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist: is small beautiful? J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1999;27:17–24.
    1. Goodman R, Iervolino AC, Collishaw S, Pickles A, Maughan B. Seemingly minor changes to a questionnaire can make a big difference to mean scores: a cautionary tale. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2007;42:322–327.
    1. Hawes DJ, Dadds MR. Australian data and psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2004;38:644–651.
    1. Hill CR, Hughes JN. An Examination of the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Sch Psychol Q. 2007;22:380–406.
    1. Perren S, Stadelmann S, von Wyl A, von Klitzing K. Pathways of behavioural and emotional symptoms in kindergarten children: what is the role of pro-social behaviour? Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007;16:209–214.
    1. Van Leeuwen K, Meerschaert T, Bosmans G, De Medts L, Braet C. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a Community Sample of Young Children in Flanders. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2006;22:189–197.
    1. Verhulst FC. Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum; 2005. de ontwikkeling van het kind.
    1. Van Leeuwen K, Meerschaert T, Bosmans G, De Medts L, Braet C. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a Community Sample of Young Children in Flanders. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2006;22:189–197.
    1. Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Burlington (VT): University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth & Families; 2001. Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles.
    1. Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, Howell CT. Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychol Bull. 1987;101:213–232.
    1. JC Nunnally IB. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. Psychometric theory.
    1. Fleiss JL. New York, NY: Wiley; 1981. Statistical methods for rates and proportions.
    1. CBS Begrippen-Autochtoon. 2011.
    1. van Widenfelt BM, Goedhart AW, Treffers PD, Goodman R. Dutch version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003;12:281–289.
    1. Muthén LK, Muthén BO- Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998. Mplus user’s guide.
    1. Kaplan D. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage; 2000. Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions.
    1. Kline RB. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1998. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling.
    1. Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International; 1993. LISREL 8 user’s reference guide.
    1. Field A. Intraclass correlation. In: B. Everitt DH, editor. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Statistics. New York: Wiley; 2005. pp. 948–954.
    1. DM Corey WD, MJ Burke. Averaging Correlations:Expected Values and Bias in Combined Pearson rs and Fisher’s z Transformations. The Journal of General Psychology. 1998;125:245–261.
    1. Glanz SA. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1992. Primer of Biostatistics.
    1. Du Y, Kou J, Coghill D. The validity, reliability and normative scores of the parent, teacher and self report versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in China. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2008;2:8.
    1. Marzocchi GM, Capron C, Pietro MD, Tauleria ED, Duyme M, et al. The use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Southern European countries. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2004;13:ii40–ii46.
    1. Janssens A, Deboutte D. Screening for psychopathology in child welfare: the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) compared with the Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA). Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;18:691–700.
    1. Klasen H, Woerner W, Wolke D, Meyer R, Overmeyer S, et al. Comparing the German Versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-Deu) and the Child Behavior Checklist. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2000;9:271–276.
    1. Muris P, Meesters C, van den Berg F. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)–further evidence for its reliability and validity in a community sample of Dutch children and adolescents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003;12:1–8.
    1. Koskelainen M, Sourander A, Kaljonen A. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire among Finnish school-aged children and adolescents. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2000;9:277–284.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989. Health Measurement Scales.
    1. Achenbach TM, Becker A, Dopfner M, Heiervang E, Roessner V, et al. Multicultural assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instruments: research findings, applications, and future directions. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49:251–275.
    1. Goodman R. 2012. . Normative Data.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel