Reliability and validity of the self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in primary school children

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bibtex

@article{f301966771784a0cb416b8b7319f024a,
title = "Reliability and validity of the self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in primary school children",
abstract = "This study examined the new self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-S), SDQ-Kids, in primary school children regarding internal consistency, teacher-child agreement, and validity. Data from 2,655 children in Grades 1 to 3 and their teachers were analyzed. Children completed SDQ-Kids, previously piloted (n = 896), while teachers completed SDQ-T. Reliability was measured using Cronbach{\textquoteright}s alpha, and logistic regression analyzed the association between rating source (teachers vs. children) and SDQ status (“abnormal” vs. “normal”). Validity was assessed using Pearson{\textquoteright}s correlation coefficient. SDQ-Kids showed acceptable internal consistency for total difficulties (α =.77) but lower for subscales (α =.40–.68). SDQ-T reliability was good for total difficulties (α =.90) and acceptable to good for subscales (α =.78–.89). Differences emerged, particularly in internalizing and externalizing problems. Correlations of SDQ-Kids with other instruments were acceptable to low. Differences between teacher and child reports highlight the need for a multi-informant approach. While SDQ-Kids{\textquoteright} total difficulties showed acceptable reliability, scale-level reliability and validity were unsatisfactory.",
keywords = "children, mental health, reliability, screening instrument, self-report, Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Health sciences, Psychology",
author = "Katharina Liegmann and Lisa Fischer and Kevin Dadaczynski and Reiner Hanewinkel and Frauke Nees and Matthis Morgenstern",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2024.",
year = "2024",
month = dec,
day = "21",
doi = "10.1177/01650254241305551",
language = "English",
journal = "International Journal of Behavioral Development",
issn = "0165-0254",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability and validity of the self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in primary school children

AU - Liegmann, Katharina

AU - Fischer, Lisa

AU - Dadaczynski, Kevin

AU - Hanewinkel, Reiner

AU - Nees, Frauke

AU - Morgenstern, Matthis

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2024.

PY - 2024/12/21

Y1 - 2024/12/21

N2 - This study examined the new self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-S), SDQ-Kids, in primary school children regarding internal consistency, teacher-child agreement, and validity. Data from 2,655 children in Grades 1 to 3 and their teachers were analyzed. Children completed SDQ-Kids, previously piloted (n = 896), while teachers completed SDQ-T. Reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, and logistic regression analyzed the association between rating source (teachers vs. children) and SDQ status (“abnormal” vs. “normal”). Validity was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. SDQ-Kids showed acceptable internal consistency for total difficulties (α =.77) but lower for subscales (α =.40–.68). SDQ-T reliability was good for total difficulties (α =.90) and acceptable to good for subscales (α =.78–.89). Differences emerged, particularly in internalizing and externalizing problems. Correlations of SDQ-Kids with other instruments were acceptable to low. Differences between teacher and child reports highlight the need for a multi-informant approach. While SDQ-Kids’ total difficulties showed acceptable reliability, scale-level reliability and validity were unsatisfactory.

AB - This study examined the new self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-S), SDQ-Kids, in primary school children regarding internal consistency, teacher-child agreement, and validity. Data from 2,655 children in Grades 1 to 3 and their teachers were analyzed. Children completed SDQ-Kids, previously piloted (n = 896), while teachers completed SDQ-T. Reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, and logistic regression analyzed the association between rating source (teachers vs. children) and SDQ status (“abnormal” vs. “normal”). Validity was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. SDQ-Kids showed acceptable internal consistency for total difficulties (α =.77) but lower for subscales (α =.40–.68). SDQ-T reliability was good for total difficulties (α =.90) and acceptable to good for subscales (α =.78–.89). Differences emerged, particularly in internalizing and externalizing problems. Correlations of SDQ-Kids with other instruments were acceptable to low. Differences between teacher and child reports highlight the need for a multi-informant approach. While SDQ-Kids’ total difficulties showed acceptable reliability, scale-level reliability and validity were unsatisfactory.

KW - children

KW - mental health

KW - reliability

KW - screening instrument

KW - self-report

KW - Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

KW - Health sciences

KW - Psychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85212815042&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/01650254241305551

DO - 10.1177/01650254241305551

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85212815042

JO - International Journal of Behavioral Development

JF - International Journal of Behavioral Development

SN - 0165-0254

ER -

DOI