Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Measurement Invariance of the Parent Version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Across Community and Clinical Populations

Published Online:August 03, 2016https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000339

Abstract

Abstract. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a popular screening instrument for the detection of social-emotional and behavioral problems in children in community and clinical settings. To sensibly compare SDQ scores across these settings, the SDQ should measure psychosocial difficulties and strengths in the same way across community and clinical populations, that is, the SDQ should be measurement invariant across both populations. We examined whether measurement invariance of the parent version of the SDQ holds using data from a community sample (N = 707) and a clinical sample (N = 931). The results of our analysis suggest that measurement invariance of the SDQ parent version across community and clinical populations is tenable, implying that one can compare the SDQ scores of children across these populations. This is a favorable result since it is common clinical practice to interpret the scores of a clinical individual relative to norm scores that are based on community samples. The findings of this study support the continued use of the parent version of the SDQ in community and clinical settings.

References

  • Beauducel, A. & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 186–203. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cheung, G. W. & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Crone, M. R., Vogels, A. G. C., Hoekstra, F., Treffers, P. D. A. & Reijneveld, S. A. (2008). A comparison of four scoring methods based on the parent-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as used in the Dutch preventive child health care system. BMC Public Health, 8, 106–113. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-106 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • d’Acremont, M. & van der Linden, M. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a community sample of French-speaking adolescents. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 1–8. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.24.1.1 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Evers, A., Sijtsma, K., Lucassen, W. & Meijer, R. R. (2010). The Dutch review process for evaluating the Quality of Psychological Tests: History, procedure, and results. International Journal of Testing, 10, 295–317. doi: 10.1080/15305058.2010.518325 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 38, 581–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Goodman, R. (1999). The extended version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 791–799. doi: 10.1111/1469-7610.00494 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hill, C. R. & Hughes, J. N. (2007). An examination of the convergent and discriminant validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 380–406. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.22.3.380 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Mathai, J., Anderson, P. & Bourne, A. (2003). Use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as an outcome measure in a child and adolescent mental health service. Australasian Psychiatry, 11, 334–337. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1665.2003.00544.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543. doi: 10.1007/BF02294825 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Millsap, R. E. & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479–515. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3903_4 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Palmieri, P. A. & Smith, G. C. (2007). Examining the structural validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in a US sample of custodial grandmothers. Psychological Assessment, 19, 189–198. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.19.2.189 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 173–184. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sanne, B., Torsheim, T., Heiervang, E. & Stormark, K. M. (2009). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in the Bergen Child Study: A conceptually and methodically motivated structural analysis. Psychological Assessment, 21, 352–364. doi: 10.1037/a0016317 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H. & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23–74. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Spijkers, W., Jansen, D. E. M. C. & Reijneveld, S. A. (2013). Effectiveness of Primary Care Triple P on child psychosocial problems in preventive child healthcare: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Medicine, 11, 240–247. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-240 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. doi: 173-180.1991-03242-001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stone, L. L., Otten, R., Engels, R. C. M. E., Vermulst, A. A. & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (2010). Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for 4- to 12-year-olds: A review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13, 254–274. doi: 10.1007/s10567-010-0071-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stone, L. L., Otten, R., Ringlever, L., Hiemstra, M., Engels, R. C. M. E., Vermulst, A. A. & Janssens, J. A. M. (2013). The parent version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Omega as an alternative to alpha and a test for measurement invariance. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 44–50. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000119 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • van der Sluis, S., Vinkhuyzen, A. A. E., Boomsma, D. I. & Posthuma, D. (2010). Sex differences in adults’ motivation to achieve. Intelligence, 38, 433–446. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van Ginkel, J. R., van der Ark, L. A. & Sijtsma, K. (2007). Multiple imputation for item scores when test data are factorially complex. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 60, 315–337. doi: 10.1348/000711006X117574 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van Ginkel, J. R., Sijtsma, K., van der Ark, L. A. & Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Incidence of missing item scores in personality measurement, and simple item-score imputation. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6, 17–30. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241/a000003 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • van Widenfelt, B. M., Goedhart, A. W., Treffers, P. D. A. & Goodman, R. (2003). Dutch version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 281–289. doi: 10.1007/s00787-003-0341-3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Vogels, A. G. C., Crone, M. R., Hoekstra, F. & Reijneveld, S. A. (2009). Comparing three short questionnaires to detect psychosocial dysfunction among primary school children: A randomized method. BMC Public Health, 9, 489–500. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-489 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • YouthInMind. (2012). Uses of the SDQ, Retrieved from http://www.sdqinfo.org/d0.html First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zwirs, B., Burger, H., Schulpen, T., Vermulst, A. A., HiraSing, R. A. & Buitelaar, J. (2011). Teacher ratings of children’s behavior problems and functional impairment across gender and ethnicity: Construct equivalence of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42, 466–481. doi: 10.1177/0022022110362752 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar