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

Messinvarianz zwischen Eltern- und Jugendversion des Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)?

Published Online:February 28, 2018https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000200

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Die interne Struktur des Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) ist kontrovers diskutiert worden. Das erste Ziel der vorliegenden Studie bestand daher in der Überprüfung der internen Struktur der SDQ Jugend- und Elternversion. Auf Basis der Daten der ersten Wiederholungsbefragung der Studie zur Gesundheit von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland (KiGGS-Studie) wurde mittels konfirmatorischer Faktorenanalysen gezeigt, dass das Fünf-Faktoren-Modell eine gute Anpassungsgüte besitzt, wenn korrelierte Fehlervarianzen zwischen Items mit ähnlichem Inhalt zugelassen werden. Da Skalenmittelwerte aus der SDQ Jugend- und Elternversion häufig miteinander verglichen werden, wurde im zweiten Teil der Analyse geprüft, ob skalare Messinvarianz zwischen beiden SDQ-Versionen besteht. Die Ergebnisse der konfirmatorischen Multi-Gruppen-Faktorenanalysen zeigen, dass der SDQ bei Eltern und Jugendlichen die gleichen Konstrukte erfasst (konfigurale Messinvarianz). Skalare Messinvarianz liegt hingegen nur für 19 der 25 Items vor. Unterschiede in den latenten Skalenmittelwerten zwischen Jugendlichen und Eltern können daher entweder das Ergebnis von tatsächlichen Bewertungsunterschieden darstellen oder sie sind das Resultat der fehlenden skalaren Messinvarianz zwischen beiden SDQ-Versionen. Folglich sollten Unterschiede in den latenten Mittelwerten aus Eltern- und Selbstbeurteilungsversion für Jugendliche mit Vorsicht interpretiert werden.


Measurement Invariance Across Youth and Parent SDQ Ratings?

Abstract. The internal structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) has been a controversial issue. The first purpose of this study was, therefore, to analyze the internal structure of the parent and youth versions of the SDQ. Using data from the first repeat survey of the KiGGS study, we found that a five-factor model with correlated error variances between items with similar content fits well with the data for parent and youth SDQ scores. However, to compare the scores across parent and youth version, the 5 latent variables need to have the same meaning for parents and youths. Hence, in a second step, measurement invariance across both SDQ versions was tested. Using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis we found that the SDQ measures the same constructs across parents and youths (configural invariance). However, scalar invariance was only observed for 19 out of 25 items. Consequently, any differences between parents and youths on the latent variables could be caused either by a lack of measurement invariance between the two respondent versions or by a real difference across parents and youths. Therefore, latent mean differences between parent and self-report versions should be interpreted with caution.

Literatur

  • Achenbach, T., McConaughy, S. & Howell, C. (1987). Child / adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Acock, A. C. (2013). Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata. Texas, TX: STATA Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Arman, S., Amel, A. K. & Maracy, M. R. (2013). Comparison of parent adolescent scores on Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 18, 501 – 505. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Becker, A., Woerner, W., Hasselhorn, M., Banaschewski, T. & Rothenberger, A. (2004). Validation of the parent and teacher SDQ in a clinical sample. European Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 13, 2, 11 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-004-2003-5 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A.Long, J. S. (Eds.). Testing structural equation models (pp. 136 – 162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J. & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issues of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456 – 466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 14, 464 – 504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chiorri, C., Hall, J., Casely-Hayford, J. & Malmberg, L.-E. (2016). Evaluating measurement invariance between parents using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Assessment, 23, 63 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114568301 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Christ, O. & Schlüter, E. (2012). Strukturgleichungsmodelle mit Mplus – Eine praktische Einführung. München: Oldenbourg. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cieciuch, J., Davidov, E., Oberski, D. L. & Algesheimer, R. (2015). Testing for measurement invariance by detecting local misspecification and an illustration across online and paper-and-pencil samples. European Political Science, 14, 521 – 538. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2015.64 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98 – 104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Davidov, E. (2010). Nationalism and constructive patriotism: A longitudinal test of comparability in 22 countries with the ISSP. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23, 1, 88 – 103. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-36699 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dickey, W. C. & Blumberg, S. J. (2004). Revisiting the factor structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: United States, 2001. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1159 – 1167. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000132808.36708.a9 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Di Riso, D., Salcuni, S., Chessa, D., Raudino, A., Lis, A. & Altoe, G. (2010). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Early evidence of its reliability and validity in a community sample of Italian children. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 570 – 575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Durlak, J. A. & Wells, A. M. (1998). Evaluation of indicated preventive intervention (secondary prevention) mental health programs for children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 775 – 802. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022162015815 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Essau, C. A., Olaya, B., Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous, X., Pauli, G., Gilvarry, C. & Bray, D., et al. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire from five European countries. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 21, 232 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1364 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Goodman, A., Lamping, D. & Ploubidis, G. (2010). When to use broader internalizing and externalizing subscales instead of the hypothesized five subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1179 – 1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9434-x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

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

  • Goodman, R., Ford, T., Simmons, H., Gatward, R. & Meltzer, H. (2000). Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 534 – 539. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.177.6.534 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • He, J. P., Burstein, M., Schmitz, A. & Merikangas, K. R. (2013). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): The factor structure and scale validation in US adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 583 – 595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9696-6 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.3.380 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hölling, H., Erhart, M., Ravens-Sieberer, U. & Schlack, R. (2007). Verhaltensauffälligkeiten bei Kindern und Jugendlichen. Erste Ergebnisse aus dem Kinder- und Jugendgesundheitssurvey (KiGGS). Bundesgesundheitsblatt–Gesundheitsforschung–, Gesundheitsschutz, 50, 784 – 793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-007-0241-7 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hölling, H., Schlack, R., Petermann, F., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Mauz, E. & KiGGS Study Group (2014). Psychische Auffälligkeiten und psychosoziale Beeinträchtigungen bei Kindern und Jugendlichen im Alter von 3 bis 17 Jahren in Deutschland – Prävalenz und zeitliche Trends zu 2 Erhebungszeitpunkten (2003 – 2006 und 2009 – 2012). Bundesgesundheitsblatt–Gesundheitsforschung–Gesundheitsschutz, 57, 807 – 819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-014-1979-3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Horn, J. L. & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 3, 117 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Klasen, H., Woerner, W., Rothenberger, A. & Goodman, R. (2003). Die deutsche Fassung des Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-Deu) – Übersicht und Bewertung erster Validierungs- und Normierungsbefunde. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 52, 491 – 502. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Knafl, G. J. & Grey, M. (2007). Factor analysis model evaluation through likelihood cross-validation. Statistical Methods in, Medical Research, 16, 2, 77 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280206070649 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lange, M., Butschalowsky, H. G., Jentsch, F., Kunert, T., Schaffrath Rosarion, A. & Schlaud, M., et al. (2014). Die erste KiGGS-Folgebefragung (KiGGS Welle 1). Studiendurchführung, Stichprobendesign und Response. Bundesgesundheitsblatt–Gesundheitsforschung–Gesundheitsschutz, 57, 747 – 761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-014-1973-9 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Leeuwen, K. van, Meerschaert, T., Bosmans, G., De Medts, L. & Braet, C. (2006). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a community sample of young children in Flanders. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 189 – 197. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.189 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Lohbeck, A., Schultheiß, J., Petermann, F. & Petermann, U. (2015). Die deutsche Selbstbeurteilungsversion des Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-Deu-S). Psychometrische Eigenschaften, Faktorenstruktur und Grenzwerte. Diagnostica, 61, 222 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000153 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Looij-Janson, P. M. van de, Goedhart, A. W., Wilde, E. J. de & Treffers, P. D. A. (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis and factorial invariance analysis of the adolescent self-reported Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: How important are method effects and minor factors? British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 127 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466510X498174 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Mieloo, C., Raat, H., Oort, F. van, Bevaart, F., Vogel, I. & Donker, M., et al. (2012). Validity and reliability of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in 5 – 6 year olds: Differences by gender or parental education? PLoS ONE, 7, 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036805 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Muris, P., Meesters, C. & Berg, F. van den (2003). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) – further evidence for its reliability and validity in a community sample of Dutch children and adolescents. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 1 – 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-003-0298-2 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

  • Niclasen, J., Skovgaard, A. M., Andersen, A.-M. N., Sømhovd, M. J. & Obel, C. (2013). A confirmatory approach to examining the factor structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): A large scale cohort study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 355 – 365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9683-y First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, L. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ortuño-Sierra, J., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Aritio-Solana, R., Moreno Velasco, A., Chocarro de Luis, E. & Schumann, G., et al. (2015). New evidence of factor structure and measurement invariance of the SDQ across five European nations. European Child & Adolescence Psychiatry, 24, 1523 – 1534. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-015-0729-x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Percy, A., McCrystal, P. & Higgins, K. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the adolescent self-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 43 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.24.1.43 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Revelle, W. & Zinbarg, R. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the GLB: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74, 145 – 154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Roy, B. van, Groholdt, B., Heyerdahl, S. & Clench-Aas, J. (2010). Understanding discrepancies in parent-child reporting of emotional and behavior problems: Effects of relational and socio-demographic factors. BMC Psychiatry, 10, 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-10-56 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Roy, B. van, Veenstra, M. & Clench-Aas, J. (2008). Construct validity of the five factor Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in pre-‍, early, and late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 1304 – 1312. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01942.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ruchkin, V., Jones, S., Vermeiren, R. & Schwab-Stone, M. (2008). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: The self-reported version in American urban and suburban youth. Psychological Assessment, 20, 175 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.175 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ruchkin, V., Koposov, R. & Schwab-Stone, M. (2007). The Strengths- and Difficulties Questionnaire: Scale validation with Russian adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, 861 – 869. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20401 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. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schoot, R. van de, Lugtig, P. & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486 – 492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stone, L. L., Janssens, J. M. A. M., Vermulst, A., Maten, M. van der, Engels, R. C. M. E. & Otten, R. (2015). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher version in children aged 4 – 7. BMC Psychology, 3, 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0061-8 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stone, L. L., Otten, R., Ringlever, L., Hiemstra, M., Engels, R. C. M. E. & Vermulst, A., et al. (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. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000119 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Svedin, C. G. & Priebe, G. (2008). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a screening instrument in a community sample of high school seniors in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 62, 225 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480801984032 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s Alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53 – 55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Temme, D. & Hildebrandt, L. (2009). Gruppenvergleiche bei hypothetischen Konstrukten – Die Prüfung der Übereinstimmung von Messmodellen mit der Strukturgleichungsmethodik. Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 61, 138 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03372818 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wu, A. D., Li, Z. & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12, 3, 1 – 26. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Yao, S., Zhang, C., Zhu, X., Jing, X., McWhinnie, C. M. & Abela, J. R. Z. (2009). Measuring adolescent psychopathology: Psychometric properties of the self-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a sample of Chinese adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 55 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.11.006 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar