IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0218518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for children with ADHD symptoms

Author

Listed:
  • Charlotte L Hall
  • Boliang Guo
  • Althea Z Valentine
  • Madeline J Groom
  • David Daley
  • Kapil Sayal
  • Chris Hollis

Abstract

Background: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is widely used to assess child and adolescent mental health problems. However, the factor structure of the SDQ is subject to debate and there is limited evidence investigating measurement equivalence invariance (ME/I) between treatment groups, informants, and across time. Method: A randomised controlled trial (RCT) recruited 250 participants (6–17 years) who had been referred for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) assessment. Participants and their clinician either received or did not receive a QbTest report (computer task measuring attention, impulsivity and activity). Parents and teachers completed the SDQ at baseline and 6-months later. This study aimed to understand the factor structure of the SDQ in a clinic referred ADHD sample, and validate the scale as a screening/diagnostic aide and as a measure of treatment outcome both in clinical and research settings. Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling (ESEM) was performed to examine the factor structure, and ME/I was assessed between treatment groups, informants, and time points. The criterion validity of the SDQ predictive algorithm for ADHD was compared with clinician and research diagnoses using logistic regression and tests of diagnostic accuracy. Results: A 5-factor structure provided the best fit with strong factorial invariance between treatment groups and across time points, but not across informants (parent and teacher ratings). SDQ ratings of ‘probable’ hyperactivity disorder were good predictors of clinical (OR = 10.20, 95%CI 2.18–48.71,p = 0.003) and research diagnoses of ADHD (OR = 6.82, 95%CI 1.95–23.84,p = 0.003), and research diagnoses of Hyperkinetic disorder (OR = 4.02, 95%CI 1.13–14.25,p = 0.031). Further examination of the SDQ hyperactivity ‘probable’ rating showed good specificity (84.5%-74.5%) but poor sensitivity (45.0–42.5%) for ADHD. Conclusion: The findings indicate the SDQ is a valid outcome measure for use in RCTs and clinical settings. However, care should be taken when using the SDQ predictive algorithm to screen for ADHD in clinically referred samples.

Suggested Citation

  • Charlotte L Hall & Boliang Guo & Althea Z Valentine & Madeline J Groom & David Daley & Kapil Sayal & Chris Hollis, 2019. "The validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for children with ADHD symptoms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-19, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0218518
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0218518
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0218518&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0218518?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Janni Niclasen & Thomas William Teasdale & Anne-Marie Nybo Andersen & Anne Mette Skovgaard & Hanne Elberling & Carsten Obel, 2012. "Psychometric Properties of the Danish Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire: The SDQ Assessed for More than 70,000 Raters in Four Different Cohorts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-8, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dietrichson, Jens & Klokker, Rasmus H., 2024. "Predicting preschool problems," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Jun Wang & Ke Liu & Jing Zheng & Jiali Liu & Liming You, 2017. "Prevalence of Mental Health Problems and Associated Risk Factors among Rural-to-Urban Migrant Children in Guangzhou, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-15, November.
    3. Jensen, Bente & Jensen, Peter & Rasmussen, Astrid Würtz, 2017. "Does professional development of preschool teachers improve children's socio-emotional outcomes?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 26-39.
    4. Heba J. Sabbagh & Ghadeer Sharton & Jumana Almaghrabi & Manal Al-Malik & Mona Hassan Ahmed Hassan & Narmin Helal, 2021. "Effect of Environmental Tobacco Smoke on Children’s Anxiety and Behavior in Dental Clinics, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-10, January.
    5. Del Bono, Emilia & Etheridge, Ben & Garcia, Paul, 2024. "The economic value of childhood socio-emotional skills," ISER Working Paper Series 2024-01, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    6. Maria Keilow & Hans Henrik Sievertsen & Janni Niclasen & Carsten Obel, 2019. "The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and standardized academic tests: Reliability across respondent type and age," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-12, July.
    7. Eiberg, Misja & Olsen, Rikke Fuglsang, 2022. "Too high or too low? the role of educational expectations for children in out-of-home care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0218518. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.