Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T17:46:02.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – self report yield invariant measurements across different nations? Data from the International Child Mental Health Study Group

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2014

D. Stevanovic ,
R. Urbán ,
O. Atilola ,
P. Vostanis ,
Y. P. Singh Balhara ,
M. Avicenna ,
H. Kandemir ,
R. Knez ,
T. Franic  and
P. Petrov
D. Stevanovic*
Affiliation:
Clinic for Neurology and Psychiatry for Children and Youth, Belgrade, Serbia
R. Urbán
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
O. Atilola
Affiliation:
Department of Behavioral Medicine, Lagos State University College of Medicine Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria
P. Vostanis
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Leicester University, Leicester, UK
Y. P. Singh Balhara
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India
M. Avicenna
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta, Indonesia
H. Kandemir
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescents psychiatry, Harran University, Sanliurfa, Turkey
R. Knez
Affiliation:
Department of psychiatry, University Hospital Centre Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
T. Franic
Affiliation:
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia
P. Petrov
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University Hospital St. Marina, Varna, Bulgaria
*
*Address for correspondence: Dr Dejan Stevanovic, Clinic for Neurology and Psychiatry for Children and Youth, Dr Subotića Starijeg 6a, 11000 Beograd Belgrade, Serbia. (Email: dejanstevanovic@eunet.rs)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims.

This study evaluated the measurement invariance of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) self-report among adolescents from seven different nations.

Methods.

Data for 2367 adolescents, aged 13–18 years, from India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Serbia, Turkey, Bulgaria and Croatia were available for a series of factor analyses.

Results.

The five-factor model including original SDQ scales emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity–inattention problems, peer problems and prosocial behaviour generated inadequate fit degree in all countries. A bifactor model with three factors (i.e., externalising, internalising and prosocial) and one general problem factor yielded adequate degree of fit in India, Nigeria, Turkey and Croatia. The prosocial behaviour, emotional symptoms and conduct problems factor were found to be common for all nations. However, originally proposed items loaded saliently on other factors besides the proposed ones or only some of them corresponded to proposed factors in all seven countries.

Conclusions.

Due to the lack of a common acceptable model across all countries, namely the same numbers of factors (i.e., dimensional invariance), it was not possible to perform the metric and scalar invariance test, what indicates that the SDQ self-report models tested lack appropriate measurement invariance across adolescents from these seven nations and it needs to be revised for cross-country comparisons.

Keywords

Adolescentcultureinvariancepsychopathology
Type
Original Articles
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , August 2015 , pp. 323 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achenbach, TM (1991 a). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry: Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
Achenbach, TM (1991 b). Manual for the Teacher's Report Form and 1991 Profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry: Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
Achenbach, TM (1991 c). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry: Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
Achenbach, TM, Rescorla, LA (2007). Multicultural Supplement to the Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families: Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
Achenbach, TM, Becker, A, Döpfner, M, Heiervang, E, Roessner, V, Steinhausen, HC, Rothenberger, A (2008). Multicultural assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instruments: research findings, applications, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49, 251–275.Google Scholar
Achenbach, TM, Rescorla, LA, Ivanova, MY (2012). International epidemiology of child and adolescent psychopathology I: diagnoses, dimensions, and conceptual issues. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 51, 1261–1272.Google Scholar
Asparouhov, T, Muthén, B (2006). Robust Chi square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Mplus Web Notes, 10. Retrieved 20 March 2014 (http://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/webnote10.pdf).Google Scholar
Atilola, O, Balhara, YPS, Stevanovic, D, Avicenna, M, Kandemir, H (2013). Self-reported mental health problems among adolescents in developing countries: results from an international pilot sample. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 34, 129–137.Google Scholar
Berry, JW, Poortinga, YH, Segall, MH, Dasen, PR (2002). Methodological concerns. In Cross-cultural Psychology: Research and Applications (ed. Berry, JW, Poortinga, YH, Segall, MH and Dasen, PR), pp. 286–316, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brown, TA (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Browne, MV, Cudek, R (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models (ed. Bollen, KA and Long, SJ), pp. 136–162. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
Byrne, BM, Watkins, D (2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34, 155–175.Google Scholar
Camras, LA, Fatani, SS (2006). The development of emotional expressivity and the influence of culture. International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development Newsletter 49, 12–15.Google Scholar
Dickey, WC, Blumberg, SJ (2004). Revisiting the factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: United States, 2001. Journal of the American Academic Child Adolescent Psychiatry 43, 1159–1167.Google Scholar
Essau, CA, Olaya, B, Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous, X, Pauli, G, Gilvarry, C, Bray, D, O'callaghan, J, Ollendick, TH (2012). Psychometric properties of the strength and difficulties questionnaire from five European countries. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 21, 232–245.Google Scholar
Finney, SJ, Di Stefano, C (2006). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course (ed. Hancock, GR and Mueller, RD), pp. 269–314. Information Age: Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
Giannakopoulos, G, Tzavara, C, Dimitrakaki, C, Kolaitis, G, Rotsika, V, Tountas, Y (2009). The factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) in Greek adolescents. Annals of General Psychiatry 8, 20.Google Scholar
Goodman, R (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, R (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 40, 1337–1345.Google Scholar
Goodman, R, Ford, T, Corbin, T, Meltzer, H (2004). Using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) multi-informant algorithm to screen looked after children for psychiatric disorders. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 13, 25–31.Google Scholar
Goodman, A, Lamping, DL, Ploubidis, GB (2010). When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised five subscales on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ): data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of abnormal child psychology 38, 1179–1191.Google Scholar
Goodman, A, Heiervang, E, Fleitlich-Bilyk, B, Alyahri, A, Patel, V, Mullick, MS, Slobodskaya, H, Dos Santos, DN, Goodman, R (2012). Cross-national differences in questionnaires do not necessarily reflect comparable differences in disorder prevalence. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 47, 1321–1331.Google Scholar
Greally, P, Kelleher, I, Murphy, J, Cannon, M (2010). Assessment of the mental health of Irish adolescents in the community. Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Student Medical Journal 3, 33–35.Google Scholar
Gregorich, SE (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care 44, S78–94.Google Scholar
Hackett, R, Hackett, L (1999). Child psychiatry across cultures. International Review of Psychiatry 11, 225–235.Google Scholar
He, J, van de Vijver, F (2012). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiervang, E, Goodman, A, Goodman, R (2008). The Nordic advantage in child mental health: separating health differences from reporting style in a cross-cultural comparison of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49, 678–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, SJ, Lehman, DR, Peng, K, Greenholtz, J (2002). What's wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82, 903.Google Scholar
Horn, JL, McArdle, JJ (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research 18, 117–144.Google Scholar
Ivanova, MY, Achenbach, TM, Rescorla, LA, Dumenci, L, Almqvist, F, Bilenberg, N, Bird, H, Broberg, AG, Dobrean, A, Döpfner, M, Erol, N, Forns, M, Hannesdottir, H, Kanbayashi, Y, Lambert, MC, Leung, P, Minaei, A, Mulatu, MS, Novik, T, Oh, KJ, Roussos, A, Sawyer, M, Simsek, Z, Steinhausen, HC, Weintraub, S, Winkler Metzke, C, Wolanczyk, T, Zilber, N, Zukauskiene, R, Verhulst, FC (2007). The generalizability of the youth self-report syndrome structure in 23 societies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 75, 729–738.Google Scholar
Kline, RB (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Kóbor, A, Takács, Á, Urbán, R (2013). The bifactor model of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 29, 299–307.Google Scholar
Koskelainen, M, Sourander, A, Vauras, M (2001). Self-reported strengths and difficulties in a community sample of Finnish adolescents. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 10, 180–185.Google Scholar
Lai, KY, Luk, ES, Leung, PW, Wong, AS, Law, L, Ho, K (2010). Validation of the Chinese version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in Hong Kong. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 45, 1179–1186.Google Scholar
Lambert, MC, Essau, CA, Schmitt, N, Samms-Vaughan, ME (2007). Dimensionality and psychometric invariance of the youth self-report form of the child behavior checklist in cross-national settings. Assessment 14, 231–245.Google Scholar
Mabe, PA, Josephson, AM (2004). Child and adolescent psychopathology: spiritual and religious perspectives. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 13, 111–125.Google Scholar
MacCallum, RC (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modelling. Psychological Bulletin 100, 107–120.Google Scholar
Mellor, D, Stokes, M (2007). The factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 23, 105–112.Google Scholar
Milfont, TL, Fisher, R (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications for cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research 3, 111–121.Google Scholar
Muthén, LK, Muthén, BO (1998–2012). Mplus User's Guide, 7th edn. Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Nazroo, JY (1998). Genetic, cultural or socio-economic vulnerability? Explaining ethnic inequalities in health. Sociology of Health and Illness 20, 710–730.Google Scholar
Nikapota, A, Rutter, M (2008). Sociocultural/ethnic groups and psychopathology. In Rutter's Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 5th edn (ed. Rutter, MD, Bishop, VM, Pine, DS, Scott, S, Stevenson, J, Taylor, E, Thapar, A), pp. 199–211. Blackwell Publishing Limited: London.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.Google Scholar
Poortinga, YH (1989). Equivalence of cross-cultural data: an overview of basic issues. International Journal of Psychology 24, 737–756.Google ScholarPubMed
Purgato, M, Barbui, C (2012). Dichotomizing rating scale scores in psychiatry: a bad idea. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Science, 22, 17–19.Google Scholar
Ravens-Sieberer, U, Wille, N, Erhart, M, Bettge, S, Wittchen, HU, Rothenberger, A, Herpertz-Dahlmann, B, Resch, F, Hölling, H, Bullinger, M, Barkmann, C, Schulte-Markwort, M, Döpfner, M (2008 a). Prevalence of mental health problems among children and adolescents in Germany: results of the BELLA study within the national health interview and examination survey. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 17, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravens-Sieberer, U, Erhart, M, Gosch, A, Wille, N (2008 b). Mental health of children and adolescents in 12 European countries – results from the European KIDSCREEN study. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 15, 154–163.Google Scholar
Rescorla, L, Ivanova, MY, Achenbach, TM, Begovac, I, Chahed, M, Drugli, MB, Emerich, DR, Fung, DS, Haider, M, Hansson, K, Hewitt, N, Jaimes, S, Larsson, B, Maggiolini, A, Marković, J, Mitrović, D, Moreira, P, Oliveira, JT, Olsson, M, Ooi, YP, Petot, D, Pisa, C, Pomalima, R, da Rocha, MM, Rudan, V, Sekulić, S, Shahini, M, de Mattos Silvares, EF, Szirovicza, L, Valverde, J, Vera, LA, Villa, MC, Viola, L, Woo, BS, Zhang, EY (2012). International epidemiology of child and adolescent psychopathology. II. Integration and applications of dimensional findings from 44 societies. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 51, 1273–1283.Google Scholar
Richter, J, Sagatun, Å, Heyerdahl, S, Oppedal, B, Røysamb, E (2011). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) – self-report. An analysis of its structure in a multiethnic urban adolescent sample. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 52, 1002–1011.Google Scholar
Riso, DD, Salcuni, S, Chessa, D, Raudino, A, Lis, A, Altoè, 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.Google Scholar
Ronning, JA, Handegaard, BH, Sourander, A, Morch, WT (2004). The strengths and difficulties self-report questionnaire as a screening instrument in Norwegian community samples. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 13, 73–82.Google Scholar
Ruchkin, V, Koposov, R, Schwab-Stone, M (2007). The strength and difficulties questionnaire: scale validation with Russian adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology 63, 861–869.Google Scholar
Thabet, AA, Stretch, D, Vostanis, P (2000). Child mental health problems in Arab children: application of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 46, 266–280.Google Scholar
van de Looij-Jansen, PM, Goedhart, AW, de Wilde, EJ, Treffers, PD (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis and factorial invariance analysis of the adolescent self-report strengths and difficulties questionnaire: how important are method effects and minor factors? British Journal of Clinical Psychology 50, 127–144.Google Scholar
Van Roy, B, 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.Google Scholar
Verhulp, EE, Stevens, GWJM, Van de Schoot, R, Vollebergh, WAM (2014). Using the youth self-report internalizing syndrome scales among immigrant adolescents: testing measurement invariance across groups and over time. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 11, 102–110.Google Scholar
Yates, A (1987). Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis: A Perspective on Exploratory Factor Analysis. State University of New York Press: Albany.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Stevanovic Supplementary Material

Appendix 1

Download Stevanovic Supplementary Material(File)
File 129 KB