SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.55Mental health, suicide risk and the important role of self-esteem in Adolescents before and during coexistence with COVID-19 in EcuadorInterplay between alexithymia, emotion regulation, and positive and negative affect as predictors of gambling and gaming disorders in adolescents and young adults author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google

Share


Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología

Print version ISSN 0120-0534

rev.latinoam.psicol. vol.55  Bogotá Dec. 2023  Epub Jan 12, 2024

https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2023.v55.16 

ARTICLES

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): An update of the literature and instrumental study with schoolchildren

Cuestionario de Fortalezas y Debilidades (SDQ): actualización de la literatura y estudio instrumental con escolares

1 Universidad Católica del Uruguay, Uruguay.

2 Universidad de Murcia, Spain


Abstract

Introduction:

Considering the current controversy regarding the factorial structure of the SDQ, this paper aimed to analyse the dimensionality and reliability of the parents’ version for children from 4 to 16 years of age, and to present descriptive data according to sociodemographic variables.

Method:

The factor structure of the original five- and three-factor models, and the reliability of the SDQ were examined among a sample of 621 parents of Uruguayan children between 7 and 12 years of age (52% girls) from different socioeconomic levels.

Results:

Confirmatory factor analyses did not provide support for the five- and three-factor models. Data adjusted to three factors (prosociality, externalising symptoms, internalising symptoms) in an exploratory analysis with adequate reliability indices.

Conclusions:

The results of this study show the relevance of continued investigation of the SDQ internal structure, and further analysis of the behaviour of several of its items.

Keywords: Psychometric properties; SDQ; factor structure; reliability; symptomatology; children; screening

Resumen

Introducción:

Considerando la controversia vigente respecto a la estructura factorial del SDQ, este trabajo tuvo como objetivo analizar la validez de constructo y fiabilidad de la versión para padres de niños de 4 a 16 años y presentar datos descriptivos según variables sociodemográficas.

Método:

Se examinó la estructura factorial de los modelos originales de cinco y tres factores y la fiabilidad del SDQ en una muestra de 621 padres de niños uruguayos entre 7 y 12 años (52 % niñas) de distintos niveles socioeconómicos.

Resultados:

Los análisis factoriales confirmatorios no pudieron dar apoyo a los modelos de cinco y tres factores. Los datos se ajustaron a tres factores (prosocialidad, síntomas externalizantes y síntomas internalizantes) en un análisis exploratorio con adecuados índices de fiabilidad.

Conclusiones:

Los resultados de este estudio muestran la pertinencia de continuar investigando la estructura interna del SDQ y analizar con mayor profundidad el comportamiento de algunos de sus ítems.

Palabras clave: Propiedades psicométricas; SDQ; estructura factorial; fiabilidad; sintomatología; niños; screening

Introduction

Mental disorders are estimated to affect more than 13% of children and adolescents worldwide (United Nations Children’s Fund, 2022). Surveys meta-analysis of representative samples from children and adolescents in high-income countries estimated that one out of eight children and adolescents show mental disorders that require treatment, with an overall prevalence of 12.7% (Barican et al., 2022).

In Latin America, reported prevalence figures of mental disorders range from 13% to 22% in population-based studies of children and teen mental health (Duarte et al., 2003; Paula et al., 2015; Vicente et al., 2012). In Uruguay, Viola et al. (2007) published a study involving 1,374 children aged 6 to 11 years, whose results showed that 22% of Uruguayan schoolchildren registered at least one significant symptom.

Regarding the age at which mental disorders begin, the results of a meta-analysis of 192 epidemiological studies showed that 34.6% of mental disorders appear before the age of 14 (Solmi et al., 2021). Most of these situations are not detected or treated promptly causing school problems, substance abuse, or comorbid disorders (World Health Organisation, 2021), negatively affecting family, social, academic, work, and economic environments (Asselmann et al., 2018).

It is relevant, therefore, to have valid and reliable screening devices and instruments for the early detection of mental health problems. There is a growing number of instruments with potential to be used for such purposes. Deighton et al. (2014) reviewed existing broadband instruments for the assessment of mental health and wellbeing reported by children, parents, and teachers, and found that 11 measures have adequate characteristics and psychometric properties for the assessment of this population. Within this set of instruments, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997) is one of the most widely used, both for clinical and research purposes, for the detection of existing mental health difficulties in children and adolescents (Bryant et al., 2020). In addition, it has the advantage of being one of the few instruments to report a positive mental health score (Smedje et al., 1999).

The SDQ is made up of 25 items grouped into five subscales: one scale assesses strengths related to prosocial behaviour, and four scales assess mental health difficulties (conduct problems, hyperactivity, emotional symptoms, interpersonal problems with peers). The scales of conduct problems and hyperactivity are indicators of externalising type symptoms, and the scales of emotional symptoms and interpersonal problems with peers are indicators of internalising type symptoms (Goodman, 1997, 1999; Goodman, Lamping et al., 2010).

Despite its widespread use, the SDQ’s factor structure continues to be debated (Kulawiak et al., 2020; McAloney-Kocaman & McPherson, 2017).

To date, five reviewing studies have been published on the psychometric properties of the SDQ parent version for 4 - to 16-year-old children (Bergström & Baviskar, 2021; Hoosen et al., 2018; Saur & Loureiro, 2012; Stolk et al., 2017; Stone et al., 2010). Of these five papers, only two (Saur & Loureiro, 2012; Stone et al., 2010) report information on analyses of the internal structure of the instrument using general population samples.

The review by Stone et al. (2010) selected 48 studies, 14 of which reported data on factor analysis. In Saur and Loureiro’s (2012) review, 17 of a total of 51 selected articles assessed the dimensional structure of the questionnaire. Not all these papers reported the Goodness of Fit indices recommended in the guidelines for conducting factor analyses, such as those of Ferrando et al. (2022) and Lloret-Segura et al. (2014). At a minimum, absolute fit indices such as the Chi-square value, with its associated degrees of freedom and probability value, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and indices to describe the incremental fit such as the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), or the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) should be reported (Hooper et al., 2008, Hu & Bentler, 1999).

In order to complete and update the background report on the SDQ factor structure, we conducted a search for articles published from 2012 onwards. Table 1 shows the studies included in the reviews by Stone et al. (2010) and Saur and Loureiro (2012) as well as subsequent articles that meet the conditions of testing of the original five- and three-factor structures originally proposed by Goodman through a confirmatory factor analysis (with recommended fit indices), of the version completed by parents of children between 6 and 12 years of age from the general population.

The Goodness of Fit indices reported on Table 1 should be analysed according to the cut-off values suggested for each measure (Jackson et al., 2009). Considering that all study samples are greater than 250 in size, and that the questionnaire has 25 items, the recommended goodness-of-fit values are: CFI and TLI > .92, RMSEA < .07 (Hair et al., 2019) and x2/gl < 3 (Schreiber et al., 2006). These cut-off points are consistent if appropriate software is used for conducting factor analyses (MPlus, LISREL, FACTOR, SAS, among others) with categorical data, using the WLSMV, DWLS and Satorra-Bentler-corrected ML estimation methods, based on polychoric correlation matrices.

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analyses (5- and 3-factor) SDQ parent version 

Note. In the case of more than one estimation method, the one with the best fit is reported: aSatorra-Bentler ML, bWLSMV, cDWLS. *boys, **girls.

As can be seen on Table 1, 11 of the 18 papers presented (Björnsdotter et al., 2013; Español-Martín et al., 2021; Gómez-Beneyto et al., 2013; Goodman, Lamping et al., 2010; Hoffmann et al., 2020; Kóbor et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2021; Murray et al., 2022; Sanne et al., 2009; Tobia & Marzocchi, 2018; Van Roy et al., 2008) report five-factor solutions with adequate psychometric indices according to current recommendations. Of the nine papers that analysed the structure of three factors, Björnsdotter et al. (2013) and Español-Martín et al. (2021) were the only ones that reported acceptable fit indices.

Considering the large number of articles that have analysed the SDQ’s psychometric properties in its 25 years of existence, the limited number of studies that confirm the original five- and three-factor structures is striking. Factor solutions that achieve good fit indices have been reported, but they deviate from the original theoretical model. For example, a study eliminated the prosociality scale, thus generating a two-factor solution referring to internalising and externalising difficulties or a single factor solution grouping the four difficulty subscales (Goodman, Patel et al., 2010). Others followed the path of testing second-order (Goodman, Lamping et al., 2010) or bifactor models (Kóbor et al., 2013), or of re-specifying the models allowing to correlate the measurement errors of the items (Percy et al., 2008). It has been hypothesised that the poor fit of the SDQ may be related to a “method effect”, that is configured when both positively and negatively worded items are used (Karlsson et al., 2022). Along these lines, van Roy et al. (2008) added a “positive interpretation method factor” to the five-factor model that is comprised of SDQ scale items that are reverse worded.

Considering the validity of the discussion about the SDQ factorial structure and that in Uruguay no validation studies were conducted with school-age children, we conducted an instrumental study in order to analyse the psychometric properties of the instrument in children from 7 to 12 years of age from the general population. In Uruguay there is a study on the psychometric properties of the questionnaire in children between 2 and 4 years of age that did not confirm any of the factorial models analysed (Castillo & Ortuño, 2018).

Thus, the specific aims of this paper are: (1) to evaluate the factorial structure of the SDQ for the original five- and three-factor models, (2) to analyse the reliability of the subscales, and (3) to provide descriptive data on the SDQ results according to sociodemographic variables.

Method

Participants

The sample was determined using non-probability cluster sampling taking into consideration both geographic distribution and the income quintile group of the families attending each school. The total sample was composed of the adult referents of 621 schoolchildren (52% girls) attending private schools in different cities of Uruguay, from 7 to 12 years of age (M = 9.75; SD = 1.37). The questionnaires were completed in 85% of the cases by their mothers. Of the total number of participants, 62% belonged to a medium socioeconomic level, 32% to a high level and 6% to a low level.

Instruments

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997). In this paper we used the Río de la Plata translation published on the instrument’s official website (Goodman, n.d.). With a total of 25 items, the questionnaire provides a record of children’s behaviours, emotions and relationships depicting strengths and difficulties: prosocial behaviour (items 1, 4, 9, 17, and 20), conduct problems (items 5, 7, 12, 18, and 22), hyperactivity (items 2, 10, 15, 21, and 25), emotional symptoms (items 3, 8, 13, 16, and 24), and peer relationship problems (items 6, 11, 14, 19, and 23). Each item is scored on a 3-point Likert scale: 0 “not true”, 1 “true” or 2 “absolutely true”. Items 7, 11, 14, 21, and 25 must be inverted for the correct interpretation of the results. The four SDQ subscales of difficulties are grouped into externalising (“conduct problems + symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention”) and internalising (“emotional symptoms + peer relationship problems”) types of issues.

Sociodemographic information questionnaire. A questionnaire was developed to obtain sociodemographic data (age, sex) on the children and families. The survey included the questions of the Socioeconomic Level Index (INSE; Perera & Cazulo, 2016).

Procedure

We contacted privately managed educational institutions throughout the country and requested authorisation from the families of school-age children to conduct the study. Of the 1,940 families contacted, 840 agreed to take part in the study and signed the informed consent form after which they were given or sent the protocol including the sociodemographic questionnaire and the SDQ. A total of 621 families completed the questionnaires.

Ethical considerations

The procedure, consents and protocols have the approval of the Research Ethics Committee of Universidad Católica del Uruguay, complying with the country’s research on human subject regulations, governed by Decree 001- 4573/2007 of the Executive Branch, and Law No. 18331 of Habeas Data, concerning personal data confidentiality.

Data analysis

Item analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), reliability calculated with ordinal alpha, and descriptive analyses were performed for the Uruguayan sample.

CFA was conducted with the MPlus programme version 8.4. The categorical data matrix was used; missing data was handled using multiple imputation. The hypothesised model fit to the observed data was assessed using the Weighted Least Square Mean and Variance (WLSMV) method. EFA was undertaken with the FACTOR programme version 12.03.02, using polychoric correlations matrices (Freiberg et al., 2013), and applying the Unweighted Least Squares (ULS) method as the estimation approach. The number of factors were estimated using parallel analysis (Timmerman & Lorenzo-Seva, 2011), and the Robust Promin extraction method (Lorenzo-Seva & Ferrando, 2019). The adequacy of the correlation matrix was tested using Barlett’s test of sphericity, and the Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin measure. The fit indices used were x2/gl < 3, CFI and TLI > .92, RMSEA < .07 (Hair et al., 2019; Schreiber et al., 2006), and BIC (model with the lowest BIC value is preferred). The method of multiple imputation for missing data was implemented in the FACTOR programme (Lorenzo-Seva & Van Ginkel, 2016). The ordinal α-index was calculated to estimate reliability (Gadermann et al., 2012). The descriptive analyses were carried out using the JAMOVI programme.

Results

Confirmatory factor analysis

A CFA was carried out for the five-factor and three-factor models proposed by Goodman (Goodman, 1997, 1999; Goodman, Lamping et al., 2010). Table 2 presents the CFA results, showing that the data do not fit either of the two proposed models.

Table 2 Confirmatory factor analysis results five- and three-factors 

Item analysis and exploratory factor analysis

Given the results of the CFA, an exploratory strategy was used. We performed a descriptive study of the items (see Table 3) showing that items 11, 17 and 22 have severe asymmetry problems with absolute values > 3, that item 11 has severe kurtosis problems (> 10), and that items 17 and 22 (> 20) have extreme kurtosis issues (Kline, 2015). This analysis accounts for the need to use polychoric matrices and the robust weighted least squares (WLSMV) estimation method (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014). Sampling adequacy was tested with Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the KMO adequacy measure. The Bartlett sphericity test was significant (6664.1; gl = 300; p < .000), with a KMO adequacy index = .54.

Table 3 Item descriptive statistics 

Note. Items with reverse scoring are shown with an (R).

First, an EFA was performed limiting the extraction to five factors. The model fit indices were excellent (x2 = 350.75; df = 185; p < .000) x2/gl = 1.89, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .039 (90% CI (.005, .045); BIC = 1306). This output, however, was discarded when we noticed that the factor loadings of the items were grouped together without theoretical meaning. Therefore, another EFA was performed limiting the extraction to three factors. These results show a very good fit (x2 = 639.27; df = 228; p < .000) x2/gl = 2.80, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .055 (90% CI (.05, .08); BIC = 1763). Table 4 presents the factor loadings of the items for the three-factor model.

Table 4 Factor loading for three factors 

Note. Items with reverse scoring are shown with an (R).

Descriptive data and reliability

Table 5 registers descriptive data, correlations, and ordinal α-reliability for each of the three SDQ subscales, with indices between .74 and .78.

Table 5 Descriptive statistics and reliabilities three-factor SDQ 

Note. Ordinal a-reliability indices are reported in bold on the diagonal. **p < .001.

Finally, Table 6 reports descriptive data for the three SDQ subscales according to sociodemographic variables.

Table 6 Descriptive data for the three-factor SDQ according to sociodemographic variables 

Discussion

Since its inception 25 years ago, the SDQ (Goodman, 1997) has become one of the most widely used instruments for screening children and adolescents for prosocial symptoms and behaviours, for both clinical and research purposes. The SDQ is freely available in more than 80 languages and has been employed in a wide range of cultural contexts (Harry et al., 2019). However, controversy persists regarding its factor structure (Garrido et al., 2020; Kulawiak et al., 2020; McAloney-Kocaman & McPherson, 2017).

In the original psychometric studies, Goodman (1999) reported a five-factor structure through EFA using the principal component procedure. This procedure is currently totally discouraged (Lloret-Segura et al., 2014). In the years following its creation, many of the psychometric studies of the SDQ internal structure using these procedures succeeded in replicating the five-factor structure (Goodman, 2001; Hawes & Dadds, 2004; Smedje et al., 1999). Recently, an increasing number of studies have conducted CFA, a much more psychometrically demanding procedure, with varying results. As presented in the background review, some authors were able to confirm the five-factor structure but many others had to test the three-factor structure or analyse and test’s internal structure alternatives other than those originally formulated by Goodman (1997; 1999).

According to Goodman, Lamping et al. (2010) the three-dimensional structure would be more appropriate for screening in the general population. The data from the present study, conducted with children from the Uruguayan general population, supports this model when performing an EFA, after the CFA for the five- and three-factor models did not achieve acceptable fit indices.

Numerous studies confirming the original five- and/or three-factor structures at exploratory levels did not achieve good fit when performing CFA (Caci et al., 2015). It is for this reason that some authors looked for analysis alternatives with fewer restrictions than those imposed by CFA, such as the Exploratory Structure Equation Modelling (ESEM;Schreiber et al., 2006). The results with this procedure also show weak factorial structures, with questionable indicators of cross-loads and multiple error correlations (Garrido et al., 2020).

The EFA conducted with Uruguayan schoolchildren data obtained very good adjustment indices for the three-factor structure, with adequate reliability indices. However, some items presented behaviour that merits review. Items 11, 17 and 22 presented severe asymmetry and kurtosis problems. On the other hand, when reviewing the factor loadings for the three-factor model, items 14, 21, and 22 saturated more than one factor, and in the case of item 22 factor loadings were distributed among all three factors, with values below .30. Some of these items should be inverted for the interpretation of their results, something that has been mentioned as a possible source of problems for psychometric analyses (Karlsson et al., 2022).

Considering that this is the first psychometric study of this instrument with school children in Uruguay, the descriptive data by gender, age, and socioeconomic level provides a reference for subsequent work and can be compared with the results obtained with the parent version in Spanish for Spain (Español-Martin et al., 2021) and Honduras (Harry et al., 2019). Using the cut-off points used by Español-Martin et al. (2021), the descriptive data shown on Table 6 allows us to affirm that most Uruguayan children (regardless of gender, age and socioeconomic level) fall into the “normal” range for prosocial behaviours (scores from 7 to 10), and externalising-type symptoms (scores from 0 to 7), and in the “borderline” range for internalising-type symptoms (scores from 0 to 3). This last data is especially striking since it is a general population sample, and a type of symptomatology that may draw less attention from adult referents.

This work has limitations that deserve attention. Although the sample was taken in different cities of the country and has diversity in terms of socioeconomic levels, it is not representative of Uruguayan school-age children. Furthermore, only the version completed by parents was considered in this study. Some studies suggest that the teachers’ reports are more reliable than the parents’ reports, or at least complementary in order to achieve a better assessment of children’s strengths and difficulties (Boman et al., 2016; Goodman et al., 2000). New studies should be conducted, with larger and more representative samples, including the teachers’ reports to complete the validation process of the instrument in the Uruguayan population by adding convergent, discriminant and criteria validity analyses, and including measurement invariance across gender and age.

Final considerations

It is undeniably essential to have screening instruments for symptoms and difficulties in children and adolescents that will allow early detection of behaviours that may require professional attention. The SDQ is one of the most widely used instruments for such purposes, but it still shows some inconsistencies in its internal structure. Twenty-five years after its creation and considering its multiple advantages, it is pertinent to review the evidence gathered over the years to adjust and strengthen this instrument. The present study contributed data from the Uruguayan population for the first time, which is an asset to the international debate on the instrument’s structure, as well as a supplement to researchers and clinical practitioners who wish to use it at the national level.

References

Allkoja, B. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a sample of Albanian elementary school children.Materia Socio-Medica, 30(3), 164-169.https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2018.30.164-169Links ]

Asselmann, E., Wittchen, H. U., Lieb, R., & Beesdo-Baum, K. (2018). Sociodemographic, clinical, and functional long-term outcomes in adolescents and young adults with mental disorders.Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 137(1), 6-17.https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12792Links ]

Barican, J. L., Yung, D., Schwartz, C., Zheng, Y., Georgiades, K., & Waddell, C. (2022). Prevalence of childhood mental disorders in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis to inform policymaking.Evidence-Based Mental Health,25(1), 36-44.https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2021-300277Links ]

Bergström, M., & Baviskar, S. (2021). A systematic review of some reliability and validity issues regarding the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire focusing on its use in out-of-home care.Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work,18(1), 1-31.https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2020.1788477Links ]

Björnsdotter, A., Enebrink, P., & Ghaderi, A. (2013). Psychometric properties of online administered parental strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ), and normative data based on combined online and paper-and-pencil administration.Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7(40).https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-7-40Links ]

Boman, F., Stafström, M., Lundin, N., Moghadassi, M., Törnhage, C. J., & Östergren, P. O. (2016). Comparing parent and teacher assessments of mental health in elementary school children.Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,44(2), 168-176.https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494815610929Links ]

Bryant, A., Guy, J., CALM Team, & Holmes (2020). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire predicts concurrent mental health difficulties in a transdiagnostic sample of struggling learners.Frontiers in Psychology,11, 587821.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.587821Links ]

Caci, H., Morin, A. J., & Tran, A. (2015). Investigation of a bifactor model of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24(10), 1291-1301.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-015-0679-3Links ]

Castillo, M., & Ortuño, V. (2018).Estudio estructural del Cuestionario de capacidades y dificultades (SDQ) en niños de 2 a 4 años de Montevideo y Canelones(Trabajo final de grado, Universidad de la República, Uruguay). [ Links ]

Deighton, J., Croudace, T., Fonagy, P., Brown, J., Patalay, P., & Wolpert, M. (2014). Measuring mental health and wellbeing outcomes for children and adolescents to inform practice and policy: A review of child self-report measures.Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 8, 1-14.https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-8-14Links ]

Duarte, C., Hoven, C., Berganza, C., Bordin, I., Bird, H., & Miranda, C. T. (2003). Child mental health in Latin America: Present and future epidemiologic research.The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine,33(3), 203-222.https://doi.org/10.2190/4WJB-BW16-2TGE-565WLinks ]

Español-Martín, G., Pagerols, M., Prat, R., Rivas, C., Sixto, L., Valero, S., Artigas, M. S., Ribasés, M., Ramos-Quiroga, J. A., Casas, M., & Bosch, R. (2021). Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and normative data for Spanish, 5- to 17-year-olds.Assessment,28(5), 1445-1458.https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120918929Links ]

Ferrando, P. J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Hernández-Dorado, A., & Muñiz-Fernández, J. (2022). Decálogo para el análisis factorial de los ítems de un test.Psicothema, 34(1), 7-17.https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.456Links ]

Freiberg, A., Stover, J., de la Iglesia, G., & Fernández-Liporace, M. (2013). Correlaciones policóricas y tetracóricas en estudios factoriales exploratorios y confirmatorios.Ciencias Psicológicas, 7(2), 151-164.https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v7i1.1057Links ]

Gadermann, A., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide.Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 17(3), 1-13. [ Links ]

Garrido, L. E., Barrada, J. R., Aguasvivas, J. A., Martínez-Molina, A., Arias, V. B., Golino, H. F., Legaz, E., Ferrís, G., & Rojo-Moreno, L. (2020). Is small still beautiful for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire? Novel findings using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling.Assessment, 27(6), 1349-1367.https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118780461Links ]

Gómez, R., & Stavropoulos, V. (2019). Parent ratings of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: What is the optimum factor model?Assessment, 26(6), 1142-1153.https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117721743Links ]

Gómez-Beneyto, M., Nolasco, A., Moncho, J., Pereyra-Zamora, P., Tamayo-Fonseca, N., Munarriz, M., Salazar, J., Tabarés-Seisdedos, R., & Girón, M. (2013). Psychometric behaviour of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) in the Spanish national health survey 2006.BMC Psychiatry,13(95).https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-95Links ]

Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines,38(5), 581-586.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.xLinks ]

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, and Allied Disciplines,40(5), 791-799.https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00494Links ]

Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,40(11), 1337-1345.https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015Links ]

Goodman, R. (n.d.).Downloadable SDQs and related items.https://www.sdqinfo.org/py/sdqinfo/b0.pyLinks ]

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: The Journal of Mental Science,177(6), 534-539.https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.177.6.534Links ]

Goodman, A., Lamping, D. L., & Ploubidis, G. B. (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(8), 1179-1191.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9434-xLinks ]

Goodman, A., Patel, V., & Leon, D. A. (2010). Why do British Indian children have an apparent mental health advantage?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 51(10), 1171-1183.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02260.xLinks ]

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019).Multivariate data analysis(8th ed.). Cengage. [ Links ]

Harry, M. L., Acevedo, J., & Crea, T. M. (2019). Assessing the factor structure of the Spanish language parent Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Honduras.Plos One, 14(3), e0214394.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214394Links ]

Hawes, D. J. & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Australian data and psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,38(8), 644-651.https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01427.xLinks ]

Hoffmann, M. D., Lang, J. J., Guerrero, M. D., Cameron, J. D., Goldfield, G. S., Orpana, H. M., & de Groh, M. (2020). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the parent-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a nationally representative sample of Canadian children and adolescents aged 6 to 17 years.Health Reports,31(8), 13-20.https://doi.org/10.25318/82-003-x202000800002-engLinks ]

Hoosen, N., Davids, E. L., de Vries, P. J., & Shung-King, M. (2018). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Africa: A scoping review of its application and validation.Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health,12(6).https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-017-0212-1Links ]

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit.Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53-60.https://doi.org/10.21427/D7CF7RLinks ]

Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118Links ]

Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations.Psychological Methods,14(1), 6-23.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014694Links ]

Karlsson, P., Larm, P., Svensson, J., & Raninen, J. (2022). The factor structure of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire in a national sample of Swedish adolescents: Comparing 3 and 5-factor models.Plos One,17(3), e0265481.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265481Links ]

Kline, R. B. (2015).Principles and practice of structural equation modeling(4ª ed.). Guildford Press. [ Links ]

Kóbor, A., Takács, Á., & Urbán, R. (2013). The bifactor model of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.European Journal of Psychological Assessment,29(4), 299-307.https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000160Links ]

Kulawiak, P. R., Wilbert, J., Schlack, R., & Börnert-Ringleb, M. (2020). Prediction of child and adolescent outcomes with broadband and narrowband dimensions of internalizing and externalizing behavior using the child and adolescent version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.Plos One, 15(10), e0240312.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240312Links ]

Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2019). Robust Promin: A method for diagonally weighted factor rotation.Liberabit, 25(1), 99-106.https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2019.v25n1.08Links ]

Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Van Ginkel, J. R. (2016). Imputación múltiple de valores perdidos en el análisis factorial exploratorio de escalas multidimensionales: estimación de las puntuaciones de rasgos latentes.Anales de Psicología, 32(2), 596-608.https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.2.215161Links ]

Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada.Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151-1169.https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361Links ]

McAloney-Kocaman, K., & McPherson, K. (2017). Factor structure and reliability of the parent-informant Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a Scottish preschool sample.Early Education and Development, 28(3), 368-376.https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1228367Links ]

Mellor, D., & Stokes, M. (2007). The factor structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 105-112.https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.105Links ]

Moriwaki, A., & Kamio, Y. (2014). Normative data and psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire among Japanese school-aged children.Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 8(1).https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-8-1Links ]

Murray, A. L., Speyer, L. G., Hall, H. A., Valdebenito, S., & Hughes, C. (2021). Teacher versus parent informant measurement invariance of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 46(10), 1249-1257.https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsab062Links ]

Murray, A. L., Speyer, L. G., Hall, H. A., Valdebenito, S., & Hughes, C. (2022). A longitudinal and gender invariance analysis of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire across ages 3, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 17 in a large U.K.-representative sample.Assessment, 29(6), 1248-1261.https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211009312Links ]

Ortuño-Sierra, J., Aritio-Solana, R., & Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2018). Mental health difficulties in children and adolescents: The study of the SDQ in the Spanish National Health Survey 2011-2012.Psychiatry Research, 259, 236-242.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.10.025Links ]

Paula, C. S., Coutinho, E. S., Mari, J. J., Rohde, L. A., Miguel, E. C., & Bordin, I. A. (2015). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among children and adolescents from four Brazilian regions.Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria,37(2), 178-179.https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2014-1606Links ]

Perera, M. & Cazulo, P. (2016).Índice de Nivel Socioeconómico. Propuesta de actualización. Centro de Investigaciones Económicas (CINVE). [ Links ]

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(1), 43-48.https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.24.1.43Links ]

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(3), 352-364.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016317Links ]

Saur, A. & Lourreiro, S. (2012). Qualidades psicométricas do Questionário de Capacidades e Dificuldades: Revisão da literatura.Estudos de Psicología (Campinas), 29(4), 619-629.https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-166×2012000400016Links ]

Schreiber, J., Nora, A., Stage, F., Barlow, E., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review.The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323-338.https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338Links ]

Shibata, Y., Okada, K., Fukumoto, R., & Nomura, K. (2015). Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher forms of the Japanese version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.Brain & Development,37(5), 501-507.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.braindev.2014.08.001Links ]

Smedje, H., Broman, J. E., Hetta, J., & von Knorring, A. L. (1999). Psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire”.European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 8(2), 63-70.https://doi.org/10.1007/s007870050086Links ]

Solmi, M., Radua, J., Olivola, M., Croce, E., Soardo, L., Salazar de Pablo, G., Shin, J., Kirkbride, J., Jones, P., Han Kim, J., Yeob Kim, J., Carvalho, A., Seeman, M., Correll, Ch., & Fusar-Poli, P. (2021). Age at onset of mental disorders worldwide: Large-scale metaanalysis of 192 epidemiological studies.Molecular Psychiatry, 27(1), 281-295.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-021-01161-7Links ]

Stolk, Y., Kaplan, I., & Szwarc, J. (2017). Review of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire translated into languages spoken by children and adolescents of refugee background.International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research,26(4), e1568.https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.1568Links ]

Stone, L. L., Otten, R., Engels, R. C., Vermulst, A. A., & Janssens, J. 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(3), 254-274.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-010-0071-2Links ]

Timmerman, M. E. & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis.Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209-220.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353Links ]

Tobia, V. & Marzocchi, G. M. (2018). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Parents for Italian school-aged children: Psychometric properties and norms.Child Psychiatry and Human Development 49(1), 1-8.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-017-0723-2Links ]

United Nations Children’s Fund (2022).On My Mind. How adolescents experience and perceive mental health around the world .https://www.unicef.org/media/119751/file/Companion20report:20Adolescents.pdfLinks ]

van Leeuwen, K., 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(3), 189-197.https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.189Links ]

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.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01942.xLinks ]

Vicente, B., Saldivia, S., de la Barra, F., Kohn, R., Pihan, R., Valdivia, M., Rioseco, P., & Melipillan, R. (2012). Prevalence of child and adolescent mental disorders in Chile: A community epidemiological study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(10), 1026-1035.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02566.xLinks ]

Viola, L., Garrido, G. & Varela, A. (2007).Estudio epidemiológico sobre la salud mental de los niños uruguayos. GEGA. [ Links ]

World Health Organization. (2021).Salud del adolescente y del joven adulto.https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescents-health-risks-and-solutionsLinks ]

Received: January 09, 2023; Accepted: April 21, 2023

* Corresponding author: César Daniel Costa-Ball email: ccosta@ucu.edu.uy

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License