Clinical Utility of the Parent-Report Version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Latvian Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Questionnaires
2.3. Diagnostic Algorithm
2.4. Clinical Diagnoses
2.5. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
4. Discussion
Strengths and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Merikangas, K.R.; Nakamura, E.F.; Kessler, R.C. Epidemiology of Mental Disorders in Children and Adolescents. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2009, 11, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Whiteford, H.A.; Ferrari, A.; Degenhardt, L.; Feigin, V.L.; Vos, T. The Global Burden of Mental, Neurological and Substance Use Disorders: An Analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0116820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kessler, R.C.; Amminger, G.P.; Aguilar-Gaxiola, S.; Alonso, J.; Lee, S.; Ustun, T.B. Age of onset of mental disorders: A review of recent literature. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2007, 20, 359–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dodge, K.A.; Bierman, K.L.; Coie, J.D.; Greenberg, M.T.; Lochman, J.E.; McMahon, R.J.; Pinderhughes, E.E.; For the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group; Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Impact of Early Intervention on Psychopathology, Crime, and Well-Being at Age 25. Am. J. Psychiatry 2015, 172, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fuller, E.A.; Oliver, K.; Vejnoska, S.F.; Rogers, S.J. The effects of the early start denver model for children with au-tism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erskine, H.E.; Baxter, A.J.; Patton, G.; Moffitt, T.E.; Patel, V.; Whiteford, H.A.; Scott, J.G. The global coverage of prevalence data for mental disorders in children and adolescents. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2016, 26, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Radez, J.; Reardon, T.; Creswell, C.; Lawrence, P.J.; Evdoka-Burton, G.; Waite, P. Why do children and adolescents (not) seek and access professional help for their mental health problems? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2020, 30, 183–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, H.C.-H.; Ougrin, D. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child and adolescent mental health services. BJPsych Open 2021, 7, e145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, J. Clinicians’ guide to evaluating diagnostic and screening tests in psychiatry. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 2004, 10, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goodman, R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1997, 38, 581–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vostanis, P. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Research and Clinical Applications. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2006, 19, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, A.; Lamping, D.L.; Ploubidis, G.B. When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales in-stead of the hypothesised five subscales on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ): Data from british parents, teachers and children. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2010, 38, 1179–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, R.; Ford, T.; Simmons, H.; Gatward, R.; Meltzer, H. Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample. Br. J. Psychiatry 2000, 177, 534–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goodman, R.; Renfrew, D.; Mullick, M. Predicting Type of Psychiatric Disorder from Strengths and Dificulties Questionnaire (SDQ) Scores in Child Mental Health Clinics in London and Dhaka. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2000, 9, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Becker, A.; Woerner, W.; Hasselhorn, M.; Banaschewski, T.; Rothenberger, A. Validation of the parent and teacher SDQ in a clinical sample. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2004, 13, ii11–ii16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, C.L.; Guo, B.; Valentine, A.Z.; Groom, M.J.; Daley, D.; Sayal, K.; Hollis, C. The validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for children with ADHD symptoms. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0218518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yao, S.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, X.; Jing, X.; McWhinnie, C.M.; Abela, J.R.Z. Measuring Adolescent Psychopathology: Psy-chometric Properties of the Self-Report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a Sample of Chinese Adolescents. J. Adolesc. Health 2009, 45, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, R. Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2001, 40, 1337–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mieloo, C.; Raat, H.; van Oort, F.; Bevaart, F.; Vogel, I.; Donker, M.; Jansen, W. Validity and reliability of the strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in 5-6 year olds: Differences by gender or by parental education? PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e36805. [Google Scholar]
- Kersten, P.; Czuba, K.J.; McPherson, K.; Dudley, M.; Elder, H.; Tauroa, R.; Vandal, A. A systematic review of evidence for the psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2015, 40, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Muris, P.; Meesters, C.; van den Berg, F. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) further evidence for its reliability and validity in a community sample of Dutch children and adolescents. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2003, 12, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lundh, L.-G.; Wångby-Lundh, M.; Bjärehed, J. Self-reported emotional and behavioral problems in Swedish 14 to 15-year-old adolescents: A study with the self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Scand. J. Psychol. 2008, 49, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brøndbo, P.H.; Mathiassen, B.; Martinussen, M.; Heiervang, E.; Eriksen, M.; Moe, T.F.; Sæther, G.; Kvernmo, S. The strengths and diffi-culties questionnaire as a screening instrument for norwegian child and adolescent mental health services, application of UK scoring algorithms. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry Ment. Health 2011, 5, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- YouthInMind. Available online: https://sdqinfo.org/py/sdqinfo/b3.py?language=Latvian (accessed on 25 October 2022).
- Jones, C.R.G.; Barrett, S.L.; Bite, I.; Legzdina, M.; Arina, K.; Higgins, A.; Honey, K.; Carrington, S.J.; Hay, D.; Condon, J.; et al. Development of the signposting ques-tionnaire for autism (SQ-A): Measurement comparison with the 10-item autism spectrum quotient-child and the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in the UK and Latvia. Mol. Autism. 2020, 11, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pakalniškienė, V.; Jusienė, R.; Sebre, S.B.; Wu, J.C.-L.; Laurinaitytė, I. Children’s Internet Use Profiles in Relation to Behavioral Problems in Lithuania, Latvia, and Taiwan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinsone, B.; Supe, I.; Stokenberga, I.; Damberga, I.; Cefai, C.; Camilleri, L.; Bartolo, P.; O’Riordan, M.R.; Grazzani, I. Social Emotional Competence, Learning Outcomes, Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties of Preschool Children: Parent and Teacher Evalu-ations. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 760782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Vries, P.J.; Davids, E.L.; Mathews, C.; Aarø, L.E. Measuring adolescent mental health around the globe: Psy-chometric properties of the self-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in South Africa, and comparison with UK, Australian and Chinese data. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2018, 27, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fischer, J.E.; Bachmann, L.M.; Jaeschke, R. A readers’ guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: Clinical example of sepsis. Intensiv. Care Med. 2003, 29, 1043–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Achenbach, T.M.; Becker, A.; Döpfner, M.; Heiervang, E.; Roessner, V.; Steinhausen, H.C.; Rothenberger, A. Multicultural as-sessment of child and adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instruments: Research findings, applications, and future directions. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2008, 49, 251–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duinhof, E.L.; Lek, K.M.; de Looze, M.E.; Cosma, A.; Mazur, J.; Gobina, I.; Wüstner, A.; Vollebergh, W.A.M.; Stevens, G.W.J.M. Revising the self-report strengths and difficulties questionnaire for cross-country comparisons of adolescent mental health problems: The SDQ-R. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2019, 29, e35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stevanovic, D.; Urbán, R.; Atilola, O.; Vostanis, P.; Balhara, Y.P.S.; Avicenna, M.; Kandemir, H.; Knez, R.; Franic, T.; Petrov, P. Does the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire—Self report yield invariant measurements across different nations? Data from the International Child Mental Health Study Group. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2014, 24, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoosen, N.; Davids, E.L.; De Vries, P.J.; Shung-King, M. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Africa: A scoping review of its application and validation. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry Ment. Health 2018, 12, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, R.; Ford, T.; Corbin, T.; Meltzer, H. Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) mul-ti-informant algorithm to screen looked-after children for psychiatric disorders. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2004, 13, II25–II31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
SDQ Scale | Cronbach’s Alfa |
---|---|
Emotional problems | 0.717 |
Peer problems | 0.566 |
Hyperactivity | 0.768 |
Conduct problems | 0.676 |
Prosocial | 0.777 |
Internalising difficulties | 0.691 |
Externalising difficulties | 0.810 |
Total difficulties | 0.786 |
SDQ Scale | N of Patients | Positive Screens | % |
---|---|---|---|
Emotional problems | 353 | 174 | 49.3% |
Peer problems | 344 | 207 | 60.2% |
Hyperactivity | 352 | 112 | 31.8% |
Conduct problems | 351 | 168 | 47.9% |
Non prosocial | 358 | 147 | 41.1% |
Total difficulties | 327 | 199 | 60.9% |
SDQ Parent-Report | N | TN | % | TP | % | FN | % | FP | % | Sig | Sen | Spe | PPV | NPV | LHR+ | LHR− | ORD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Any emotional disorder | |||||||||||||||||
Emotional problems | 353 | 149 | 42.2% | 62 | 17.6% | 30 | 8.5% | 112 | 31.7% | 0.000 ** | 0.67 | 0.57 | 0.36 | 0.83 | 1.57 | 0.57 | 2.75 |
Peer problems | 344 | 93 | 27.0% | 46 | 13.4% | 44 | 12.8% | 161 | 46.8% | 0.041 * | 0.51 | 0.37 | 0.22 | 0.68 | 0.81 | 1.34 | 0.6 |
Hyperactivity | 352 | 159 | 45.2% | 13 | 3.7% | 81 | 23.0% | 99 | 28.1% | 0.000 ** | 0.14 | 0.62 | 0.12 | 0.66 | 0.36 | 1.4 | 0.26 |
Conduct problems | 351 | 127 | 36.2% | 38 | 10.8% | 56 | 16.0% | 130 | 37.0% | 0.092 | 0.4 | 0.49 | 0.23 | 0.69 | 0.8 | 1.21 | 0.66 |
Non prosocial | 358 | 147 | 41.1% | 31 | 8.7% | 64 | 17.9% | 116 | 32.4% | 0.051 | 0.33 | 0.56 | 0.21 | 0.7 | 0.74 | 1.21 | 0.61 |
Total difficulties | 327 | 93 | 28.4% | 49 | 15.0% | 35 | 10.7% | 150 | 45.9% | 0.583 | 0.58 | 0.38 | 0.25 | 0.73 | 0.95 | 1.09 | 0.87 |
Any conduct disorder | |||||||||||||||||
Emotional problems | 353 | 153 | 43.3% | 23 | 6.5% | 26 | 7.4% | 151 | 42.8% | 0.723 | 0.47 | 0.5 | 0.13 | 0.85 | 0.94 | 1.05 | 0.9 |
Peer problems | 344 | 121 | 35.2% | 34 | 9.9% | 16 | 4.7% | 173 | 50.3% | 0.221 | 0.68 | 0.41 | 0.16 | 0.88 | 1.16 | 0.78 | 1.49 |
Hyperactivity | 352 | 215 | 61.1% | 24 | 6.8% | 25 | 7.1% | 88 | 25.0% | 0.005 ** | 0.49 | 0.71 | 0.21 | 0.9 | 1.69 | 0.72 | 2.35 |
Conduct problems | 351 | 172 | 49.0% | 40 | 11.4% | 11 | 3.1% | 128 | 36.5% | 0.000 ** | 0.78 | 0.57 | 0.24 | 0.94 | 1.84 | 0.38 | 4.89 |
Non prosocial | 358 | 184 | 51.4% | 24 | 6.7% | 27 | 7.5% | 123 | 34.4% | 0.347 | 0.47 | 0.6 | 0.16 | 0.87 | 1.17 | 0.88 | 1.33 |
Total difficulties | 327 | 117 | 35.8% | 36 | 11.0% | 11 | 3.4% | 163 | 49.8% | 0.017 * | 0.77 | 0.42 | 0.18 | 0.91 | 1.32 | 0.56 | 2.35 |
Hyperkinetic disorder | |||||||||||||||||
Emotional problems | 353 | 127 | 36.0% | 28 | 7.9% | 52 | 14.7% | 146 | 41.4% | 0.004 ** | 0.35 | 0.47 | 0.16 | 0.71 | 0.65 | 1.4 | 0.47 |
Peer problems | 344 | 110 | 32.0% | 50 | 14.5% | 27 | 7.8% | 157 | 45.6% | 0.333 | 0.65 | 0.41 | 0.24 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 0.85 | 1.3 |
Hyperactivity | 352 | 212 | 60.2% | 52 | 14.8% | 28 | 8.0% | 60 | 17.0% | 0.000 ** | 0.65 | 0.78 | 0.46 | 0.88 | 2.95 | 0.45 | 6.56 |
Conduct problems | 351 | 159 | 45.3% | 56 | 16.0% | 24 | 6.8% | 112 | 31.9% | 0.000 ** | 0.7 | 0.59 | 0.33 | 0.87 | 1.69 | 0.51 | 3.31 |
Non prosocial | 358 | 161 | 45.0% | 31 | 8.7% | 50 | 14.0% | 116 | 32.4% | 0.562 | 0.38 | 0.58 | 0.21 | 0.76 | 0.91 | 1.06 | 0.86 |
Total difficulties | 327 | 112 | 34.3% | 56 | 17.1% | 16 | 4.9% | 143 | 43.7% | 0.001 ** | 0.78 | 0.44 | 0.28 | 0.88 | 1.39 | 0.51 | 2.74 |
Developmental disability | |||||||||||||||||
Emotional problems | 353 | 134 | 38.0% | 48 | 13.6% | 45 | 12.7% | 126 | 35.7% | 0.602 | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.28 | 0.75 | 1.07 | 0.94 | 1.13 |
Peer problems | 344 | 111 | 32.3% | 67 | 19.5% | 26 | 7.6% | 140 | 40.7% | 0.006 ** | 0.72 | 0.44 | 0.32 | 0.81 | 1.29 | 0.63 | 2.04 |
Hyperactivity | 352 | 178 | 50.6% | 31 | 8.8% | 62 | 17.6% | 81 | 23.0% | 0.715 | 0.33 | 0.69 | 0.28 | 0.74 | 1.07 | 0.97 | 1.1 |
Conduct problems | 351 | 134 | 38.2% | 42 | 12.0% | 49 | 14.0% | 126 | 35.9% | 0.704 | 0.46 | 0.52 | 0.25 | 0.73 | 0.95 | 1.04 | 0.91 |
Non prosocial | 358 | 171 | 47.8% | 55 | 15.4% | 40 | 11.2% | 92 | 25.7% | 0.000 ** | 0.58 | 0.65 | 0.37 | 0.81 | 1.66 | 0.65 | 2.56 |
Total difficulties | 327 | 100 | 30.6% | 60 | 18.3% | 28 | 8.6% | 139 | 42.5% | 0.100 | 0.68 | 0.42 | 0.3 | 0.78 | 1.17 | 0.76 | 1.54 |
Externalising disorder | |||||||||||||||||
Emotional problems | 353 | 109 | 0.309 | 50 | 0.142 | 70 | 0.198 | 125 | 0.354 | 0.040 * | 0.42 | 0.47 | 0.29 | 0.61 | 0.78 | 1.25 | 0.62 |
Peer problems | 344 | 98 | 0.285 | 78 | 0.227 | 39 | 0.113 | 129 | 0.375 | 0.077 | 0.67 | 0.43 | 0.38 | 0.72 | 1.17 | 0.77 | 1.52 |
Hyperactivity | 352 | 190 | 0.54 | 69 | 0.196 | 50 | 0.142 | 43 | 0.122 | 0.000 ** | 0.58 | 0.82 | 0.62 | 0.79 | 3.14 | 0.52 | 6.10 |
Conduct problems | 351 | 148 | 0.422 | 86 | 0.245 | 35 | 0.1 | 82 | 0.234 | 0.000 ** | 0.71 | 0.64 | 0.51 | 0.81 | 1.99 | 0.45 | 4.43 |
Prosocial | 358 | 140 | 0.391 | 51 | 0.142 | 71 | 0.198 | 96 | 0.268 | 0.837 | 0.42 | 0.59 | 0.35 | 0.66 | 1.03 | 0.98 | 1.05 |
Total difficulties | 327 | 103 | 0.315 | 85 | 0.26 | 25 | 0.076 | 114 | 0.349 | 0.000 ** | 0.77 | 0.47 | 0.43 | 0.80 | 1.47 | 0.48 | 3.07 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Bezborodovs, Ņ.; Kočāne, A.; Rancāns, E.; Villeruša, A. Clinical Utility of the Parent-Report Version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Latvian Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice. Medicina 2022, 58, 1599. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58111599
Bezborodovs Ņ, Kočāne A, Rancāns E, Villeruša A. Clinical Utility of the Parent-Report Version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Latvian Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice. Medicina. 2022; 58(11):1599. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58111599
Chicago/Turabian StyleBezborodovs, Ņikita, Arta Kočāne, Elmārs Rancāns, and Anita Villeruša. 2022. "Clinical Utility of the Parent-Report Version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Latvian Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice" Medicina 58, no. 11: 1599. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58111599
APA StyleBezborodovs, Ņ., Kočāne, A., Rancāns, E., & Villeruša, A. (2022). Clinical Utility of the Parent-Report Version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Latvian Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Practice. Medicina, 58(11), 1599. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58111599