Skip to main content
Log in

New evidence of factor structure and measurement invariance of the SDQ across five European nations

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The main purpose of the present study was to analyse the internal structure and to test the measurement invariance of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), self-reported version, in five European countries. The sample consisted of 3012 adolescents aged between 12 and 17 years (M = 14.20; SD = 0.83). The five-factor model (with correlated errors added), and the five-factor model (with correlated errors added) with the reverse-worded items allowed to cross-load on the Prosocial subscale, displayed adequate goodness of-fit indices. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis showed that the five-factor model (with correlated errors added) had partial strong measurement invariance by countries. A total of 11 of the 25 items were non-invariant across samples. The level of internal consistency of the Total difficulties score was 0.84, ranging between 0.69 and 0.78 for the SDQ subscales. The findings indicate that the SDQ’s subscales need to be modified in various ways for screening emotional and behavioural problems in the five European countries that were analysed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ortuño J, Fonseca-Pedrero E, Paino M, Aritio-Solana R (2014) Prevalencia de síntomas emocionales y comportamentales en adolescentes españoles. Prevalence of emotional and behavioural symptoms in spanish adolescents. Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment 7:121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Meltzer H, Gatward R, Goodman R, Ford T (2003) Mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain. Int Rev Psychiatry 15(1–2):185–187. doi:10.1080/0954026021000046155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gore FM, Bloem PJ, Patton GC, Ferguson J, Joseph V, Coffey C, Sawyer SM, Mathers CD (2011) Global burden of disease in young people aged 10–24 years: a systematic analysis. Lancet 18(377):2093–2102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Erol N, Simsek Z, Oner O, Munir K (2005) Behavioral and emotional problems among turkish children at ages 2–3 years. J Am Acad Child Psy 44(1):80–87. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000145234.18056.82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Merikangas KR, He JP, Burstein M, Swanson SA, Avenevoli S, Cui L, Benjet C, Georgiades K, Swendsen J (2010) Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication-Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A). J Abnorm Child Psychol 49:980–989

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kessler RC, Avenevoli S, Costello EJ, Georgiades K, Green JG, Gruber MJ, He JP, Koretz D, McLaughlin KA, Petukhova M, Sampson NA, Zaslavsky AM, Merikangas KR (2012) Prevalence, persistence, and sociodemographic correlates of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication Adolescent Supplement. Arch Gen Psychiatry 69:372–380

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carli V, Hoven CW, Wasserman C, Chiesa F, Guffanti G, Sarchiapone M, Apter A, Balazs J, Brunner R, Corcoran P, Cosman D, Haring C, Iosue M, Kaess M, Kahn JP, Keeley H, Postuvan V, Saiz P, Varnik A, Wasserman D (2014) A newly identified group of adolescents at “invisible” risk for psychopathology and suicidal behavior: findings from the SEYLE study. World Psychiatry 13:78–86

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Angold A, Messer SC, Stangl D, Farmer E, Costello EJ, Burns BJ (1998) Perceived parental burden and service use for child and adolescent psychiatric disorder. Am J Public Health 88:75–80

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ford T, Hamilton H, Meltzer H, Goodman R (2008) Predictors of service use of mental health problems amongs British school children. Child Adolesc Ment Health 13:32–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodman R (1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 38(5):581–586

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ruchkin V, Jones S, Vermeiren R, Schwab-Stone M (2008) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: the self-report version in American urban and suburban youth. Psychol Assess 20(2):175–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vostanis P (2006) Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: research and clinical applications. Curr Opin Psychiatr 19(4):367–372. doi:10.1097/01.yco.0000228755.72366.05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gómez R (2012) Correlated trait-correlated method minus one analysis of the convergent and discriminant validities of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Assess 21(3):372–382. doi:10.1177/1073191112457588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Klasen H, Woerner W, Wolke D, Meyer R, Overmeyer S, Kaschnitz W, Rothenberger A, Goodman R (2000) Comparing the German versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-Deu) and the child behavior checklist. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 9(4):271–276

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Muris P, Meesters C, van den Berg F (2003) 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 12:1–8. doi:10.1007/s00787-003-0298-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Capron C, Therond C, Duyme M (2007) Psychometric properties of the French version of the self-report and teacher Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Eur J Psychol Assess 23(2):79–88. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Becker A, Hagenberg N, Roessner N, Woerner W, Rothenberg A (2004) Evaluation of the self-reported SDQ in a clinical setting: do self-reports tell us more than ratings by adult informants? Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry y 13(2):17–24. doi:10.1007/s00787-004-2004-4

    Google Scholar 

  18. Koskelainen M, Sourander A, Kaljonen A (2000) The strength and difficulties questionnaire among finnish school-aged children and adolescents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 9(4):277–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rønning JA, Helge Handegaard BH, Sourander A, Mørch W-T (2004) The strengths and difficulties self-report questionnaire as a screening instrument in Norwegian community samples. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 13:73–82. doi:10.1007/s00787-004-0356-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goodman R (2001) Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Psy 40(11):1337–1345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mellor D (2004) Furthering the use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: reliability with younger child respondents. Psychol Assess 16(4):396–401. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.4.396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mellor D, Stokes M (2007) The factor structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Eur J Psychol Assess 23(2):105–112. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Muris P, Maas A (2004) Strengths and difficulties as correlates of attachment style in institutionalized and non-institutionalized children with below-average intellectual abilities. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 34(4):317–328. doi:10.1023/B:CHUD.0000020682.55697.4f480164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ruchkin V, Koposov R, Schwab-Stone M (2007) The strength and difficulties questionnaire: scale validation with Russian adolescents. J Clin Psychol 63(9):861–869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yao S, Zhang C, Zhu X, Jing X, McWhinnie CM, Abela JRZ (2009) Measuring adolescent psychopathology: psychometric properties of the self-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a sample of chinese adolescents. J Adolesc Health 45:55–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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? Br J Clin Psychol 50:127–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. He JP, Burstein M, Schmitz A (2012) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): the factor structure and scale validation in U.S. adolescents. J Abnorm Child Psychol 41(4):583–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Svedin CG, Priebe G (2008) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a screening instrument in a community sample of high school seniors in Sweden. Nord J Psychiatr 62(3):225–232. doi:10.1080/08039480801984032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 49(12):1304–1312. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01942.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Di Riso D, 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. Pers Individ Diff 49:570–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dickey WC, Blumberg SJ (2004) Revisiting the factor structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: United States, 2001. J Am Acad Child Psy 43(9):1159–1167. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000132808.36708.a9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Percy A, McCrystal P, Higgins K (2008) Confirmatory factor analysis of the adolescent self-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Eur J Psychol Assess 24(1):43–48. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.24.1.43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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. J Abnorm Child Psychol 38:1179–1191. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9434-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Caci H, Morin AJ, Tran A Investigation of a bifactor model of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry (in press)

  35. 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. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 47(8):1321–1331. doi:10.1007/s00127-011-0440-2

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Milfont TL, Fisher R (2010) Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications for cross-cultural research. Int J Meth Psych Res 3:111–121

    Google Scholar 

  37. Byrne B (2012) Structural equation modeling with Mplus: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Essau CA, Olaya B, Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous X, Pauli G, Gilvarry C, Bray D, O’Callaghan J, Ollendick TH (2012) Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire from five European countries. Int J Meth Psych Res 21(3):232–245. doi:10.1002/mpr.1364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stevanovic D, Urbán R, Atilola O, Vostanis P, Singh Balhara YP, Avicenna M, Kandemir H, Knez R, Franic T, Petrov P (2014) 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 30:1–12. doi:10.1017/S2045796014000201

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ortuño-Sierra J, Fonseca-Pedrero E, Paino M, Sastre i RIba S, Muñiz J (2015) Screening mental health problems during adolescence: psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J Adolesc

  41. Fonseca-Pedrero E, Paino M, Lemos-Girádez S, Muñiz J (2011) Prevalencia de la sintomatología emocional y comportamental en adolescentes españoles a través del Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Rev Psicopatol Psicol Clín 16:15–25

    Google Scholar 

  42. Schumann G, Loth E, Banaschewski T, Barbot A, Barker G, Büchel C, Conrod PJ, Dalley JW, Flor H, Gallinat J, Garavan H, Heinz A, Itterman B, Lathrop M, Mallik C, Mann K, Martinot JL, Paus T, Poline JB, Robbins TW, Rietschel M, Reed L, Smolka M, Spanagel R, Speiser C, Stephens DN, Ströhle A, Struve M, IMAGEN consortium (2010) The IMAGEN study: reinforcement-related behaviour in normal brain function and psychopathology. Mol Psychiatry 15(12):1128–1139. doi:10.1038/mp.2010.4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998) Mplus User’s Guide. Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  44. Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Heene M, Hilbert S, Freudenthaler HH, Bühner M (2012) Sensitivity of SEM fit indexes with respect to violations of uncorrelated errors. Struct Equ Model 19:36–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Byrne BM (2008) Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: a walk through the process. Psicothema 20:872–882

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Muthén BO, Asparouhov T (2002) Latent variable analysis with categorical outcomes: Multiple-group and growth modeling in Mplus. Mplus Web Note No. 4.http://www.statmodel.com/mplus/examples/webnote.html

  49. Byrne BM, Stewart SM (2006) The MACS approach to testing for multigroup invariance of a second-order structure: a walk through the process. Struct Equ Model 13:287–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Meredith W (1993) Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58:525–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Horn JL, McArdle JJ (1992) A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Exper Ag Res 18(3–4):117–144

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model 9:233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Byrne BM, Shavelson RJ, Muthén B (1989) Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychol Bull 105:456–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Statistical package for the social sciences (2006) SPSS Base 15.0 User’s Guide. SPSS Inc, Chicago

  55. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z (2004) In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struc Equ Model 11:320–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Koskelainen M, Sourander A, Vauras M (2001) Self-reported strengths and difficulties in a community sample of Finnish adolescents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 10:180–185

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Lerner RM, Galambos NL (1998) Adolescent development: challenges and opportunities for research, programs, and policies. Annu Rev Psychol 49:413–446

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 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. J Consult Clin Psych 75:729–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Muris P, Meesters C, Eijkelenboom A, Vincken M (2004) The self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: its psychometric properties in 8- to 13- year-old non-clinical children. Brit J Clin Psychol 43(4):437–448. doi:10.1348/0144665042388982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Zumbo BM, Gadermann AM, Zeisser C (2007) Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. J Mod Appl Stat Methods 6:21–29

    Google Scholar 

  61. Markon KE, Chmielewski M, Miller CJ (2011) The reliability and validity of discrete and continuous measures of psychopathology: a quantitative review. Psychol Bull 137:856–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work received support from the following sources: the European Union-funded FP6 Integrated Project IMAGEN (Reinforcement-related behaviour in normal brain function and psychopathology) (LSHM-CT-2007-037286), the FP7 projects IMAGEMEND(602450; IMAgingGEnetics for MENtal Disorders) and MATRICS (603016), the Innovative Medicine Initiative Project EU-AIMS (115300-2), a Medical Research Council Programme Grant ‘‘Developmental pathways into adolescent substance abuse’’ (93558), the Swedish funding agency FORMAS, the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust (Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, the Bundes ministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF Grants 01GS08152; 01EV0711; eMEDSysAlc01ZX1311A; Forschungsnetze AERIAL and BipoLife) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG Grants FOR 1617, SFB 940 & SM 80/5-2).

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javier Ortuño-Sierra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortuño-Sierra, J., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Aritio-Solana, R. et al. New evidence of factor structure and measurement invariance of the SDQ across five European nations. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 24, 1523–1534 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-015-0729-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-015-0729-x

Keywords

Navigation