TY - JOUR
T1 - A study on the applicability of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire among low- and higher-educated adolescents
AU - Theunissen, Meinou H C
AU - de Wolff, Marianne S
AU - Eekhout, Iris
AU - van Vulpen, Coryke
AU - Reijneveld, Sijmen A
N1 - Copyright © 2024 Theunissen, de Wolff, Eekhout, van Vulpen and Reijneveld.
PY - 2024/2/5
Y1 - 2024/2/5
N2 - AIM: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire self-report (SDQ-SR) is a valid instrument for detection of emotional and behavioral problems. The aim of this study was to compare the psychometric properties of the SDQ-SR for low and higher educated adolescents, and to explore its suitability.METHODS: We included 426 adolescents. We compared internal consistency for low-educated, i.e., at maximum pre-vocational secondary education, and higher educated adolescents and assessed whether the five-factor structure of the SDQ holds across educational levels. We also interviewed 24 low-educated adolescents, and 17 professionals.RESULTS: On most SDQ subscales the low-educated adolescents had more problematic mean scores than the higher educated adolescents. Findings on the invariance factor analyses were inconsistent, with some measures showing a bad fit of the five factor model, and this occurring relatively more for the low-educated adolescents. Professionals and adolescents reported that the SDQ included difficult wordings.DISCUSSION: Our findings imply that the scale structure of the SDQ-SR is slightly poorer for low educated adolescents. Given this caveat, psychometric properties of the SDQ-SR are generally sufficient for use, regardless of educational level.
AB - AIM: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire self-report (SDQ-SR) is a valid instrument for detection of emotional and behavioral problems. The aim of this study was to compare the psychometric properties of the SDQ-SR for low and higher educated adolescents, and to explore its suitability.METHODS: We included 426 adolescents. We compared internal consistency for low-educated, i.e., at maximum pre-vocational secondary education, and higher educated adolescents and assessed whether the five-factor structure of the SDQ holds across educational levels. We also interviewed 24 low-educated adolescents, and 17 professionals.RESULTS: On most SDQ subscales the low-educated adolescents had more problematic mean scores than the higher educated adolescents. Findings on the invariance factor analyses were inconsistent, with some measures showing a bad fit of the five factor model, and this occurring relatively more for the low-educated adolescents. Professionals and adolescents reported that the SDQ included difficult wordings.DISCUSSION: Our findings imply that the scale structure of the SDQ-SR is slightly poorer for low educated adolescents. Given this caveat, psychometric properties of the SDQ-SR are generally sufficient for use, regardless of educational level.
U2 - 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1289158
DO - 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1289158
M3 - Article
C2 - 38375115
SN - 1664-1078
VL - 15
JO - Frontiers in Psychology
JF - Frontiers in Psychology
M1 - 1289158
ER -