Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Investigation of a bifactor model of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

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

Abstract

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is used to measure psychopathological symptoms in children and adolescents from 4 to 17 years old, but its underlying structure is still a matter of debate. Indeed, on the basis of a systematic review of English and non-English articles conducted using multiple databases, 54 studies reporting on the factor structure of the SDQ were located. The original 5 first-order factor structure is generally supported by exploratory procedures, but support based on confirmatory factor analyses is not clear. We analysed data from 889 youths from the general French population, rated on the SDQ by their teachers. We tested the original model, hierarchical models and bifactor models. The best-fitting model is a bifactor model with the five a priori factors grouped in two global factors (Externalizing Disorders—Hyperactivity and Conduct—and Internalizing Disorders—Peer relationships and Emotions) and one Strength/Prosocial factor. However, we show that the Conduct-Specific factor should not be used in practice in its current state, that the Hyperactivity-Specific factor mainly covers hyperactivity rather than inattention, and that the Peer Problems-Specific factor mainly reflects a preference for solitude. Nevertheless, the measurement model proved to be fully invariant across gender and school levels (kindergarten, primary and secondary schools), with statistically significant differences in latent means between genders only. Beyond computing the five a priori scores when using the teacher ratings of the SDQ, our results prove the usefulness of computing Externalizing Disorders and Internalizing Disorders global scores.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. American Psychiatric Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  2. Preisig M, Waeber G, Vollenweider P, Bovet P, Rothen S, Vandeleur C, Guex P, Middleton L, Waterworth D, Mooser V, Tozzi F, Muglia P (2009) The PsyCoLaus study: methodology and characteristics of the smaple of a population-based survey on psychiatric disorders and their association with genetic and cardiovascular risk factors. BMC Psychiatry 9: 9

  3. Kessler RC, Adler L, Ames M, Demler O, Faraone S, Hiripi E, Howes MJ, Jin R, Secnik K, Spencer T, Ustun TB, Walters EE (2005) The World Health Organization adult ADHD self-report scale (ASRS): a short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychol Med 35(2):245–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rutter M (1967) A children’s behaviour questionnaire for completion by teachers: preliminary findings. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 8(1):1–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Goodman R (1994) A modified version of the Rutter parent questionnaire including extra items on children’s strengths: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 35(8):1483–1494

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goodman R (2001) Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 40(11):1337–1345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodman A, Lamping DL, Ploubidis GB (2010) When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesized five subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): data from British parents, teachers and children. J Abnorm Child Psychol 38(8):1179–1191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Widaman KF (2007) Common factors versus components: principals and principles, errors and misconceptions. In: Cudeck R, MacCallum RC (eds) Factor analysis at 100. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 177–203

    Google Scholar 

  10. Morin AJS, Marsh HW, Nagengast B (2013) Exploratory structural equation modeling. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO (eds) Structural equation modeling: a second course, 2nd edn. IAP, Greewich, pp 395–436

    Google Scholar 

  11. Guay F, Morin AJS, Litalien D, Valois P, Vallerand RJ (In Press) An application of exploratory structural equation modeling to evaluate the construct validity and the gender invariance of the Academic Motivation Scale. J Exp Educ

  12. Dickey WC, Blumberg SJ (2004) Revisiting the factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: United States, 2001. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 43(9):1159–1167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Brunner M, Nagy G, Wilhelm O (2012) A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. J Pers 80(4):796–846. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00749.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rindskopf D, Rose T (1988) Some theory and application of confirmatory second-order factor analyses. Multivar Behav Res 23(1):51–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chen FF, West SG, Sousa KH (2006) A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivar Behav Res 41(2):189–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Reise SP, Moore TM, Haviland MG (2010) Bifactor models and rotations: exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. J Pers Assess 92(6):544–559

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schmid J, Leiman JM (1957) The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika 22(1):53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Reise SP (2012) Invited paper: The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivar Behav Res 47(5):667–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Caci H, Morin AJS, Tran A (In press) Teacher ratings of the ADHD-RS IV in a community sample: results from the ChiP-ARD study. J Atten Disord

  20. Morin AJS, Tran A, Caci H (In press) Factorial Validity of the ADHD Adult Symptom Rating Scale in a French community sample: results from the ChiP-ARD study. J Atten Disord

  21. Morin AJS, Moullec G, Maïano C, Layet L, Just J-L, Ninot G (2011) Psychometric properties of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in French clinical and non-clinical adults. Epidemiology and Public Health [Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique] 59(5): 327–340

  22. Kobor A, Takacs A, Urban R (2013) The bifactor model of the strenghts and difficulties questionnaire. Eur J Psychol Assess 29(4):299–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Meredith W (1993) Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58(4):525–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Millsap RE (2011) Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Taylor and Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Niclasen J, Skovgaard AM, Andersen AM, Somhovd MJ, Obel C (2013) A confirmatory approach to examining the factor structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): a large scale cohort study. J Abnorm Child Psychol 41(3):355–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Niclasen J, Teasdale TW, Andersen AM, Skovgaard MJ, Elberling H, Obel C (2012) Psychometric properties of the Danish Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: the SDQ assessed for more than 70,000 raters in four different cohorts. PLoS One 7(2):e32025

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. d’Acremont M, Van der Linden M (2008) Confirmatory factor analysis of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in a community of French-speaking adolescents. Eur J Psychol Assess 24(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Caci H, Morin AJS, Tran A (2014) Prevalence and correlates of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults from a French community sample. J Nerv Mental Dis 202(4):324–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2012) Mplus User’s Guide, 7th edn. Muthén and Muthén, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  30. Beauducel A, Herzberg PY (2006) On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Struct Equ Model 13(2):186–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Finney SJ, DiStefano C (2006) Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO (eds) Structural equation modeling: a second course. IAP, Greenwich, pp 269–314

    Google Scholar 

  32. Flora DB, Curran PJ (2004) An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods 9(4):466–491

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Forero CG, Maydeu-Olivares A, Gallardo-Pujol D (2009) Factor analysis with ordinal indicators: a Monte Carlo study comparing DWLS and ULS estimation. Struct Equ Model 16(4):625–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Muthén BO, du Toit SHC, Spisic D (1997) Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Mplus Technical Reports (http://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/muthen/articles/Article_075.pdf)

  35. Millsap RE, Tein JY (2004) Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivar Behav Res 39(3):479–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Yu CY (2002) Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. University of California, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  38. Asparouhov T, Muthén BO (2006) Robust Chi square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Los Angeles, Muthén and Muthén; http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnote.shtml - web10

  39. Muthén BO (2004) Mplus Technical Appendices. Los Angeles, Muthén and Muthén; http://www.statmodel.com/techappen.shtml

  40. Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Morin AJS, Madore I, Morizot J, Boudrias J-S, Tremblay M (2009) The workplace affective commitment multidimensional questionnaire: factor structure and measurement invariance. Int J Psychol Res 4(3–4):307–344

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rensvold RB, Cheung GW (1998) Testing measurement model for factorial invariance: a systematic approach. Educ Psychol Meas 58(6):1017–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Chen FF (2007) Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model 14(3):464–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model 9(2):233–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McDonald RP (1970) The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. Br J Math Stat Psychol 23(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sijtsma K (2009) On the use, misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha [Introduction to a special issue]. Psychometrika 74(1):107–120

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Morin AJS, Arens AK, Marsh HW (In press) A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Struct Equ Model

  48. Le Corff Y, Toupin J (Ahead of print) Overt versus covert conduct disorder symptoms and the prospective prediction of antisocial personality disorder. J Personal Dis. doi:10.1521/pedi_2013_27_074

  49. Connor DF, Glatt SJ, Lopez ID, Jackson D, Melloni RHJ (2002) Psychopharmacology and aggression. I: a meta-analysis of stimulant effects on overt/covert aggression-related behaviors in ADHD. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 41(3):253–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Loeber R, Schmaling KB (1985) Empirical evidence for overt and covert patterns of antisocial conduct problems: a metaanalysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol 13(2):337–353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Arseneault L, Kim-Cohen J, Taylor A, Caspi A, Moffit TE (2005) Psychometric evaluation of 5- and 7-year-old children’s self-reports of conduct problems. J Abnorm Child Psychol 33(5):537–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Simonoff E, Pickles A, Hewitt J, Silberg J, Rutter M, Loeber R, Meyer J, Neale M, Eaves L (1995) Multiple raters of disruptive child behavior: using a genetic strategy to examine shared views and bias. Behavioral Genetics 25(4):311–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Rubin KH, Copland RJ, Bowker JC (2009) Social withdrawal in childhood. Annu Rev Psychol 60:141–171

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wang JM, Rubina KH, Laursenb B, Booth-LaForcec C, Rose-Krasnord L (2013) Preference-for-solitude and adjustment difficulties in early and late adolescence. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 42(6):834–842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Merwood A, Greven CU, Price TS, Fijsdijk F, Kuntsi J, McLoughlin G, Larsson H, Asherson PJ (2013) Different heritabilities but shared etiological influences for parent, teacher and self-ratings of ADHD symptoms: an adolescent twin study. Psychol Med 43(9):1973–1984

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The ChiP-ARD study was founded by a grant to HC from the French Health Ministry and is recorded on clinicaltrials.gov under the reference NCT01260792. The authors are grateful to Eric FONTAS, MD for his help in setting up the study procedures, to Vanina OLIVERI and Kevin DOLLET for their help in the data collection and coordination, to the Inspection Académique des Alpes-Maritimes and to the Rectorat des Alpes-Maritimes et du Var for their valuable support, and to the teachers, pupils and parents for participating in this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hôpitaux Pédiatrique de Nice, CHU Lenval, 57, avenue de la Californie, 06200, Nice, France

    Hervé Caci & Antoine Tran

  2. Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, Strathfield, Australia

    Alexandre J. S. Morin

Authors
  1. Hervé Caci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandre J. S. Morin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antoine Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hervé Caci.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 301 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-015-0679-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation