European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 1523–1534 | Cite as

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

  • Javier Ortuño-Sierra
  • Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero
  • Rebeca Aritio-Solana
  • Alvaro Moreno Velasco
  • Edurne Chocarro de Luis
  • Gunter Schumann
  • Anna Cattrell
  • Herta Flor
  • Frauke Nees
  • Tobias Banaschewski
  • Arun Bokde
  • Rob Whelan
  • Christian Buechel
  • Uli Bromberg
  • Patricia Conrod
  • Vincent Frouin
  • Dimitri Papadopoulos
  • Juergen Gallinat
  • Hugh Garavan
  • Andreas Heinz
  • Henrik Walter
  • Maren Struve
  • Penny Gowland
  • Tomáš Paus
  • Luise Poustka
  • Jean-Luc Martinot
  • Marie-Laure Paillère-Martinot
  • Nora C. Vetter
  • Michael N. Smolka
  • Claire Lawrence
  • IMAGEN consortium
Original Contribution

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.

Keywords

SDQ Self-report Adolescents Factorial structure Measurement invariance Behavioural problems 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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 7:121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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):2093–2102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 49:980–989Google Scholar
  6. 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 69:372–380PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 13:78–86PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 88:75–80PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 13:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodman R (1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 38(5):581–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):175–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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):271–276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 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):277–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goodman R (2001) Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Psy 40(11):1337–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ruchkin V, Koposov R, Schwab-Stone M (2007) The strength and difficulties questionnaire: scale validation with Russian adolescents. J Clin Psychol 63(9):861–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 45:55–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 50:127–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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):583–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 49:570–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Caci H, Morin AJ, Tran A Investigation of a bifactor model of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry (in press)Google Scholar
  35. 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 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Milfont TL, Fisher R (2010) Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications for cross-cultural research. Int J Meth Psych Res 3:111–121Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Byrne B (2012) Structural equation modeling with Mplus: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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. 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 AdolescGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 16:15–25Google Scholar
  42. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998) Mplus User’s Guide. Muthén and Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. 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):1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 19:36–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Byrne BM (2008) Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: a walk through the process. Psicothema 20:872–882PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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. 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 13:287–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Meredith W (1993) Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58:525–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Horn JL, McArdle JJ (1992) A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Exper Ag Res 18(3–4):117–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 105:456–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Statistical package for the social sciences (2006) SPSS Base 15.0 User’s Guide. SPSS Inc, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 11:320–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Koskelainen M, Sourander A, Vauras M (2001) Self-reported strengths and difficulties in a community sample of Finnish adolescents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 10:180–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lerner RM, Galambos NL (1998) Adolescent development: challenges and opportunities for research, programs, and policies. Annu Rev Psychol 49:413–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 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 75:729–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zumbo BM, Gadermann AM, Zeisser C (2007) Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. J Mod Appl Stat Methods 6:21–29Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Markon KE, Chmielewski M, Miller CJ (2011) The reliability and validity of discrete and continuous measures of psychopathology: a quantitative review. Psychol Bull 137:856–879CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Ortuño-Sierra
    • 1
  • Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero
    • 1
  • Rebeca Aritio-Solana
    • 1
  • Alvaro Moreno Velasco
    • 1
  • Edurne Chocarro de Luis
    • 1
  • Gunter Schumann
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anna Cattrell
    • 2
    • 3
  • Herta Flor
    • 4
  • Frauke Nees
    • 4
  • Tobias Banaschewski
    • 5
  • Arun Bokde
    • 6
  • Rob Whelan
    • 6
  • Christian Buechel
    • 7
  • Uli Bromberg
    • 7
  • Patricia Conrod
    • 2
    • 8
  • Vincent Frouin
    • 9
  • Dimitri Papadopoulos
    • 9
  • Juergen Gallinat
    • 10
  • Hugh Garavan
    • 11
  • Andreas Heinz
    • 10
  • Henrik Walter
    • 10
  • Maren Struve
    • 12
    • 13
  • Penny Gowland
    • 14
  • Tomáš Paus
    • 15
  • Luise Poustka
    • 5
  • Jean-Luc Martinot
    • 16
  • Marie-Laure Paillère-Martinot
    • 16
  • Nora C. Vetter
    • 17
  • Michael N. Smolka
    • 18
  • Claire Lawrence
    • 18
  • IMAGEN consortium
  1. 1.Department of Educational SciencesUniversity of La RiojaLogroñoSpain
  2. 2.Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and NeuroscienceKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Medical Research Council-Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and NeuroscienceKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimHeidelberg UniversityMannheimGermany
  5. 5.Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimHeidelberg UniversityMannheimGermany
  6. 6.Discipline of Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Trinity College Institute of NeurosciencesTrinity College DublinDublinIreland
  7. 7.University Medical Centre Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  8. 8.Department of Psychiatry, CHU Ste Justine HospitalUniversite de MontrealMontrealCanada
  9. 9.Neurospin, Commissariat à l’EnergieAtomique, CEA-Saclay CenterParisFrance
  10. 10.Department of Psychiatry and PsychotherapyCampus CharitéMitte, Charité, Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  11. 11.Departments of Psychiatry and PsychologyUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  12. 12.Praxis für Psychologische PsychotherapieMannheimGermany
  13. 13.Physikalisch-Technische BundesanstaltBerlinGermany
  14. 14.School of Physics and AstronomyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  15. 15.The Rotman Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  16. 16.Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, INSERM CEA Unit 1000, Imaging and PsychiatryUniversity Paris SudOrsayFrance
  17. 17.Department of Psychiatry and Neuroimaging CenterTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  18. 18.School of PsychologyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations