Skip to main content

Greek Validation of the Factor Structure and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Self Report (SDQ-SR): Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling

Abstract

The study examined the factor structure and longitudinal measurement invariance over three time points (1-year apart) of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Self Report (SDQ-SR) for ratings provided by adolescents in Greece. It used exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM) to achieve these two goals. At time point one, a total of 968 adolescents (males = 508, and females = 460) between 12 and 17.9 years completed the SDQ-SR. In relation to factor structure, ESEM tested the fit of one- to five-factor models. The findings were interpreted as indicating most support for the ESEM model with three factors (the factors being dysregulation, peer problems, and prosocial behaviour). This model showed support for configural invariance and full metric invariance across the three time points. Except for two thresholds, all other thresholds were also invariant across the three time points. Thus, there was good support for longitudinal measurement invariance. The implications of the findings for use of the SDQ-SR are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Meltzer H, Gatward R, Goodman R, Ford T (2000). The mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain: HM Stationery Office London.

  2. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V (2003) The Strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. Int Rev Psychiatr 15(1–2):173–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. SDQ: Information for researchers and professionals about the strengths & difficulties questionnaires. n.d., https://www.sdqinfo.com/.

  4. Stone LL, Otten R, Engels RC, Vermulst AA, Janssens JM (2010) Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4-to 12-year-olds: a review. Clin Child Family Psychol Rev 13(3):254–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goodman R (2001) Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. J Am Acad Child & Adolesc Psychiatr 40(11):1337–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V (1998) The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. Eur Child & Adolesc Psychiatr 7(3):125–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Goodman R (1997) The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 38(5):581–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Caci H, Morin AJ, Tran A (2015) Investigation of a bifactor model of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatr 24(10):1291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kersten P, Czuba K, McPherson K, Dudley M, Elder H, Tauroa R et al (2016) A systematic review of evidence for the psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Int J Behav Dev 40(1):64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DeVries JM, Gebhardt M, Voß S (2017) An assessment of measurement invariance in the 3-and 5-factor models of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: new insights from a longitudinal study. Personal Individ Differ 119:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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(8):1179–91

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 Psychiat 49(12):1304–12

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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. Personal Individ Differ 49(6):570–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Richter J, Sagatun Å, Heyerdahl S, Oppedal B, Røysamb E (2011) The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ)–self-report. An analysis of its structure in a multiethnic urban adolescent sample. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 52(9):1002–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Essau CA, Olaya B, Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous X, Pauli G, Gilvarry C, Bray D et al (2012) Psychometric properties of the strength and difficulties questionnaire from five European countries. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 21(3):232–45

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rønning JA, 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 Psychiatr 13(2):73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mellor D, Stokes M (2007) The factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Eur J Psychol Assess 23(2):105–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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):43–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Goodman A, Goodman R (2011) Population mean scores predict child mental disorder rates: validating SDQ prevalence estimators in Britain. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 52(1):100–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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(2):127–44

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Giannakopoulos G, Tzavara C, Dimitrakaki C, Kolaitis G, Rotsika V, Tountas Y (2009) The factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) in Greek adolescents. Ann Gener Psychiatr 8(1):20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yao S, Zhang C, Zhu X, Jing X, McWhinnie CM, Abela JR (2009) Measuring adolescent psychopathology: psychometric properties of the self-report strengths and difficulties questionnaire in a sample of Chinese adolescents. J Adolesc Health 45(1):55–62

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ruchkin V, Koposov R, Vermeiren R, Schwab-Stone M (2012) The strength and difficulties questionnaire: russian validation of the teacher version and comparison of teacher and student reports. J Adolesc 35(1):87–96

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Poulou MS (2013) Emotionality and social behaviour. Hellenic J Psychol 10:47–60

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bibou-Nakou I, Markos A, Padeliadu S, Chatzilampou P, Ververidou S (2019) Multi-informant evaluation of students' psychosocial status through SDQ in a national Greek sample. Child Youth Ser Rev 96:47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liang L, Yang J, Yao S (2019) Measurement equivalence of the SDQ in chinese adolescents: a horizontal and longitudinal perspective. J Affect Disord 257:439–44

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Twyford JM, Buckley L, Moffa K, Dowdy E (2019) The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) self-report: factor structure of the self-report form in Latinx youth. Int J Sch Educat Psychol 7(3):187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Brown TA. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research: Guilford Publications.

  29. Morin AJ, Arens AK, Marsh HW (2016) A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Struct Equat model: Multidiscip J 23(1):116–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dickey WC, Blumberg SJ (2004) Revisiting the factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: United States, 2001. J Am Acad Child & Adolesc Psychiatr 43(9):1159–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stokes M, Mellor D, Yeow J, Hapidzal NF (2014) Do parents, teachers and children use the SDQ in a similar fashion? Qual Quant 48(2):983–1000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Marsh HW, Wen Z, Hau K-T, Little TD, Bovaird JA, Widaman KF (2007) Unconstrained structural equation models of latent interactions: contrasting residual-and mean-centered approaches. Struct Equat Model: Multidiscip J 14(4):570–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Marsh HW, Lüdtke O, Robitzsch A, Trautwein U, Asparouhov T, Muthén B et al (2009) Doubly-latent models of school contextual effects: Integrating multilevel and structural equation approaches to control measurement and sampling error. Multivar Behav Res 44(6):764–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Asparouhov T, Muthén B (2009) Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structur Equat Model: Multidiscip J 16(3):397–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Marsh HW, Morin AJ, Parker PD, Kaur G (2014) Exploratory structural equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Ann Rev Clin Psychol 10:85–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hall CL, Guo B, Valentine AZ, Groom MJ, Daley D, Sayal K et al (2019) The validity of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) for children with ADHD symptoms. PloS One 14(6):e0218518

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Drasgow F, Kanfer R (1985) Equivalence of psychological measurement in heterogeneous populations. J Appl Psychol 70(4):662

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Leopold DR, Christopher ME, Burns GL, Becker SP, Olson RK, Willcutt EG (2016) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and sluggish cognitive tempo throughout childhood: temporal invariance and stability from preschool through ninth grade. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 57(9):1066–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cole DA, Martin JM, Jacquez FM, Tram JM, Zelkowitz R, Nick EA et al (2017) Time-varying and time-invariant dimensions of depression in children and adolescents: implications for cross-informant agreement. J Abnor Psychol 126(5):635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Motti-Stefanidi F, Pavlopoulos V, Tantaros S (2011) Parent-adolescent conflict and adolescents' adaptation: a longitudinal study of Albanian immigrant youth living in Greece. IOS Press 5(1–2):57–71

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL (2005) Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. Int J Test 5(2):159–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, Aaronson N (1993) Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Res 2(6):451–9

    Google Scholar 

  43. Muthén L, Muthén B (2012) Mplus statistical modeling software: Release 7.0. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén

  44. Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V (2012) When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods 17(3):354

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lubke GH, Muthén BO (2004) Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structr Equat Model 11(4):514–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics Boston. MA: Allyn and Bacon 5: 2007

  48. Costello AB, Best Osborne J (2005) Practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Evaluat 10:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  49. Guo B, Kaylor-Hughes C, Garland A, Nixon N, Sweeney T, Simpson S et al (2017) Factor structure and longitudinal measurement invariance of PHQ-9 for specialist mental health care patients with persistent major depressive disorder: exploratory structural equation modelling. J Affect Disord 219:1–8

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Meredith W (1993) Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58(4):525–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE (2000) A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods 3(1):4–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hu L-t, Bentler PM (1998) Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods 3(4):424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structur Equat Model 9(2):233–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Chen FF (2007) Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structur Equat Model: Multidiscip J 14(3):464–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Deutz MH, Shi Q, Vossen HG, Huijding J, Prinzie P, Deković M et al (2018) Evaluation of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire-dysregulation profile (SDQ-DP). Psychol Assess 30(9):1174

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Holtmann M, Becker A, Banaschewski T, Rothenberger A, Roessner V (2011) Psychometric validity of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire-dysregulation profile. Psychopathology 44(1):53–9

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kunze B, Wang B, Isensee C, Schlack R, Ravens-Sieberer U, Klasen F et al (2018) Gender associated developmental trajectories of SDQ-dysregulation profile and its predictors in children. Psychol Med 48(3):404–15

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Cheung GW (2008) Testing equivalence in the structure, means, and variances of higher-order constructs with structural equation modeling. Organ Res Methods 11(3):593–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Gomez R, Stavropoulos V (2019) Oppositional Defiant disorder dimensions: associations with traits of the multidimensional personality model among adults. Psychiatr Q

  60. West SG, Taylor AB, Wu W (2012) Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. Handbook Structur Equat Model 1:209–31

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vasileios Stavropoulos.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 24 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gomez, R., Motti-Stefanidi, F., Jordan, S. et al. Greek Validation of the Factor Structure and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Self Report (SDQ-SR): Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 52, 880–890 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-01065-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-020-01065-7

Keywords

  • Strengths and difficulties questionnaire-self report (SDQ-SR)
  • Factor structure
  • longitudinal measurement invariance
  • Exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM)