Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25886464›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

The context dependency of the self-report version of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): a cross-sectional study between two administration settings.

H Hoofs, N W H Jansen, D C L Mohren, M W J Jansen, I J Kant

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

H HoofsDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Academic Collaborative Centre for Public Health Limburg, Public Health Service Southern Limburg, Geleen, The Netherlands.
N W H JansenDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
D C L MohrenAcademic Collaborative Centre for Public Health Limburg, Public Health Service Southern Limburg, Geleen, The Netherlands.
M W J JansenAcademic Collaborative Centre for Public Health Limburg, Public Health Service Southern Limburg, Geleen, The Netherlands; Department of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
I J KantDepartment of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLGGD Zuid Limburg · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a screening instrument for psychosocial problems in children and adolescents, which is applied in "individual" and "collective" settings. Assessment in the individual setting is confidential for clinical applications, such as preventive child healthcare, while assessment in the collective setting is anonymous and applied in (epidemiological) research. Due to administration differences between the settings it remains unclear whether results and conclusions actually can be used interchangeably. This study therefore aims to investigate whether the SDQ is invariant across settings.

methodsTwo independent samples were retrieved (mean age = 14.07 years), one from an individual setting (N = 6,594) and one from a collective setting (N = 4,613). The SDQ was administered in the second year of secondary school in both settings. Samples come from the same socio-geographic population in the Netherlands.

resultsConfirmatory factor analysis showed that the SDQ was measurement invariant/equivalent across settings and gender. On average, children in the individual setting scored lower on total difficulties (mean difference = 2.05) and the psychosocial problems subscales compared to those in the collective setting. This was also reflected in the cut-off points for caseness, defined by the 90th percentiles, which were lower in the individual setting. Using cut-off points from the collective in the individual setting therefore resulted in a small number of cases, 2 to 3%, while ∼10% is expected.

conclusionThe SDQ has the same connotation across the individual and collective setting. The observed structural differences regarding the mean scores, however, undermine the validity of the cross-use of absolute SDQ-scores between these settings. Applying cut-off scores from the collective setting in the individual setting could, therefore, result in invalid conclusions and potential misuse of the instrument. To correctly apply cut-off scores these should be retrieved from the applied setting.

Indexed as

PsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesDemographyEmotionsFemaleHumansHyperkinesisMalePsychology, AdolescentSelf ReportSocial Behavior

Identifiers

PMID25886464
PMCPMC4401740
OpenAlexW2035595526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.