Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39361212›Full record

ArticleChild psychiatry and human development2026

German Parents and Educators of Two to Four-Year-Old Children as Informants for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

Simone Dubiel, Franziska Cohen, Yvonne Anders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Child psychiatry and human development, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Simone DubielHumboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Franziska CohenDepartment of Childhood Education, Institute of Education Science, University of Education Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. franziska.cohen@ph-freiburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4817-9962
Yvonne AndersDepartment of Early Childhood Education, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screeners are used in early intervention and early childhood education and care programs to identify children's potential need for further evaluation and diagnostics. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a brief behavioral screening instrument that can be completed by both parents and educators to assess the social and emotional traits of children. However, multiple informants' reports vary. In this study, the extent to which parents' (n = 241) and educators' (n = 157) differ and agree in their assessments of children aged 3.5 years on average, was examined. T-tests were used to examine differences between informants and correlations within a multitrait-multimethod matrix (MTMM) in their agreement. Results showed moderate to high levels of rater agreement ranging from r = .35 and r = .53 on the five subscales of the SDQ. We found that hyperactivity, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behavior vary due to meaningful reasons, e.g., the home vs. pre-school setting, and the informant's relationship towards the child. Hyperactivity seems to be relatively consistent across settings. Methodological variations might explain differences in emotional symptoms and conduct problems. Considering ratings from multiple informants outlines a more comprehensive view of children's behavior and should be preferred over single-informant research designs.

Indexed as

Child BehaviorChild Behavior DisordersParentsSchool TeachersSocial BehaviorChild, PreschoolFemaleGermanyHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesMultitrait-multimethod matrixOperations triad modelRater agreementSocial-emotional behaviorStrengths and difficulties questionnaire

Identifiers

PMID39361212
PMCPMC13437574

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.