Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40028647›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

The quest for systematization in educational psychology practice-the case of SDQ.

Thomas Szulevicz, Jon Busck Arnfred

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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

2 authors.

Thomas SzuleviczDepartment of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Jon Busck ArnfredDepartment of Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The field of Educational Psychology (EP) practice is currently shaped by debates on the balance between systematized and situated approaches. This study explores these debates through the lens of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Methods: Utilizing data from a current research project, the application of the SDQ in EP practice was analyzed. The study involved analyses of SDQ responses and psychoeducational reports and interviews with educational psychologists who used the SDQ in their assessments. Results: The findings indicate that the participating educational psychologists were generally satisfied with the use of the SDQ. Additionally, a significant portion of the SDQ responses suggested that many of the examined children exhibited symptoms warranting further investigation for ADHD. Discussion: The article concludes with a discussion on the dual perspectives regarding the systematic use of the SDQ. On one hand, there are arguments for its systematic application On the other hand, while a standardized use of the SDQ ensures systematic information, the questionnaire also contributes to a specific framing of the issue. It is crucial to recognize that the SDQ, originally developed by a child psychiatrist and not specifically designed for EP practice, frames the understanding of issues in a predominantly psychiatric manner. This can lead to a narrow focus on diagnosing and treating perceived deficiencies, potentially overlooking the broader educational and contextual factors that influence student wellbeing.

Indexed as

assessmenteducational psychology practicenormative validitysituated knowledgeStrengths And Difficulties Questionnairesystematic knowledge

Identifiers

PMID40028647
PMCPMC11868280

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.