The flipped classroom is becoming more popular as a means to support student learning in higher education by requiring students to prepare before lectures and actively engaging students during lectures. While some research has been conducted into student performance in the flipped classroom, students' study behaviour throughout a flipped course has not been investigated. This study explored students' study behaviour throughout a flipped and a regular course by means of bi-weekly diaries. Furthermore, student references to their learning regulation were explored in course evaluations. Results from the diaries showed that students' study behaviour in the flipped course did not appear to be very different from that of students in a regular course. Furthermore, study behaviour did not appear strongly related to student performance in both the flipped and the regular course. Exploration of student references to their learning regulation in the course evaluations showed that some students experienced the flipped course design as intended to support their learning process. Other students, however, demonstrated resistance to changing their study behaviour even though changing study behaviour is expected in order to benefit from the flipped classroom. Further research on the relationship between students' learning regulation and actual study behaviour and course results is necessary to understand when and why implementing the flipped classroom is successful. Recommendations that may help more effective flipped classroom implementation include considering the prior history between students and instructor(s), the broader curriculum context, and frequent expectation communication especially with large numbers of students and non-mandatory lecture attendance.

Cronbach's alpha is the most frequently used measure to investigate the reliability of measurement instruments. Despite its frequent use, many warn for misinterpretations of alpha. These claims about regular misunderstandings, however, are not based on empirical data. To understand how common such beliefs are, we conducted a survey study to test researchers' knowledge of and beliefs about alpha. For this survey, we selected authors from recent papers, in which alpha was used. The results provide empirical evidence for the claims that researchers have difficulty interpreting alpha in a proper way. At the same time, we expounded the claims, by showing that whereas some beliefs are fairly typical, others are not so often seen. This non-technical paper, aimed at both statisticians and substantive researchers, is concluded by providing a few suggestions that could be helpful to get us out of the current stalemate regarding the usability of alpha and its alternatives.

In this study, validity aspects of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) self-report and parent-report versions were assessed among Dutch adolescents aged 12 to 17 years (community sample: n = 962, clinical sample: n = 4,053). The findings mostly support the continued use of both SDQ versions in screening for psychosocial problems as (a) exploratory structural equation analyses partially supported the grouping of items into five scales; (b) investigation of associations between scales of the SDQ and the Child Behavior Checklist, Youth Self-Report, and Intelligence Development Scales-2 provided evidence for the SDQ versions’ convergent and divergent validity; and (c) receiver operating characteristics curves yielded evidence for both SDQ versions’ criterion validity by showing that these questionnaires can be used to screen for psychosocial problems, except for the adolescent-reported version for males. Regardless of the adolescent’s gender, the receiver operating characteristics curves showed both SDQ versions to be useful for screening for three specific types of problems: anxiety/mood disorder, conduct/oppositional deviant disorder, and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Additionally, parent-rated SDQ scores were found to be useful for screening for autism spectrum disorder.

Knowledge on the validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) among adolescents is limited but essential for the interpretation of SDQ scores preceding the diagnostic process. This study assessed the predictive and discriminative value of adolescent- and parent-rated SDQ scores for psychiatric disorders, diagnosed by professionals in outpatient community clinics, in a sample of 2753 Dutch adolescents aged 12-17. Per disorder, the predictive accuracy of the SDQ scale that is contentwise related to that particular disorder and the SDQ impact scale was assessed. That is, 24 logistic regression analyses were performed, for each combination of DSM-IV diagnosis [4: Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Conduct/Oppositional Defiant Disorder (CD/ODD), Anxiety/Mood disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)], informant (3: adolescent, parent, both), and SDQ scale(s) (2; related scale only, related scale and impact scale). Additional logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the discriminative strength of the SDQ scales. The results show both fair predictive strength and fair discriminative strength for the adolescent- and parent-reported hyperactivity scales, the parent-reported conduct scale, and the parent-reported social and prosocial scales, indicating that these scales provide useful information about the presence of ADHD, CD/ODD, and ASD, respectively. The SDQ emotional scale showed to be insufficiently predictive. The findings suggest that parent-rated SDQ scores can be used to provide clinicians with a preliminary impression of the type of problems for ADHD, CD/ODD, and ASD, and adolescent for ADHD.

This study assessed the factor structures of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) adolescent and parent versions and their measurement invariance across settings in clinical ( n = 4,053) and community ( n = 962) samples of Dutch adolescents aged 12 to 17 years. Per SDQ version, confirmatory factor analyses were performed to assess its factor structure in clinical and community settings and to test for measurement invariance across these settings. The results suggest measurement invariance of the presumed five-factor structure for the parent version and a six-factor structure for the adolescent version. Furthermore, evaluation of the SDQ scale sum scores as used in practice, indicated that working with sum scores yields a fairly reasonable approximation of working with the favorable but less easily computed factor scores. These findings suggest that adolescent- and parent-reported SDQ scores can be interpreted using community-based norm scores, regardless of whether the adolescent has been referred for mental health problems.