Assessing wellbeing at school entry using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: professional perspectives

Abstract

Background: Emotional and behavioural disorders in early childhood are related to poorer academic attainment and school engagement, and difficulties already evident at the point of starting school can affect a child's later social and academic development. Successful transfer from pre-school settings to primary education is helped by communication between pre-school staff and primary school teachers. Typically, in Scotland, pre-school establishments prepare individual profiles of children before they start school around the age of five years, highlighting their strengths and development needs, for transfer to primary schools. There is, however, no consistent approach to the identification of potential social, emotional and behavioural problems. In 2010, in one local authority area in Scotland, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was introduced for children about to start school as a routine, structured, component of the transition process to help teachers plan support arrangements for classes and individual children. The SDQ assesses emotional, conduct, hyperactivity/ inattention and peer-relationship problems as well as pro-social behaviour. In order to be an effective means of communicating social and emotional functioning, the use of instruments such as the SDQ needs to be practicable. Finding out the views of pre-school education staff with experience of assessing children using the SDQ was, therefore, essential to establish its future utility. Aim: The purpose of this study was to explore the views of pre-school education staff about assessing social and emotional wellbeing of children at school entry using the SDQ. The objectives were to examine the opinions of pre-school workers about completing the SDQ and to elicit their thoughts on the value of doing this and their perceptions of the usefulness of the information collected. Method: Pre-school establishments were approached using a purposive sampling strategy in order to achieve a mix of local authority (n=14) and 'partnership' establishments (n=8) as well as different socio-economic areas. Semi-structured interviews (n=25) were conducted with pre-school head teachers (n=14) and child development officers (n=11) in order to explore the process of completing the SDQ along with perceptions of its value. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Results: In general, staff in pre-school establishments viewed the use of the SDQ positively. It was seen as a chance to highlight the social and emotional development of children rather than just their academic or educational ability. Most felt that the SDQ had not identified anything they did not already know about a child. A minority, nevertheless, suggested that a previously unrecognised potential difficulty was brought to light, most commonly emotional problems. Completing the SDQ was felt to be relatively straightforward even though the staff felt under pressure from *Corresponding author. Email: Jane. White@glasgow.ac.uk Educational Research, 2013 Vol. 55, No. 1, 8...

A systematic review of evidence for the psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

“…Two studies evaluated content validity [1,22]. Williamson et al [22] carried out a study in Aboriginal community-controlled health services.…”

“…Behavioural and emotional problems in pre-schoolers can impact upon their transition into primary school [1,2], lead to on-going problems in middle-childhood [3] and adulthood [4], and affect educational achievement [5]. Behavioural problems in children as young as three have been shown to be predictive of problems later in life, including depression and antisocial personality disorders [6,7].…”

Mapping area variability in social and behavioural difficulties among Glasgow pre‐schoolers: linkage of a survey of pre‐school staff with routine monitoring data

“…As these anonymised data were collected by educational establishments as part of the routine documentation passed to primary schools (White et al, 2013), this study did not require ethical review.…”

“…The difference between the two versions is relatively small and focuses on two questions in the 4-16 conduct scale, around lying, cheating and stealing, which were changed to slightly 'softer' and more age appropriate questions about being argumentative with adults and being spiteful. Staff may have more readily answered positively to these softer questions in 2012, rather than the previous versions, which were deemed by some to be inappropriate (White et al, 2013).…”

“…This study used the 4-16 version in 2010 and 2011, but changed to the 3-4 version in 2012, following interviews with pre-school staff (White, Connelly, Thompson, & Wilson, 2013). The difference between the two versions is relatively small and focuses on two questions in the 4-16 conduct scale, around lying, cheating and stealing, which were changed to slightly 'softer' and more age appropriate questions about being argumentative with adults and being spiteful.…”