Evaluation of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Dysregulation Profile (SDQ-DP).

Abstract

The Dysregulation Profile (DP) has emerged as a measure of concurrent affective, behavioral and cognitive dysregulation, associated with severe psychopathology, and poor adjustment. While originally developed with the Child Behavior Checklist, more recently the DP has also been defined on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), mostly with a 5-item, but also a 15-item, SDQ-DP measure. This study evaluated the SDQ-DP by examining its factor structure, measurement invariance, and construct validity. Different SDQ-DP operationalizations were compared. In a United States longitudinal community sample ( = 768), a bifactor model consisting of a general Dysregulation factor and three specific factors of Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems, and Hyperactivity-Inattention fitted best, across three different developmental periods (early childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence) and across three different reporters (parents, teachers, and youth). Measurement invariance across reporter, gender, and developmental period was demonstrated. These findings indicate that the SDQ-DP, like the CBCL-DP, reflects a broad syndrome of dysregulation that exists in addition to specific syndromes of emotional symptoms, conduct problems, and hyperactivity-inattention. SDQ-DP bifactor scores were strongly related with scores on the 5- and 15-item SDQ-DP measures and similarly concurrently associated with two markers of self-regulation, ego-resiliency and effortful control, and longitudinally with antisocial behavior and disciplinary measures. As reliability, validity, and stability was weaker for the SDQ-DP 5-item measure, use of all 15 items is recommended. Advantages of using a bifactor approach are discussed as well as the potential of the SDQ-DP as an easy screening measure of children at risk for developing serious psychopathology. (PsycINFO Database Record

General Psychopathology and Dysregulation Profile in a Longitudinal Community Sample: Stability, Antecedents and Outcomes

“…DeLisi and Vaughn [41] describe a developmental pathway of regulatory difficulties in infancy, through difficult (early) childhood temperament, to low selfcontrol in adulthood. Such a pathway is in line with previous studies showing links between infant and toddler regulatory problems and DP [43], between aspects of temperament and personality (pathology) and DP [39,44], and between DP and GP, on one hand and adult outcomes of low self-control such as antisocial behavior on the other hand [19]. Exploring developmental pathways of early temperamental risk, through (dysregulated) general psychopathology, to antisocial involvement later in life could be an avenue for future research, especially in higher risk samples rather than the current population-based study.…”

“…Earlier GP and DP predicted different forms of subsequent aggression as well as risk-taking, in line with previous studies showing associations of DP with antisocial behavior and disciplinary measures such as being expelled from school [19]. These links have been explained by shared deficits in dimensions of emotion and self-regulation in general psychopathology and antisocial behaviors, especially reactive (i.e.…”

“…These links have been explained by shared deficits in dimensions of emotion and self-regulation in general psychopathology and antisocial behaviors, especially reactive (i.e. emotionally driven and impulsive) aggression [19,41,51]. However, especially specific Externalizing and Aggressive Behavior are thought to predict antisocial outcomes (e.g.…”

“…Previous studies have demonstrated significant homotypic continuity (e.g., GP predicting GP at a later time point) as well as hetero-typic continuity (e.g., GP predicting later EXT and vice versa) (e.g., [17,18]). For DP however, only homotypic continuity has been examined (and established) [19,20]. A comparison of the stability of GP and DP is needed to determine which one would be more susceptible to developmental change.…”

“…The extent to which these differences in specification affect these models is unknown. First, a broader range of scales and instruments and often a far larger battery of items are included in GP models [9,28], while the DP is usually assessed with only three scales of either the CBCL or the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire [19]. It is unknown whether the size of the item battery affects predictive validity or whether DP, as a more parsimonious measure, might be just as useful.…”