Prediction of child and adolescent outcomes with broadband and narrowband dimensions of internalizing and externalizing behavior using the child and adolescent version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Abstract

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a frequently used screening instrument for behavioral problems in children and adolescents. There is an ongoing controversy-not only in educational research-regarding the factor structure of the SDQ. Research results speak for a 3-factor as well as a 5-factor structure. The narrowband scales (5-factor structure) can be combined into broadband scales (3-factor structure). The question remains: Which factors (narrowband vs. broadband) are better predictors? With the prediction of child and adolescent outcomes (academic grades, well-being, and self-belief), we evaluated whether the broadband scales of internalizing and externalizing behavior (3-factor structure) or narrowband scales of behavior (5-factor structure) are better suited for predictive purposes in a cross-sectional study setting. The sample includes students in grades 5 to 9 (N = 4642) from the representative German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS study). The results of model comparisons (broadband scale vs. narrowband scales) did not support the superiority of the broadband scales with regard to the prediction of child and adolescent outcomes. There is no benefit from subsuming narrowband scales (5-factor structure) into broadband scales (3-factor structure). The application of narrowband scales, providing a more differentiated picture of students' academic and social situation, was more appropriate for predictive purposes. For the purpose of identifying students at risk of struggling in educational contexts, using the set of narrowband dimensions of behavior seems to be more suitable.

Adipocytokine correlates of childhood and adolescent mental health: A systematic review

“…Childhood and adolescent mental health symptoms are often assessed using broadband, dimensional instruments, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), as children and adolescents commonly display emerging signs of psychopathology but do not always meet diagnostic criteria (Goodman, 2001). Broadband scales include more general composite factors of mental health (i.e., internalizing symptoms) and a number of different narrowband scales that are often symptom specific (i.e., emotional symptoms) (Kulawiak et al., 2020). As such, broadband measures were included as indicators of psychological symptoms.…”

What predicts teachers’ use of digital learning in Germany? Examining the obstacles and conditions of digital learning in special education

“…Model fit was compared considering the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) (for an overview on the application of AIC see Vrieze 2012). As described by Kulawiak et al (2020), the AIC 'takes into account both model complexity (total number of estimated model parameters) and goodness of model fit (maximized likelihood) and balances these two' (p. 6). The model with the smallest AIC shows the best model fit.…”

Short measures of youth psychopathology: psychometric properties of the brief problem monitor (BPM) and the behavior and feelings survey (BFS) in a Norwegian clinical sample

“…Dimensional models for the classification of child and adolescent psychopathologies have for a long time been dominant, and multiple models with different levels of specificity have been proposed and gathered empirical support. A model of one general psychopathology dimension, p , can be supported empirically [ 6 ], but more fine-grained models can also show predictive capacities of more narrowband dimensions [ 7 , 8 ]. A two-dimensional model for the classification of child and adolescent psychopathologies—internalizing and externalizing problems—is often regarded as a parsimonious and adequately precise way to capture child and adolescent disorders [ 9 , 10 ].…”