SDQ: discriminative validity and diagnostic potential

Abstract

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was designed to screen for behavioral problems in youths based on cutoff points that favor the instrument's diagnostic sensitivity. The present study aimed to analyze the discriminative validity of the SDQ to identify behavioral difficulties and prosocial resources in school-age children compared with the diagnostic data collected by the corresponding sections of the Development and Well-being Assessment (DAWBA). In addition, new cutoff points that value specificity were defined for the SDQ scales, exploring its diagnostic potential. This study was conducted in Brazil and assessed a community convenience sample that consisted of 120 children aged 6–12 years who were not under psychological/psychiatric treatment. The mothers of the participants also completed a sociodemographic questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to clinically characterize the sample. A ROC curve was used to assess the discriminant validity of the SDQ, and new cutoff points were established to maximize the instrument's specificity. The new cutoff points enabled a significant increase in specificity without a significant loss of sensitivity, which favors approaches based on measures of screening and diagnosis yet does not damage the instrument's screening capacity. The following increases were observed: 100% for the depressive disorder scale (cutoff point = 7), 95.1% for the generalized anxiety disorder scale (cutoff point = 7), 46.6% for the conduct disorder scale (cutoff point = 6), 19.2% for the hyperactive disorder scale (cutoff point = 8), and 27.6% for the antisocial personality disorder scale (cutoff point = 6). A cutoff point of 8 was applied to the prosocial behavior scale, which exhibited a 62.1% increase in specificity. The use of more specific cutoff points generated more accurate results and favored SDQ's use, particularly in contexts of care that require more precise and faster procedures for identification of problems.

The association of psychiatric symptomatology with patterns of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use among Brazilian high school students

“…These higher cutoffs are better suitable for contexts of care that require more precise and faster procedures for diagnosis in which a clinician evaluation is not available. For screening purposes, as done in our study, the authors state that the usual cutoffs are reliable …”

“…Although the translated version of the SDQ has not yet been validated to the Brazilian context, it has been used in several studies with good results . A recent study has evaluated different cutoffs for the Brazilian version of the SDQ (different from the ones used in the analyses for this manuscript). The authors state that using higher cutoffs increases the specificity of the instrument, with little loss of its sensitivity.…”

Psicopatologia na Infância: Levantamento Epidemiológico

“…15 O SDQ permite uma boa descriminação entre crianças com e sem sintomas psiquiátricos e há evidências que indicam que pode ser usado como medida de rastreio de perturbações psiquiátricas em amostras comunitárias. 16 A especificidade do SDQ é de 94,6% e a sensibilidade de 63,3%.…”

Genetic variation inCSMD1affects amygdala connectivity and prosocial behavior

“…We derived prosocial behavior from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997), which is an efficient, widely used, and validated screen for both adolescent strengths (i.e., prosocial behavior) and difficulties (i.e., emotional and behavioral). The prosocial behavior subscale assesses resources, indexing adaptive competencies that may promote adjustment and protect against emotional and behavioral difficulties (Silva et al, 2015). This subscale has discriminant validity in healthy adolescents, showing highest sensitivity and specificity for identifying prosocial resources at a cutoff score of 8/10 when compared to a more comprehensive evaluation of social skills from the Development and Well-being Assessment (Silva et al, 2015).…”

“…The IMAGEN cohort underwent assessment of such a phenotype, specifically, the "prosocial behavior" score generated from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman, 1997). It is a clinically validated (Silva, Osório, & Loureiro, 2015) composite of 5 items including "Considerate of other people's feelings ", "Shares readily with other children (treats, toys, pencils, etc. )", "Helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling ill", "Kind to younger children", and "Often volunteers to help others (parents, teachers, other children)", rated as 0=not true, 1=somewhat true, 2=certainly true and summed for a total possible score of 10.…”