4.5 Article

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire

Journal

COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHIATRY
Volume 54, Issue 6, Pages 720-730

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.01.002

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Health Research Institute [NHRI-EX94-9407PC, NHRI-EX95-9407PC]
  2. National Taiwan University Hospital [NTUH 95-301]
  3. Department of Health, Taiwan [DOH-95-HO-9518]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to establish the norms and to examine the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Sample included a representative sample of 3534 students (grades 1 to 8) from one city and one suburb each in Northern and Southern Taiwan by using a multistage sampling method and 211 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), aged 6 to 15, consecutively recruited from a medical center in Taipei. All the parents and teachers and participants with grade 4 or higher completed the SDQ. Parents and teachers also completed the Child Behavior Checklist and the measures about inattention, hyperactivity, and oppositional symptoms. Similar to Western studies, principal component analyses confirmed the five psychological dimensions of the SDQ for the parent, teacher, and student forms. The three forms of the Chinese SDQ showed satisfactory test-retest reliability, internal consistency, concurrent validity, and discriminant validity. All the subscales of the three forms of the Chinese SDQ clearly distinguished clinical participants with ADHD from school-based participants. Like Western studies, our findings indicate that the Chinese SDQ demonstrates a reliable and valid instrument for measuring internalizing, externalizing, and prosocial behaviors in Taiwanese child and adolescent population. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available