4.5 Article

The use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Southern European countries

期刊

EUROPEAN CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 40-46

出版社

DR DIETRICH STEINKOPFF VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-004-2007-1

关键词

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ); behaviour problems; rating scales; cross-national comparisons; Southern Europe

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reports a selection of completed or ongoing studies that have evaluated or applied the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in five countries of Southern Europe: Italy, Spain, Portugal, Croatia, and France. In Italy, the SDQ has been used to study its concurrent validity with other norm-based instruments (Child Behavior Checklist-CBCL and Disruptive Behavior Disorder Rating Scale-DBDRS), to assess the efficacy of a behavioural school training, and as part of an epidemiological study. In Spain, the SDQ was used to analyse the association between respiratory and other behavioural problems. In Portugal and Croatia, psychometric properties of the three versions of the SDQ (parent, teacher, and self-reports) were investigated in samples of children ranging from 5 to 16 years. Past and ongoing studies in France have administered the SDQ to estimate inter-rater agreement between parents, teachers, and pupils, to carry out a large-scale epidemiological study, and to evaluate the efficacy of a parent training programme. In a second section, scale means obtained with the teacher version of the SDQ in three community-based samples of 7-8 year-old children from Italy, Portugal, and Spain are compared. The results show that, according to their teachers' ratings, Italian pupils showed less prosocial behaviour than their Spanish and Portuguese agemates, whereas the Portuguese children were rated as being more hyperactive and inattentive than comparable Italian and Spanish children. Possible causes underlying the observed differences between national SDQ means are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据