Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Self-Report Version

📜
Abstract

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a premier psychological screening instrument designed to evaluate the behavioral and emotional well-being of Children and Adolescents. Originally developed in the United Kingdom, it stands out from traditional clinical measures by explicitly incorporating positive attributes alongside psychological deficits. The scale captures a holistic snapshot of youth mental health through a brief, highly accessible format. This specific academic work explores the psychometric viability of the self-report version of the SDQ when applied to a non-Western, South American demographic—specifically, youth in the Andean region of Ecuador.

By investigating how well the instrument's underlying factor structure holds up in a novel cultural setting, the research provides vital insights into cross-cultural psychological assessment. It challenges the assumption that factor structures derived from Western populations automatically apply globally, demonstrating the necessity of localized psychometric validation to ensure accurate clinical screening and research data collection.

🏷
Keywords
psychometrics
child psychology
behavioral screening
Cross-cultural validation
Factor analysis
Ecuador
internalizing behaviors
externalizing behaviors

📊 Psychometric Scorecard

Items Count
25
Structure
Multidimensional
Cronbach's α
0.17
McDonald's ω
0.11
Validation Country
📍 Ecuador

Translation Method: Cultural adaptation by a multidisciplinary committee (psychologist, anthropologist, educator) followed by pilot testing on 52 Children to refine local idioms.

Authors

👤 Paúl Arias-Medina
✉ [email protected]
🏛 Faculty of Psychology, University of Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador

Purpose

In the realm of child and adolescent psychology, accurate screening is the first critical step toward effective intervention. While the SDQ is globally ubiquitous, psychometricians recognize that psychological constructs are heavily influenced by cultural and linguistic nuances. A tool that perfectly captures hyperactivity or peer problems in London may not function identically in an Andean town heavily impacted by international migration.

This research fills a significant geographical and cultural gap by rigorously testing the SDQ in Ecuador. For clinicians and researchers working in Latin America, understanding whether to use the traditional five-factor scoring or a broader internalizing/externalizing framework is essential for making valid diagnostic and research decisions. It ensures that interventions are based on culturally sound measurement rather than imported assumptions.

Construct

The psychological framework of the SDQ is built upon a multidimensional view of child psychopathology and social functioning. It divides behavioral and emotional presentations into five distinct domains: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behavior. The first four domains represent areas of clinical concern, often grouped theoretically into broader 'internalizing' (inwardly directed distress like anxiety or sadness) and 'externalizing' (outwardly directed behaviors like aggression or impulsivity) dimensions.

The fifth domain, prosocial behavior, measures positive social competencies such as sharing and empathy. This dual-lens approach allows evaluators to identify not just where a child struggles, but also the interpersonal strengths they possess that could serve as protective factors during therapeutic interventions. The ongoing psychometric debate centers on whether these constructs are best measured as five narrow traits or two to three broader behavioral dimensions.

Validity

To establish structural validity, the researcher employed advanced psychometric modeling to compare four competing theoretical frameworks. These included the original five-factor model, two variations of a three-factor model (grouping items into internalizing, externalizing, and prosocial dimensions), and a hierarchical second-order model. Because the data was ordinal, the analysis appropriately utilized a polychoric correlation matrix with a Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) estimator.

Furthermore, the study prioritized content validity through a rigorous cultural adaptation process. A multidisciplinary team modified the Spanish phrasing to align with local Ecuadorian idioms—for instance, replacing complex terms like 'hiperactivo' with more accessible language—ensuring the items were developmentally and culturally appropriate before quantitative testing began.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the scale was scrutinized using a robust battery of metrics, including Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, intra-class correlation, and the Greatest Lower Bound. The findings offer a compelling lesson in psychometrics: reliability is highly sample-dependent and not an immutable property of the test itself.

The analysis revealed significant variability in internal consistency across different subscales and age cohorts. In fact, some subscales demonstrated remarkably low alpha and omega coefficients (dropping below .30 in certain instances), particularly in the younger age brackets. This psychometric behavior suggests that while the SDQ is a valuable brief screener, researchers must be cautious when interpreting specific subscale scores in this cultural context, as the items may not cohere as tightly as they do in the original normative samples.

Factor Analysis

The analytical strategy involved a cross-validation approach, randomly splitting the large sample into two halves. The first half was subjected to Exploratory Factor analysis (EFA) to observe how the items naturally clustered without theoretical constraints. Using the Kaiser criterion, the EFA extracted six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, accounting for approximately 43.16% of the total variance.

The second half of the sample was then used for Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA) to explicitly test the fit of the four predefined models. By evaluating these models across different age groups (7-12 versus 13-17 years old), the study highlighted potential developmental differences in how Children conceptualize and report their own behaviors and emotions, reinforcing the need for age-specific structural validation.

Subscales

Subscale Items Description
Emotional Symptoms 3, 8, 13, 16, 9 Measures internalizing distress, including somatic complaints, worries, unhappiness, and fearfulness.
Conduct Problems 5, 7, 12, 18, 22 Measures externalizing behavioral issues such as temper tantrums, obedience issues, fighting, lying, and stealing.
Hyperactivity/Inattention 2, 10, 15, 21, 24 Measures restlessness, fidgeting, distractibility, and impulsivity.
Peer Relationship Problems 6, 11, 14, 19, 23 Measures social isolation, bullying victimization, and difficulties relating to other Children.
Prosocial Behaviour 1, 4, 17, 20, 25 Measures positive social traits including consideration for others, sharing, helpfulness, and kindness.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Format 25 items, 3-point ordinal Likert scale (0: 'not true', 1: 'somewhat true', 2: 'certainly true')
Scoring Items are summed within their respective subscales to generate domain scores. A total difficulties score can be generated by summing the four deficit subscales.
Language Spanish
Population Children, Adolescents
Age Group 7 to 17 years old
Administration Paper-and-pencil survey

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Self-Report Version Items

📋 Items are currently not available

The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.

Sample

The final sample consisted of 1,470 students (740 boys and 730 girls) aged 7 to 17 years old (Mean = 12.77, SD = 2.42). Participants were recruited from nine schools in and around Biblián, an Andean town in Ecuador characterized by high rates of international migration.

📄
Cite This Paper

Paúl Arias-Medina (1999). Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Self-Report Version. BMC psychology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0328-6

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
45 references
  1. Polanczyk GV, Salum GA, Sugaya LS, Caye A, Rohde LA. Annual research review: a meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in Children and Adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 2015;56:345–65. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12381
  2. Goodman R. The extended version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 1999;40:791–9. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00494
  3. Goodman R. A modified version of the Rutter parent questionnaire including extra items on Children’s strengths: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1994;35:1483–94. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01289.x
  4. Goodman R. Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;40:1337–45. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015
  5. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2003;15:173–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954026021000046137. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/0954026021000046137
  6. Muris P, Meesters C, Eijkelenboom A, Vincken M. The self-report version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: its psychometric properties in 8- to 13-year-old non-clinical Children. Br J Clin Psychol. 2004;43:437–48. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1348/0144665042388982
  7. Curvis W, McNulty S, Qualter P. The validation of the self-report strengths and difficulties questionnaire for use by 6- to 10-year-old Children in the UK. Br J Clin Psychol. 2014. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12025
  8. Patalay P, Hayes D, Wolpert M. Assessing the readability of the self-reported Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. BJPsych Open. 2018;4:55–7. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2017.13
  9. Cucchiaro G, Dalgalarrondo P. Mental health and quality of life in pre- and early Adolescents: a school-based study in two contrasting urban areas. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2007;29:213–21. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462007000300005
  10. Cury CR, Golfeto JH. Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ): a study of school Children in Ribeirão Preto. Rev Bras Psiquiatr (São Paulo, Brazil 1999). 2003;25:139–145. doi:https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462003000300005. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462003000300005
  11. Goodman R, Renfrew D, Mullick M. Predicting type of psychiatric disorder from strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) scores in child mental health clinics in London and Dhaka. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;9:129–34. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s007870050008
  12. Goodman A, Goodman R. Strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a dimensional measure of child mental health. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2009;48:400–3. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181985068
  13. Fletcher J, Tannock R, Bishop DVM. Utility of brief teacher rating scales to identify Children with educational problems: experience with an Australian sample. Aust J Psychol. 2001;53:63–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530108255125. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530108255125
  14. Hawes DJ, Dadds MR. Australian data and psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2004;38:644–51. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01427.x
  15. Mellor D, Stokes M. The factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2007;23:105–12. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.105
  16. Mullick MSI, Goodman R. Questionnaire screening for mental health problems in Bangladeshi Children: a preliminary study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2001;36:94–9. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s001270050295
  17. Dickey WC, Blumberg SJ. Revisiting the factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: United States, 2001. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004;43:1159–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000132808.36708.a9. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000132808.36708.a9
  18. Koskelainen M, Sourander A, Vauras M. Self-reported strengths and difficulties in a community sample of Finnish Adolescents. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;10:180–5. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s007870170024
  19. Van Leeuwen K, Meerschaert T, Bosmans G, De Medts L, Braet C. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire in a community sample of young Children in flanders. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2006;22:189–97. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.189
  20. Ortuño-Sierra J, Fonseca-Pedrero E, Paino M, Sastre I, Riba S, Muñiz J. Screening mental health problems during adolescence: psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. J Adolesc. 2015;38:49–56. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.11.001
  21. Ortuño-Sierra J, Chocarro E, Fonseca-Pedrero E, Riba SSI, Muñiz J. The assessment of emotional and Behavioural problems: internal structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2015;15:265–73. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2015.05.005
  22. Di Riso D, Salcuni S, Chessa D, Raudino A, Lis A, Altoè G. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). Early evidence of its reliability and validity in a community sample of Italian Children. Personal Individ Differ. 2010;49:570–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.005. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.005
  23. Giannakopoulos G, Tzavara C, Dimitrakaki C, Kolaitis G, Rotsika V, Tountas Y. The factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) in Greek Adolescents. Ann General Psychiatry. 2009;8:20. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-8-20
  24. Thabet AA, Stretch D, Vostanis P. Child mental health problems in Arab Children: application of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2000;46:266–80. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/002076400004600404
  25. Du Y, Kou J, Coghill D. The validity, reliability and normative scores of the parent, teacher and self report versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in China. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2008;2:1–15. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-2-8
  26. Ortuño-Sierra J, Fonseca-Pedrero E, Aritio-Solana R, Velasco AM, de Luis EC, Schumann G, et al. New evidence of factor structure and measurement invariance of the SDQ across five European nations. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2015;24:1523–34. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-015-0729-x
  27. Bøe T, Hysing M, Skogen JC, Breivik K. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Factor structure and gender equivalence in Norwegian Adolescents. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0152202. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152202
  28. Smedje H, Broman JE, Hetta J, von Knorring AL. Psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the ‘strengths and difficulties questionnaire’. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999;8:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007870050086. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s007870050086
  29. Woerner W, Fleitlich-Bilyk B, Martinussen R, Fletcher J, Cucchiaro G, Dalgalarrondo P, et al. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire overseas: evaluations and applications of the SDQ beyond Europe. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry, Suppl. 2004;13:II47–54.
  30. Goodman A, Lamping DL, Ploubidis GB. When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised five subscales on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ): data from british parents, teachers and Children. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2010;38:1179–91. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9434-x
  31. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
  32. McDonald RP. Test theory: A unified treatment. Test theory A unified treatment. 1999;:485.
  33. Ten Berge JMF, Sočan G. The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika. 2004;69:613–25. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289858
  34. Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to Factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:141–51. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
  35. Beauducel A, Herzberg PY. On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Struct Equ Model. 2006;13:186–203. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2
  36. Flora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory Factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004;9:466–91. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466
  37. Lei PW. Evaluating estimation methods for ordinal data in structural equation modeling. Qual Quant. 2009;43:495–507. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9133-z
  38. Li C-H. The performance of MLR, USLMV, and WLSMV estimation in structural regression models with ordinal variables; 2014.
  39. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107:238–46. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  40. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 1992;21:230–58. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  41. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6:1–55. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  42. Yu CY. Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continous outcomes. 2002. doi:10.1.1.310.3956.
  43. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
  44. Kaiser HF, Rice J. Little jiffy, Mark Iv. Educ Psychol Meas. 1974;34:111–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447403400115
  45. Bird HR. Epidemiology of childhood disorders in a cross-cultural context. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Discip. 1996;37:35–49. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01379.x

Cite this article

Mohammed looti (2026). Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Self-Report Version. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/strengths-and-difficulties-questionnaire-self-report-version/

Mohammed looti. "Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Self-Report Version." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 14 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/strengths-and-difficulties-questionnaire-self-report-version/.

Mohammed looti. "Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Self-Report Version." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/strengths-and-difficulties-questionnaire-self-report-version/.

Mohammed looti (2026) 'Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Self-Report Version', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/strengths-and-difficulties-questionnaire-self-report-version/.

[1] Mohammed looti, "Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Self-Report Version," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

Mohammed looti. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – Self-Report Version. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) – self-completion
  2. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) – teachers
  3. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) – parents
  4. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) – teachers
  5. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) – parents
  6. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)
  7. Mood and Feelings Questionnaire-Self Report (MFQ- Self)
  8. Character Strengths Use in Diabetes Self-management Scale (SUDM)
  9. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Complex Trauma and Strengths Questionnaire (ACTSQ)
  10. Self Concept-Self Report Scale (SC-SR)
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top