D Stevanovic1, R Urbán2, O Atilola3, P Vostanis4, Y P Singh Balhara5, M Avicenna6, H Kandemir7, R Knez8, T Franic9, P Petrov10. 1. Clinic for Neurology and Psychiatry for Children and Youth,Belgrade,Serbia. 2. Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University,Budapest,Hungary. 3. Department of Behavioral Medicine,Lagos State University College of Medicine Ikeja,Lagos,Nigeria. 4. School of Psychology,Leicester University,Leicester,UK. 5. Department of Psychiatry,All India Institute of Medical Sciences,Ansari Nagar,New Delhi,India. 6. Faculty of Psychology,State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah,Jakarta,Indonesia. 7. Department of Child and Adolescents psychiatry,Harran University,Sanliurfa,Turkey. 8. Department of psychiatry,University Hospital Centre Rijeka,Rijeka,Croatia. 9. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,School of Medicine,University of Split,Split,Croatia. 10. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,University Hospital St. Marina,Varna,Bulgaria.
Abstract
AIMS: This study evaluated the measurement invariance of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) self-report among adolescents from seven different nations. METHODS: Data for 2367 adolescents, aged 13-18 years, from India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Serbia, Turkey, Bulgaria and Croatia were available for a series of factor analyses. RESULTS: The five-factor model including original SDQ scales emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity-inattention problems, peer problems and prosocial behaviour generated inadequate fit degree in all countries. A bifactor model with three factors (i.e., externalising, internalising and prosocial) and one general problem factor yielded adequate degree of fit in India, Nigeria, Turkey and Croatia. The prosocial behaviour, emotional symptoms and conduct problems factor were found to be common for all nations. However, originally proposed items loaded saliently on other factors besides the proposed ones or only some of them corresponded to proposed factors in all seven countries. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of a common acceptable model across all countries, namely the same numbers of factors (i.e., dimensional invariance), it was not possible to perform the metric and scalar invariance test, what indicates that the SDQ self-report models tested lack appropriate measurement invariance across adolescents from these seven nations and it needs to be revised for cross-country comparisons.
AIMS: This study evaluated the measurement invariance of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) self-report among adolescents from seven different nations. METHODS: Data for 2367 adolescents, aged 13-18 years, from India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Serbia, Turkey, Bulgaria and Croatia were available for a series of factor analyses. RESULTS: The five-factor model including original SDQ scales emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity-inattention problems, peer problems and prosocial behaviour generated inadequate fit degree in all countries. A bifactor model with three factors (i.e., externalising, internalising and prosocial) and one general problem factor yielded adequate degree of fit in India, Nigeria, Turkey and Croatia. The prosocial behaviour, emotional symptoms and conduct problems factor were found to be common for all nations. However, originally proposed items loaded saliently on other factors besides the proposed ones or only some of them corresponded to proposed factors in all seven countries. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of a common acceptable model across all countries, namely the same numbers of factors (i.e., dimensional invariance), it was not possible to perform the metric and scalar invariance test, what indicates that the SDQ self-report models tested lack appropriate measurement invariance across adolescents from these seven nations and it needs to be revised for cross-country comparisons.
Authors: Cecilia A Essau; Beatriz Olaya; Xenia Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous; Gina Pauli; Catherine Gilvarry; Diane Bray; Jean O'callaghan; Thomas H Ollendick Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2012-08-14 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: D Stevanovic; Z Bagheri; O Atilola; P Vostanis; D Stupar; P Moreira; T Franic; N Davidovic; R Knez; A Nikšić; K Dodig-Ćurković; M Avicenna; I Multazam Noor; L Nussbaum; A Deljkovic; A Aziz Thabet; P Petrov; D Ubalde; L A Monteiro; R Ribas Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2016-06-29 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Hasan Kandemir; Ömer Aydemir; Suat Ekinci; Salih Selek; Sultan B Kandemir; Hüseyin Bayazit Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 2.570
Authors: Stephanie L Prady; Kate E Pickett; Tim Croudace; Dan Mason; Emily S Petherick; Rosie R C McEachan; Simon Gilbody; John Wright Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 4.785