↓ Skip to main content

Is Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a Community Sample the Optimal Way to Assess Mental Health Functioning?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a Community Sample the Optimal Way to Assess Mental Health Functioning?
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144039
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharmila Vaz, Reinie Cordier, Mark Boyes, Richard Parsons, Annette Joosten, Marina Ciccarelli, Marita Falkmer, Torbjorn Falkmer

Abstract

An important characteristic of a screening tool is its discriminant ability or the measure's accuracy to distinguish between those with and without mental health problems. The current study examined the inter-rater agreement and screening concordance of the parent and teacher versions of SDQ at scale, subscale and item-levels, with the view of identifying the items that have the most informant discrepancies; and determining whether the concordance between parent and teacher reports on some items has the potential to influence decision making. Cross-sectional data from parent and teacher reports of the mental health functioning of a community sample of 299 students with and without disabilities from 75 different primary schools in Perth, Western Australia were analysed. The study found that: a) Intraclass correlations between parent and teacher ratings of children's mental health using the SDQ at person level was fair on individual child level; b) The SDQ only demonstrated clinical utility when there was agreement between teacher and parent reports using the possible or 90% dichotomisation system; and c) Three individual items had positive likelihood ratio scores indicating clinical utility. Of note was the finding that the negative likelihood ratio or likelihood of disregarding the absence of a condition when both parents and teachers rate the item as absent was not significant. Taken together, these findings suggest that the SDQ is not optimised for use in community samples and that further psychometric evaluation of the SDQ in this context is clearly warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 18%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 27 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 32 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2022.
All research outputs
#5,240,873
of 25,481,734 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#86,099
of 222,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,266
of 402,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,335
of 4,966 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,481,734 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222,086 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 402,924 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,966 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.