The validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for children with ADHD symptoms
The validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for children with ADHD symptoms
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0218518
复制
发表时间：
2019-06-19
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Hollis, Chris
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hall, Charlotte L.;Guo, Boliang;Hollis, Chris
背景优势与困难问卷（SDQ）被广泛用于评估儿童和青少年的心理健康问题。然而，SDQ的因素结构是有争议的，有有限的证据调查测量等效不变性（ME/I）之间的治疗组，线人，和across time.MethodA随机对照试验（RCT）招募了250名参与者（6 - 17岁）谁被称为注意缺陷多动障碍（ADHD）评估。参与者和他们的临床医生要么收到或没有收到QbTest报告（计算机任务测量注意力，冲动和活动）。家长和老师在基线和6个月后完成了SDQ。本研究旨在了解SDQ的因素结构，在一个诊所提到的ADHD样本，并验证规模作为一个筛选/诊断的助手，并作为一个措施的治疗结果在临床和研究环境。进行探索性结构方程模型（ESEM）以检查因子结构，并评估治疗组、受试者和时间点之间的ME/I。SDQ预测算法ADHD的标准有效性进行了比较，临床医生和研究诊断，使用逻辑回归和测试的诊断accuracy. ResultsA 5-因子结构提供了最佳的拟合与治疗组之间的强大的阶乘不变性和跨时间点，但不是跨线人（家长和教师的评级）。SDQ评定的"可能的"多动障碍是临床多动障碍的良好预测因子。（OR = 10.20，95% CI 2.18 - 48.71，p = 0.003）和ADHD的研究诊断（OR = 6.82，95%CI 1.95 - 23.84，p = 0.003），以及多动障碍的研究诊断（OR = 4.02，95%CI 1.13 - 14.25，p = 0.031）。SDQ多动'可能'评级的进一步检查显示出良好的特异性（84.5%-74.5%），但差的灵敏度（45.0 - 42.5%）ADHDM.ConclusionThe研究结果表明，SDQ是一个有效的结果衡量使用随机对照试验和临床设置。然而，在使用SDQ预测算法筛选临床参考样本中的ADHD时应小心。
BackgroundThe Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is widely used to assess child and adolescent mental health problems. However, the factor structure of the SDQ is subject to debate and there is limited evidence investigating measurement equivalence invariance (ME/I) between treatment groups, informants, and across time.MethodA randomised controlled trial (RCT) recruited 250 participants (6-17 years) who had been referred for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) assessment. Participants and their clinician either received or did not receive a QbTest report (computer task measuring attention, impulsivity and activity). Parents and teachers completed the SDQ at baseline and 6-months later. This study aimed to understand the factor structure of the SDQ in a clinic referred ADHD sample, and validate the scale as a screening/diagnostic aide and as a measure of treatment outcome both in clinical and research settings. Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling (ESEM) was performed to examine the factor structure, and ME/I was assessed between treatment groups, informants, and time points. The criterion validity of the SDQ predictive algorithm for ADHD was compared with clinician and research diagnoses using logistic regression and tests of diagnostic accuracy.ResultsA 5-factor structure provided the best fit with strong factorial invariance between treatment groups and across time points, but not across informants (parent and teacher ratings). SDQ ratings of 'probable' hyperactivity disorder were good predictors of clinical (OR = 10.20, 95% CI 2.18-48.71, p = 0.003) and research diagnoses of ADHD (OR = 6.82, 95% CI 1.95-23.84, p = 0.003), and research diagnoses of Hyperkinetic disorder (OR = 4.02, 95% CI 1.13-14.25, p = 0.031). Further examination of the SDQ hyperactivity 'probable' rating showed good specificity (84.5%-74.5%) but poor sensitivity (45.0-42.5%) for ADHD.ConclusionThe findings indicate the SDQ is a valid outcome measure for use in RCTs and clinical settings. However, care should be taken when using the SDQ predictive algorithm to screen for ADHD in clinically referred samples.