Thaysa B. F. Silva, Flávia L. Osório, Sonia R. Loureiro
Abstract
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was designed to screen for behavioral problems in youths based on cutoff points that favor the instrument's diagnostic sensitivity. The present study aimed to analyze the discriminative validity of the SDQ to identify behavioral difficulties and prosocial resources in school-age children compared with the diagnostic data collected by the corresponding sections of the Development and Well-being Assessment (DAWBA). In addition, new cutoff points that value specificity were defined for the SDQ scales, exploring its diagnostic potential. This study was conducted in Brazil and assessed a community convenience sample that consisted of 120 children aged 6-12 years who were not under psychological/psychiatric treatment. The mothers of the participants also completed a sociodemographic questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to clinically characterize the sample. A ROC curve was used to assess the discriminant validity of the SDQ, and new cutoff points were established to maximize the instrument's specificity. The new cutoff points enabled a significant increase in specificity without a significant loss of sensitivity, which favors approaches based on measures of screening and diagnosis yet does not damage the instrument's screening capacity. The following increases were observed: 100% for the depressive disorder scale (cutoff point = 7), 95.1% for the generalized anxiety disorder scale (cutoff point = 7), 46.6% for the conduct disorder scale (cutoff point = 6), 19.2% for the hyperactive disorder scale (cutoff point = 8), and 27.6% for the antisocial personality disorder scale (cutoff point = 6). A cutoff point of 8 was applied to the prosocial behavior scale, which exhibited a 62.1% increase in specificity. The use of more specific cutoff points generated more accurate results and favored SDQ's use, particularly in contexts of care that require more precise and faster procedures for identification of problems.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,758,791
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,414
of 29,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,768
of 266,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#413
of 526 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 266,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 526 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
