Concurrence of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire and developmental behaviour checklist among children with an intellectual disability.

Autor: Rice LJ; Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia., Emerson E; Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australia., Gray KM; Centre for Developmental Psychiatry and Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.; Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK., Howlin P; Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.; Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College, London, UK., Tonge BJ; Centre for Developmental Psychiatry and Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.; Centre for Educational Development, Appraisal and Research, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK., Warner GL; Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College, London, UK., Einfeld SL; Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR [J Intellect Disabil Res] 2018 Feb; Vol. 62 (2), pp. 150-155. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Oct 05.
DOI: 10.1111/jir.12426
Abstrakt: Background: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is widely used to measure emotional and behavioural problems in typically developing young people, although there is some evidence that it may also be suitable for children with intellectual disability (ID). The Developmental Behaviour Checklist - Parent version (DBC-P) is a measure of emotional and behavioural problems that was specifically designed for children and adolescents with an ID. The DBC-P cut-off has high agreement with clinical diagnosis. The aim of this study was to estimate the relationship between DBC-P and SDQ scores in a sample of children with ID.
Method: Parents of 83 young people with ID aged 4-17 years completed the parent versions of the SDQ and the DBC-P. We evaluated the concurrent validity of the SDQ and DBC-P total scores, and the agreement between the DBC-P cut-off and the SDQ cut-offs for 'borderline' and 'abnormal' behaviour.
Results: The SDQ total difficulties score correlated well with the DBC-P total behaviour problem score. Agreement between the SDQ borderline cut-off and the DBC-P cut-off for abnormality was high (83%), but was lower for the SDQ abnormal cut-off (75%). Positive agreement between the DBC-P and the SDQ borderline cut-off was also high, with the SDQ borderline cut-off identifying 86% of those who met the DBC-P criterion. Negative agreement was weaker, with the SDQ borderline cut-off identifying only 79% of the participants who did not meet the DBC-P cut-off.
Conclusion: The SDQ borderline cut-off has some validity as a measure of overall levels of behavioural and emotional problems in young people with ID, and may be useful in epidemiological studies that include participants with and without ID. However, where it is important to focus on behavioural profiles in children with ID, a specialised ID instrument with established psychometric properties, such as the DBC-P, may provide more reliable and valid information.
(© 2017 MENCAP and International Association of the Scientific Study of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje