Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | e0240312 |
| Pages (from-to) | e0240312 |
| Journal | PLOS ONE |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue number | 10 |
| Publication status | Published - 9 Oct 2020 |
Abstract
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a frequently used screening instrument for behavioral problems in children and adolescents. There is an ongoing controversy -not only in educational research-regarding the factor structure of the SDQ. Research results speak for a 3-factor as well as a 5-factor structure. The narrowband scales (5-factor structure) can be combined into broadband scales (3-factor structure). The question remains: Which factors (narrowband vs. broadband) are better predictors? With the prediction of child and adolescent outcomes (academic grades, well-being, and self-belief), we evaluated whether the broadband scales of internalizing and externalizing behavior (3-factor structure) or narrowband scales of behavior (5-factor structure) are better suited for predictive purposes in a cross-sectional study setting. The sample includes students in grades 5 to 9 (N = 4642) from the representative German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS study). The results of model comparisons (broadband scale vs. narrowband scales) did not support the superiority of the broadband scales with regard to the prediction of child and adolescent outcomes. There is no benefit from subsuming narrowband scales (5-factor structure) into broadband scales (3-factor structure). The application of narrowband scales, providing a more differentiated picture of students' academic and social situation, was more appropriate for predictive purposes. For the purpose of identifying students at risk of struggling in educational contexts, using the set of narrowband dimensions of behavior seems to be more suitable.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
- General Biochemistry,Genetics and Molecular Biology
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- General Agricultural and Biological Sciences
- General
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: PLOS ONE, Vol. 15, No. 10, e0240312, 09.10.2020, p. e0240312.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Prediction of child and adolescent outcomes with broadband and narrowband dimensions of internalizing and externalizing behavior using the child and adolescent version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
AU - Kulawiak, Pawel R.
AU - Wilbert, Jürgen
AU - Schlack, Robert
AU - Börnert-Ringleb, Moritz
PY - 2020/10/9
Y1 - 2020/10/9
N2 - The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a frequently used screening instrument for behavioral problems in children and adolescents. There is an ongoing controversy -not only in educational research-regarding the factor structure of the SDQ. Research results speak for a 3-factor as well as a 5-factor structure. The narrowband scales (5-factor structure) can be combined into broadband scales (3-factor structure). The question remains: Which factors (narrowband vs. broadband) are better predictors? With the prediction of child and adolescent outcomes (academic grades, well-being, and self-belief), we evaluated whether the broadband scales of internalizing and externalizing behavior (3-factor structure) or narrowband scales of behavior (5-factor structure) are better suited for predictive purposes in a cross-sectional study setting. The sample includes students in grades 5 to 9 (N = 4642) from the representative German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS study). The results of model comparisons (broadband scale vs. narrowband scales) did not support the superiority of the broadband scales with regard to the prediction of child and adolescent outcomes. There is no benefit from subsuming narrowband scales (5-factor structure) into broadband scales (3-factor structure). The application of narrowband scales, providing a more differentiated picture of students' academic and social situation, was more appropriate for predictive purposes. For the purpose of identifying students at risk of struggling in educational contexts, using the set of narrowband dimensions of behavior seems to be more suitable.
AB - The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is a frequently used screening instrument for behavioral problems in children and adolescents. There is an ongoing controversy -not only in educational research-regarding the factor structure of the SDQ. Research results speak for a 3-factor as well as a 5-factor structure. The narrowband scales (5-factor structure) can be combined into broadband scales (3-factor structure). The question remains: Which factors (narrowband vs. broadband) are better predictors? With the prediction of child and adolescent outcomes (academic grades, well-being, and self-belief), we evaluated whether the broadband scales of internalizing and externalizing behavior (3-factor structure) or narrowband scales of behavior (5-factor structure) are better suited for predictive purposes in a cross-sectional study setting. The sample includes students in grades 5 to 9 (N = 4642) from the representative German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS study). The results of model comparisons (broadband scale vs. narrowband scales) did not support the superiority of the broadband scales with regard to the prediction of child and adolescent outcomes. There is no benefit from subsuming narrowband scales (5-factor structure) into broadband scales (3-factor structure). The application of narrowband scales, providing a more differentiated picture of students' academic and social situation, was more appropriate for predictive purposes. For the purpose of identifying students at risk of struggling in educational contexts, using the set of narrowband dimensions of behavior seems to be more suitable.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85092754116&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0240312
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0240312
M3 - Article
VL - 15
SP - e0240312
JO - PLOS ONE
JF - PLOS ONE
SN - 1932-6203
IS - 10
M1 - e0240312
ER -