[Validation of the Hungarian version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in an adolescent clinical population]. / A Képességek és Nehézségek Kérdoív (SDQ-Magy) validálása serdülokorú klinikai populációban.

INTRODUCTION: The short Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) available in parent, teacher and self-report versions, is used world-wide for assessing and screening childhood behavior and mental problems, as part of clinical assessments, therapy outcome evaluations, and research tool. The aim of the present study was to extend the use of Hungarian version to a clinical sample, to examine the clinical cut-off values suggested previously on the basis of a normative sample, and to test the questionnaire's sensitivity in differentiating between different psychiatric disorders. METHOD: The parent and self-report versions of the five scale SDQ-Magy questionnaire was filled in by 716 parents and their children admitted to Vadaskert Child Psychiatry and Outpatient Clinic. Clinical (ICD) diagnoses were determined during psychiatric examination. RESULTS: With a few exceptions, internal consistencies of the scales were satisfactory (0,55-0,79), the parent version showing greater reliability compared to the self-report version. Children's age, gender, and parents' level of education had some effect on the scale scores. The questionnaire's Total problem and symptom scale scores were very effective in discriminating between the control and the clinical sample. In the clinical sample, parents rated their children's behavior and mental problems as more severe. Profiles of scale scores distinguished the wider internalizing, externalizing, and co-morbid diagnostic categories, as well as the eight specific diagnoses. Based on the normal-abnormal cut-off values proposed earlier (Turi et al., 2011), the great majority of clinical cases were screened by the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The Hungarian version of the SDQ proved applicable in a clinical sample. Psychometric properties, variances due to age, gender and informant were consistent with international experiences. SDQ profiles related to clinical diagnoses and their difference from the control group show the sensitivity and discriminative power of the questionnaire, while the screening ability based on clinical cut-offs also supports the clinical use of the questionnaire.

[Further examination of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-Magy) in a community sample of young adolescents]. / A Képessgék es Nehézségek Kérdoiv (SDQ-Magy) tovabbi vizsgalata nem-klinikai mintan, fiatal serdulok köreben.

INTRODUCTION: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-Magy) is a brief instrument suitable for assessing and screening childhood behavior and mental problems, available in parent and teacher, and from 11 years of age, self-report versions. The aim of the present study was to extend our previous investigation in a community sample to an older age group, to examine its psychometric properties, and to assess cross-informant agreements and differences, effects of gender and age, as well as to determine cut-off points between normal and abnormal scores within the community sample. METHODS: Parent, teacher, and self-report questionnaire data were collected on 286 pupils of 12-17 years of age. RESULTS: With a few exceptions, internal consistencies of the scales were satisfactory, the teacher-reports showing the highest reliability. Regarding scale means, there were few significant differences from the British normative data. Correlations among problem scales were weak to moderate, and only self and parent reports showed moderate interrater agreements. Boys scored higher on Conduct problems and Hyperactivity scales, girls were reported to show more Prosocial behaviors and Emotional symptoms. Children's age affected teacher reports only, showing an increase of problems with age. We propose cut-off values for separating normal and clinical ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Psychometric properties and inter-correlations of the SDQ scales, as well as gender differences are consistent with the previous Hungarian and international studies. Rater differences found on certain scales suggest contextual effects on problematic behaviors, discrepancies between informants, and their potentially importance for researchers and mental health professionals.