Measuring Strengths and Difficulties in Children with

Autism, Developmental Delays, and Intellectual

Disabilities: A Project AWARE Study
Brian Barger, PhD, Ashley Salmon, BA, & Roach, A.,

Introduction. Measurement of traits in children with developmental disabilities often proceeds with instruments normed in typically developing populations, often with the intention to determine mean
differences between groups. Sometimes, researchers report internal reliability or other basic psychometrics, but the general factor structure of instruments is often assumed, yet untested. This study was
guided by recent analyses of the Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) from typically developing children participating in Project AWARE, a public health mental health screening project in
Georgia. This analysis uniquely found that a 4 factor structure was preferable to more popular 5 and 3 factor models. One goal of Project AWARE is to determine if SDQ scores predict educational and
behavioral outcomes for children in special education; however, to date no one has investigated the factor structure of the SDQ in children with disabilities. Thus, in the present study we used data on
children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), developmental delays (DD), and intellectual disabilities (ID) available from the National Center for Health Statistics Pathways dataset to determine if 3, 4,
or 5 factor models found in typically developing children also fit data from children with ASD, DD, and ID.
Table 2: Participant Characteristics
Methods. Data for this analysis came from 821 children with ASD, 607 with DD, 400 children
Table 1: Item Characteristics
with ID, and 552 children with other developmental disabilities. Children with ASD and comorbid ID and DD (N = 320), DD only (N = 169), and ID only (N = 9) were classified as ASD.
Children with DD and co-morbid ID and classified as DD (N = 362). There were 1,625 males
and 752 females (missing = 3); ages ranged from 6 to 17. All analyses were conducted in
lavaan, an R survey structural equation modeling package. Fit indices considered included
the Comparative Fit Index (CFA), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean squared (SRMS). Since SDQ data is
ordinal, Diagonally Weighted Least Squares Chi Square estimation method was selected
over traditional Maximum Likelihood estimation. Best fitting model was selected by
considering the change in CFI; changes in CFI greater than .01 are considered substantial
and guide final model selection.

Figure 1: 4 Factor SDQ Model

Table 3: Model Comparisons

Q
1

Q
4

Q
7

Q
9

Q Q Q Q Q
11 17 20 21 25

Ext

Int

Ps
Q
3

Q
6

Q
8

Q Q Q Q Q
13 16 19 23 24

Q
5

Q
7

Q Q Q
12 18 22

Hy
Q
2

Q
15

Notes. Ext = Externalizing Problems; HY = Hyperactivity; Int = Internalizing Problems; PS = Prosocial.

Notes. X2 = Diagonally Weighted Least Squares Chi Square; CFI

= Comparative Fit Index; df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA =
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMS =
Standardized Root Mean Square

Results. The 3, 4, and 5 factor models all had statistically significant chi square indices indicating imperfectly fitting models (p < .001), which is
typical when sample sizes are large like the present one. Thus, alternative fit indices were considered. The 3 factor model had poor fitting
indices (CFI = 0.869, TLI = 0.855, RMSEA = 0.088, and SRMS = 0.082). The 4 factor model generally displayed acceptable fit (CFI = 0.941, TLI =
0.933, RMSEA = 0.057, and SRMS = 0.065). The 5 factor model generally displayed moderately acceptable fit (CFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.894, RMSEA =
0.075, and SRMS = 0.071). The 4 factor model had substantially higher CFI than either the 3 (+ .072) and 5 factor (+ .036) models.
Discussion. Data from this study indicates that the traditional 5 factor model SDQ scales are likely okay to use with children with ASD, DD, and
ID, but that a more recent 4 factor model should be considered. Future research should establish the measurement equivalence of these models
between children with disabilities and typical children, as well as between sub-groups of children with disabilities.
Conclusion. : A four factor model derived from typically developing children participating in Project AWARE fit SDQ data
from children with ASD, DD, and ID better than the suggested SDQ 5 factor model.