European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

12:1–8 (2003) DOI 10.1007/s00787-003-0298-2 ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION

Peter Muris The Strengths and Difficulties

Cor Meesters
Frank van den Berg Questionnaire (SDQ)
Further evidence for its reliability and validity in a
community sample of Dutch children and adolescents

■ Abstract This study was a first
attempt to examine the psychomet-
ric properties of the Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in
Dutch youths. A large sample of
Accepted: 30 September 2002
Peter Muris, Ph.D. () · C. Meesters ·
F. van den Berg
Department of
Medical, Clinical,
and Experimental Psychology
Maastricht University, P. O. Box 616
6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands
E-Mail: p.muris@dep.unimaas.nl
normal children and adolescents
(N = 562) and their parents com-
pleted the SDQ along with a num-
ber of other psychopathology mea-
sures. Factor analysis of the SDQ
yielded five factors that were in
keeping with the hypothesised sub-
scales of hyperactivity-inattention,
emotional symptoms, peer prob-
lems, conduct problems, and
prosocial behaviour. Furthermore,
internal consistency, test-retest sta-
bility, and parent-youth agreement
of the various SDQ scales were ac-
ceptable. Finally, the concurrent
validity of the SDQ was good: that
is, its scores correlated in a theoreti-
cally meaningful way with other
measures of psychopathology. It
can be concluded that the psycho-
metric properties of the parent-
and self-report version of the SDQ
were satisfactory in this Dutch
community sample. Moreover, the
current data provide further sup-
port for the utility of the SDQ as an
index of psychopathological symp-
toms in youths.
■ Key words psychopathological
symptoms – children and
adolescents – Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire

Secondly, clinicians can employ such measures as part of

Introduction
Prevalence studies have indicated that between 17 % and
26 % of the children and adolescents meet the diagnos-
tic criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder [30]. In
particular, behaviour problems such as oppositional-de-
fiant disorder, conduct disorder and attention-deficit
and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and emotional
problems such as anxiety disorders and depression are
frequently diagnosed among youths [7, 30].
Questionnaires for measuring psychopathological
symptoms in children and adolescents are important for
three reasons. Firstly, despite the fairly high prevalence
rates of behaviour and emotional problems, it should be
noted that only a small percentage of the children and
adolescents actually come in contact with mental health
services. Thus, questionnaires that can be used for de-
the clinical assessment in order to obtain an initial idea
about the type and severity of the psychiatric problem.
Thirdly and finally, standardised questionnaires are also
helpful to those clinicians who want to quantify the ef-
fects of treatment [4].
Currently, the two most frequently used instruments
for measuring psychopathological symptoms in chil-
dren and adolescents are the Rutter [26, 27] and Achen-
bach [1–3] questionnaires. The Rutter questionnaires
are brief rating scales to be completed by parents and
teachers that have proven to be reliable and valid in-
dexes of child psychopathology in many contexts [8].
However, developed more than three decades ago, the
Rutter questionnaires are now somewhat outdated in
that they do not adequately cover many areas of con-
temporary interest such as concentration, impulsivity,
victimisation, and prosocial behaviour. Furthermore,
ECAP 298

tecting youths who are at high risk for developing be- while it is generally assumed that the assessment of
havioural and emotional problems are highly relevant. child psychopathology should be based on information
2 European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2003)
© Steinkopff Verlag 2003
obtained from multiple informants [4], there is no ver-
sion of the Rutter questionnaire that can be completed
by children and adolescents themselves. The Achenbach
questionnaires are better in this respect as they include
versions for completion by parents viz. the Child Be-
haviour Checklist (CBCL), teachers viz. the Teacher Re-
port Form (TRF), and youths themselves viz. the Youth
Self-Report (YSR) [1–3]. CBCL, TRF, and YSR intend to
cover a broad range of behavioural and emotional
symptoms that are particularly relevant when assessing
children and adolescents in clinical settings. Yet, for
screening or research purposes, the Achenbach ques-
tionnaires seem less useful as they are quite long and
contain many items that are not relevant to the major-
ity of children. Moreover, researchers have had difficul-
ties to replicate the empirically-derived syndrome di-
mensions of the Achenbach scales [18] and to relate
them to current conceptualisations of child psy-
chopathology [23].
Thus, while the Rutter and Achenbach questionnaires
are well-respected and useful instruments for assessing
child psychopathology, both seem to have their own
weaknesses. With this in mind, Goodman [9] started to
revise the Rutter questionnaire by updating its content
and by adding items about children’s strengths, a
process that eventually led to the development of the
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). The
SDQ is a brief measure covering the most important cur-
rent domains of child psychopathology (i. e. emotional
symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity-inatten-
tion, and peer problems) as well as personal strengths
(i. e. prosocial behaviour) that can be completed by par-
ents, teachers, and youths themselves. The psychometric
properties of the SDQ have been examined in various
studies, the results of which can be summarised as fol-
lows. To begin with, factor analysis of the parent, teacher,
and self-report versions of the SDQ has generally indi-
cated that the questionnaire consists of five factors that
correspond with the hypothesised domains of psy-
chopathology and personal strengths [12, 29]. Further-
more, the internal consistency and test-retest stability of
the SDQ can be defined as satisfactory [12], although it
should be noted that the latter aspect of reliability has
been examined in studies suffering from limitations
such as a small sample size [11] and a too long test-retest
interval [12]. Correlations among parent, teacher, and
self-report SDQ scores are moderate but nevertheless
compare favourably to cross-informant correlations as
obtained with other psychopathology measures [10, 12,
14]. Finally, evidence has been obtained for the validity
of the SDQ. More specifically, SDQ scores correlate sub-
stantially with other indexes of psychopathology such as
the Rutter and Achenbach questionnaires [10, 16, 20, 21].
Moreover, the SDQ discriminates well between children
with and without psychopathological symptoms [11, 14,
20, 24] and there is evidence to indicate that it can be em-
ployed as an effective screen for child psychiatric disor-
ders in community samples [12, 13].
The current study was a first attempt to examine the
psychometric properties of the SDQ in Dutch youths. A
large sample of normal children and adolescents
(N = 562) and their parents completed the new ques-
tionnaire along with a number of other measures,
namely the Achenbach questionnaire [1, 3], the Child
Depression Inventory (CDI; 22), the Revised Children’s
Manifest Anxiety Scale (RCMAS; 25), and the ADHD
Questionnaire (ADHDQ; 28). The following issues were
investigated: 1) the factor structure of the SDQ, 2) the re-
liability (internal consistency and test-retest stability) of
the questionnaire, and 3) the concurrent validity of the
SDQ through its associations with other measures of
psychopathology. As data were used from different in-
formants, viz. youths and parents, it became also possi-
ble to study 4) the parent-youth agreement of the SDQ.
Method
■ Participants and procedure
Twelve-hundred-and-fourteen children and adolescents
from seven regular primary and secondary schools and
their parents were invited to participate in the present
study. More than half of the youths and their parents
(N = 622; i. e. 51.2 %) responded favourably to our invi-
tation and completed the informed consent form. Youth
participants were asked to complete the set of question-
naires at school during regular classes, with a teacher
and a research assistant always being present in order to
ensure independent and confidential responding and to
provide assistance when necessary. Parent participants
received the questionnaires via their child, completed
them at home, and returned materials in a sealed enve-
lope. Eventually, complete data sets of 562 children and
adolescents (254 boys and 308 girls) were available.
Mean age of the children was 12.3 years (SD = 1.0, range
9–15 years). Percentages of participants from a low, mid-
dle, or high socioeconomic background (based on edu-
cational levels of parents) were 21.2 %, 35.9 %, and
42.9 %, respectively.
A randomly selected subsample of 142 children and
adolescents and their parents was mailed two months af-
ter the initial assessment with the request to complete
the SDQ (independently) for a second time. Ninety-one
children and their parents (64.1 %; 36 boys and 55 girls,
mean age = 12.2 years, SD = 0.8, range 10–14 years) re-
sponded to this mailing. These data were used for inves-
tigating the test-retest stability of the SDQ.
 P. Muris et al.
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
■ Questionnaires
The SDQ consists of 25 items describing positive and
negative attributes of children and adolescents that can
be allocated to 5 subscales of 5 items each: the emotional
symptoms subscale, the conduct problems subscale, the
hyperactivity-inattention subscale, the peer problems
subscale, and the prosocial behaviour subscale. Each
item has to be scored on a 3-point scale with 0 = ‘not
true’, 1 = ‘somewhat true’, and 2 = ‘certainly true’. Sub-
scale scores can be computed by summing scores on rel-
evant items (after recoding reversed items; range 0–10).
Higher scores on the prosocial behaviour subscale re-
flect strengths, whereas higher scores on the other four
subscales reflect difficulties.A total difficulties score can
also be calculated by summing the scores on the emo-
tional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity-inat-
tention, and peer problems subscales (range 0–40).
The Achenbach questionnaires comprise 118 items
addressing emotional and behavioural problems of chil-
dren and adolescents. Respondents have to indicate on
3-point scales the extent to which each item applies:
0 = ‘not’, 1 = ‘sometimes’, or 2 = ‘often’. Both the parent
version, CBCL, and the self-report version, YSR, assess
two broad domains of psychopathology: one is exter-
nalising which reflects behavioural problems and the
other is internalising which refers to emotional prob-
lems. In addition, items can be grouped into eight nar-
row-band scales: withdrawn, somatic complaints, anx-
ious-depressed, social problems, thought problems,
attention problems, delinquent behaviour, and aggres-
sive behaviour. In all cases, higher CBCL/YSR scores re-
flect higher levels of problems.
The CDI is a commonly used scale for measuring
severity of depression symptoms in children and ado-
lescents. The scale consists of 27 items relating to sad-
ness, self-blame, loss of appetite, insomnia, interper-
sonal relationships, and school adjustment. Item scores
range from 0 (absence of the symptom) to 2 (greatest
severity of the symptom). A total CDI score can be cal-
culated by summing all item scores, with higher scores
being indicative of greater severity of depressive symp-
toms.
The RCMAS consists of 37 dichotomous (yes/no)
items of which 28 items assess anxiety symptoms in
youths. Yes-responses are scored in the positive direc-
tion and summed to yield a total anxiety score or sub-
scale scores of physiological anxiety, worry/oversensi-
tivity, and fear/concentration. The remaining 9 items
represent the ‘lie’ subscale which assesses children and
adolescents’ tendency to give socially desirable re-
sponses.
The ADHDQ is an 18-item questionnaire measuring
three clusters of behavioural problems that are typical
for ADHD: attention-deficit, hyperactivity, and impul-
sivity. Respondents have to indicate on 5-point scales
3
how frequently the pertinent problem occurs: 0 = ‘not’,
1 = ‘now and then’, 2 = ‘regularly’, 3 = ‘often’, and 4 = ‘very
often’. Item scores are combined to a total score and sub-
scale scores.
Specific parent and self-report versions of all above-
mentioned questionnaires were employed. Thus, par-
ents completed scales with items in the format “My
child . . .”, while children and adolescents filled in scales
with items in the format “I . . .”.
■ Statistical analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was
used for carrying out statistical analyses. Principal-
components factor analysis was conducted using
oblimin rotation as correlated factors were hypothe-
sised. Reliability of the various SDQ scales was indexed
by means of Cronbach’s alphas (internal consistency)
and intra-class correlation coefficients (test-retest sta-
bility). Concurrent validity and parent-youth agreement
were investigated by means of Pearson correlations.
Results
■ Factor analysis
Five-factor solutions of the parent and self-report SDQ
were examined as these were predicted on theoretical
grounds.Analysis of the parent SDQ indeed showed that
the first 5 factors all had eigenvalues > 1.0 (i. e. 4.8, 2.5,
2.0, 1.3, and 1.2) and accounted for 47.6 % of the total
variance. Inspection of this 5-factor solution (see left
loadings in Table 1) revealed that all items loaded con-
vincingly on the intended factors of hyperactivity-inat-
tention, emotional symptoms, peer problems, conduct
problems, and prosocial behaviour. Only one item had a
substantial secondary loading: the prosocial behaviour
item “considerate” loaded –0.49 on the conduct prob-
lems factor.
A similar pattern emerged when factor analysing the
self-report SDQ. That is, the first 5 factors had eigenval-
ues > 1.0 (i. e. 4.4, 2.1, 1.9, 1.4, 1.2) and accounted for
43.9 % of the variance. Furthermore, the majority of
items loaded convincingly on their hypothesised factor
(see Table 1). However, the items “lies” and “tempers”
that were supposed to represent conduct problems sub-
stantially loaded on the peer problems factor. A further
conduct problems item (i. e. the reversed item “obedi-
ent”) clearly loaded (negatively) on the hyperactivity-
inattention factor. Finally, the item “good friend” that
was thought to load negatively on the peer problems fac-
tor, loaded convincingly (i. e. –0.51) on the conduct
problems factor.
4 European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2003)
© Steinkopff Verlag 2003

Table 1 Results of the factor analysis (principal components with oblimin rotation) of the Parent (left loadings) and Self-Report SDQ (right loadings)

Factors
SDQ items Hyperactivity-Inattention Emotional symptoms Peer problems Conduct problems Prosocial behaviour
(abbreviated)

Distractible 0.80 0.70

Restless 0.75 0.72
Fidgety 0.72 0.68
Persistent –0.71 –0.61
Reflective –0.60 –0.54
Worries 0.72 0.70
Unhappy 0.69 0.67
Clingy 0.66 0.66
Fears 0.65 0.71
Somatic 0.53 0.56
Popular –0.74 –0.53
Best with adults 0.67 0.69
Solitary 0.60 0.49
Bullied 0.60 0.72
Good friend –0.54 –0.11 –0.51
Lies 0.56 0.68 0.28
Tempers 0.43 0.59 0.47
Obedient –0.50 –0.57 –0.07
Fights 0.53 0.43
Steals 0.46 0.48
Caring 0.73 0.70
Helps out 0.70 0.72
Shares 0.65 0.49
Considerate –0.49 0.58 0.57
Kind to kids 0.50 0.50

N = 562. Hypothesised factor loadings are printed in boldface type; secondary loadings < 0.40 are omitted

■ Gender and age effects
A 2 (gender) x 2 (age groups: 9- to 12-year-olds vs. 13- to
15-year-olds) analysis of variance performed on the par-
ent SDQ total difficulties score only yielded a significant
effect of gender [F(1,558) = 7.1, P < 0.01]: parents re-
ported somewhat higher levels of difficulties for boys
than for girls, means being 6.1 (SD = 5.0) vs. 5.1
(SD = 4.5), respectively. Analyses of SDQ subscales in-
dicated that in particular hyperactivity-inattention
[F(1,558) = 17.3, P < 0.001] and peer problems
[F(1,558) = 9.7, P < 0.01] were more frequently reported
for boys than for girls, means being 2.6 (SD = 2.3) and 1.4
(SD = 1.7) vs. 1.8 (SD = 2.0) and 1.0 (SD = 1.5), respec-
tively. Finally, parents reported lower levels of prosocial
behaviour for boys than for girls, means being 8.1
(SD = 1.8) vs. 8.8 (SD = 1.5) [F(1,558) = 25.0, P < 0.001].
A 2 (gender) x 2 (age groups) analysis of variance
performed on the self-report SDQ total difficulties score
only revealed a significant effect of age groups
[F(1,558) = 7.4, P < 0.01]: 9- to 12-year-olds reported
higher levels of difficulties than 13- to 15-year-olds,
means being 8.0 (SD = 5.2) vs. 6.9 (SD = 4.6), respec-
tively.Additional analysis showed that this age effect was
primarily carried by a decrease of peer problems, means
being 1.6 (SD = 1.7) for 9- to 12-year-olds vs. 1.0
(SD = 1.3) for 13- to 15-year-olds [F(1,558) = 23.7,
P < 0.001]. Furthermore, a number of significant gender
differences were found for SDQ subscales: girls reported
higher levels of emotional symptoms [F(1,558) = 24.0,
P < 0.001] and prosocial behaviour [F(1,558) = 32.2,
P < 0.001], but lower levels of conduct problems
[F(1,558) = 6.4, P < 0.05] than boys, means being 2.3
(SD = 2.3), 8.6 (SD = 1.4), and 1.2 (SD = 1.2) vs. 1.5
(SD = 1.8), 7.8 (SD = 1.7), and 1.5 (SD = 1.4), respectively.
■ Internal consistency
The internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s al-
phas) for the various SDQ scales were generally satisfac-
tory (mean alpha was 0.70 for the parent version and
0.64 for the self-report version), notwithstanding the
fact that SDQ subscales only consist of 5 items. The
Cronbach’s alphas for conduct problems (0.55 for the
parent version and 0.45 for the self-report version) and
peer problems (0.54 for the self-report version) were no-
tably low (see Table 2).
Cross-scale correlations are also displayed in Table 2.
As can be seen, correlations among SDQ difficulties sub-
scales were low to moderate (rs between 0.17 and 0.41
for the parent version and between 0.19 and 0.40 for the
self-report version). This indicates that SDQ subscales
tap relatively independent domains of difficulties. Note
 P. Muris et al. 5
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Table 2 Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, cross-scale correlations) for the parent and self-report SDQ

Total group α Total Emotional Conduct Hyperactivity- Peer problems

(N = 562) difficulties symptoms problems Inattention

Parent SDQ
Total difficulties 5.5 (4.7) 0.80
Emotional symptoms 1.5 (1.8) 0.70 0.73
Conduct problems 0.8 (1.2) 0.55 0.63 0.26
Hyperactivity-inattention 2.1 (2.2) 0.78 0.73 0.31 0.39
Peer problems 1.1 (1.6) 0.66 0.65 0.41 0.26 0.17
Prosocial behaviour 8.5 (1.7) 0.68 –0.30 –0.02a –0.35 –0.25 –0.26
Self-Report SDQ
Total difficulties 7.5 (5.0) 0.78
Emotional symptoms 2.0 (2.1) 0.71 0.75
Conduct problems 1.3 (1.3) 0.45 0.59 0.22
Hyperactivity-inattention 2.9 (2.2) 0.72 0.75 0.33 0.38
Peer problems 1.3 (1.6) 0.54 0.61 0.40 0.20 0.19
Prosocial behaviour 8.2 (1.6) 0.62 –0.33 –0.18 –0.27 –0.23 –0.24
a
Non-significant correlation; all other correlations were significant at P < 0.001

also that the prosocial behaviour subscale correlated in-
versely with the difficulties subscales, especially with
conduct problems (rs being –0.35 and –0.27 for the par-
ent and self-report version, respectively).
■ Parent-youth agreement
Correlations (corrected for gender and age) between
parent and self-report SDQ scores are displayed in the
left column of Table 3. As can be seen, correlations were
modest and varied between 0.23 (prosocial behaviour)
and 0.46 (total difficulties). Parent-youth agreement did
not vary as a function of age: that is, highly similar cor-
relations were found when analysing the data of 9- to 12-
year-olds (rs between 0.19 and 0.49) and 13- to 15-year-
olds (rs between 0.27 and 0.45) separately. When
comparing these correlations with the mean parent-
youth correlation (r = 0.25) for other psychopathology
questionnaires, based on the meta-analysis conducted
by Achenbach, McConaughy, and Howell [5], it can be
concluded that the parent-youth agreement of most
SDQ scales is rather favourable.
■ Test-retest stability
The right columns of Table 3 show intra-class correla-
tion coefficients for the various SDQ scales. As can be
seen, the test-retest stability of the SDQ over a 2-month
interval was satisfactory: with the exception of the
prosocial behaviour subscale of the self-report SDQ
(ICC = 0.59), all intraclass correlation coefficients were
well in the 0.70 range or higher.
■ Concurrent validity
The concurrent validity of the SDQ was investigated
through its correlations with other measures. Correla-
tions (corrected for gender and age) between parent
SDQ scores, on the one hand, and scores on CBCL and
parent versions of CDI, RCMAS, and ADHDQ, on the
other hand, were as predicted (Table 4). That is, sub-
stantial correlations were found between SDQ total dif-
ficulties score and CBCL total score (r = 0.70), SDQ emo-
tional symptoms and CBCL internalising (r = 0.70), SDQ
conduct problems and CBCL externalising (r = 0.60),
SDQ emotional symptoms and CBCL anxious-de-

Table 3 Interrater correlations (corrected for gen-

der and age) for the SDQ and test-retest correlations Interrater correlationsa Test-retest correlations (95 % CI)b
over two months Parent x Self-Report
Parent Self-Report

SDQ
Total difficulties 0.46 0.88 (0.83–0.92) 0.87 (0.80–0.91)
Emotional symptoms 0.43 0.76 (0.64–0.84) 0.76 (0.64–0.84)
Conduct problems 0.31 0.89 (0.83–0.92) 0.77 (0.65–0.84)
Hyperactivity-inattention 0.42 0.84 (0.76–0.89) 0.88 (0.83–0.92)
Peer problems 0.43 0.91 (0.86–0.94) 0.83 (0.75–0.89)
Prosocial behaviour 0.23 0.75 (0.67–0.85) 0.59 (0.45–0.75)
aN = 562; b N = 91. All correlations were significant at P < 0.001
6 European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2003)
© Steinkopff Verlag 2003

Table 4 Correlations (corrected for gender and age)

between Parent SDQ and other measures Parent SDQ scales
Total Emotional Conduct Hyperactivity- Peer Prosocial
difficulties symptoms problems Inattention problems behaviour

CBCL
Total score 0.70 0.59 0.52 0.37 0.49 –0.27
Internalising 0.63 0.70 0.30 0.21 0.54 –0.12a
Externalising 0.58 0.31 0.60 0.43 0.31 –0.35
CDI-P
Total score 0.73 0.67 0.38 0.42 0.52 –0.20
RCMAS-P
Total anxiety score 0.72 0.73 0.34 0.46 0.42 –0.09a
Physiological 0.49 0.43 0.23 0.43 0.21 –0.07a
Worry-oversensitivity 0.60 0.68 0.29 0.31 0.35 –0.03a
Fear-concentration 0.65 0.62 0.29 0.42 0.44 –0.12a
ADHDQ-P
Total score 0.67 0.34 0.43 0.73 0.27 –0.24
Attention-deficit 0.58 0.32 0.35 0.65 0.20 –0.21
Hyperactivity 0.58 0.29 0.30 0.72 0.18 –0.15
Impulsivity 0.58 0.28 0.48 0.52 0.33 –0.27

N = 562; CBCL Child Behaviour Check-List; CDI-P Parent version of the Child Depression Inventory; RCMAS-P Par-
ent version of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale; ADHDQ-P Parent version of the ADHD Questionnaire.
a Non-significant correlations; all other correlations were significant at P < 0.001

pressed (r = 0.70), SDQ conduct problems and CBCL
delinquent behaviour and aggressive behaviour (rs be-
ing 0.45 and 0.60, respectively), SDQ hyperactivity-inat-
tention and CBCL attention problems (r = 0.64), and
SDQ peer problems and CBCL withdrawn and social
problems (rs being 0.57 and 0.65, respectively). Further-
more, as expected, of the SDQ subscales, emotional
symptoms were most convincingly linked to anxiety
(parent version of the RCMAS; rs between 0.43 and 0.73)
and depression (parent version of the CDI; r = 0.67),
whereas hyperactivity-inattention was most substan-
tially connected with ADHD symptomatology (parent
version of the ADHDQ; rs between 0.52 and 0.73). Fi-
nally, SDQ prosocial behaviour correlated negatively
with a number of psychopathology scales, especially
with CBCL externalising (r = –0.35), aggressive behav-
iour (r = –0.34), delinquent behaviour (r = –0.28), and
withdrawn (r = –0.28).
Correlations between self-report SDQ, on the one
hand, and YSR and self-report versions of CDI, RCMAS,
and ADHDQ, on the other hand, showed a highly simi-
lar pattern (Table 5). Again, substantial correlations
were found between SDQ total difficulties and YSR total
score (r = 0.74), SDQ emotional symptoms and YSR in-
ternalising (r = 0.74), SDQ conduct problems and YSR
externalising (r = 0.56), and between corresponding
SDQ and YSR subscales (e. g. SDQ emotional symptoms
and YSR anxious-depressed: r = 0.72). Furthermore, par-
ticularly positive associations were found between SDQ
emotional problems and self-reported anxiety (RCMAS;
rs between 0.58 and 0.75) and depression (CDI; r = 0.64)
and between SDQ hyperactivity-inattention and self-re-
ported symptoms of ADHD (ADHDQ-C; rs between
0.46 and 0.66), while small negative correlations
emerged between SDQ prosocial behaviour and most
psychopathology scales (e. g. YSR aggressive behaviour:
r = –0.29). Finally, social desirability (as indexed by the
RCMAS lie scale) had a relatively small effect on some
SDQ scores: negative correlations emerged with total
difficulties, conduct problems, and hyperactivity-inat-
tention (rs between –0.26 and –0.33) and a positive link
was found with prosocial behaviour (r = 0.27).
Discussion
The present study was a first attempt to investigate the
psychometric properties of the SDQ in a community
sample of Dutch children and adolescents. The main re-
sults can be catalogued as follows. First of all, factor
analysis of the SDQ yielded five factors that were in
keeping with the hypothesised subscales of hyperactiv-
ity-inattention, emotional symptoms, peer problems,
conduct problems, and prosocial behaviour. Second, in-
ternal consistency and test-retest stability of the various
SDQ scales were acceptable. Third, the concurrent valid-
ity of the SDQ was good: that is, SDQ scores correlated
in a theoretically meaningful way with other measures
of psychopathology. Fourth, the above mentioned psy-
chometric properties were highly similar for the parent
and self-report version of the SDQ. Finally, the parent-
youth agreement for SDQ scores was reasonable.
Thus, the current data are well in line with those of
previous studies on the reliability and validity of the
SDQ [12] and seem to indicate that its psychometric
properties are highly similar when administered to
 P. Muris et al. 7
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Table 5 Correlations (corrected for gender and age)

between Self-Report SDQ and other measures Self-Report SDQ scales
Total Emotional Conduct Hyperactivity- Peer Prosocial
difficulties symptoms problems Inattention problems behaviour

YSR
Total score 0.74 0.65 0.47 0.46 0.43 –0.30
Internalising 0.69 0.74 0.29 0.34 0.49 –0.24
Externalising 0.58 0.33 0.56 0.49 0.23 –0.28
CDI
Total score 0.70 0.64 0.34 0.45 0.45 –0.28
RCMAS
Total anxiety score 0.74 0.75 0.32 0.44 0.45 –0.24
Physiological 0.58 0.58 0.23 0.44 0.23 –0.19
Worry-oversensitivity 0.63 0.70 0.27 0.29 0.42 –0.20
Fear-concentration 0.68 0.61 0.33 0.43 0.47 –0.24
Lie –0.29 –0.11a –0.26 –0.33 –0.08a 0.27
ADHDQ-C
Total score 0.62 0.35 0.40 0.66 0.23 –0.22
Attention-deficit 0.58 0.39 0.35 0.55 0.25 –0.26
Hyperactivity 0.53 0.26 0.29 0.66 0.16 –0.09a
Impulsivity 0.50 0.27 0.43 0.46 0.20 –0.26

N = 562; YSR Youth Self-Report; CDI Child Depression Inventory; RCMAS Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety
Scale; ADHDQ-C Child version of the ADHD Questionnaire
a Non-significant correlations; all other correlations were significant at P < 0.001

children and adolescents in various Western and non-
Western countries [15, 20, 21, 24, 29]. The SDQ has
been translated in more than 40 languages and can be
used without charge for non-commercial purposes
(www.sdqinfo.com). Thus, it is expected that, in the near
future, more psychometric data from researchers from
all over the world will become available.
Some remarks with respect to the relationships be-
tween SDQ and other questionnaires are in order. To be-
gin with, correlations between SDQ and CBCL were as
predicted: that is, the most substantial correlations
emerged between scales that tapped similar domains of
psychopathological symptoms (e. g. SDQ emotional
symptoms–CBCL internalising, SDQ conduct prob-
lems–CBCL externalising; SDQ hyperactivity-inatten-
tion–CBCL attentional problems, SDQ peer prob-
lems–CBCL social problems; see also 16). Furthermore,
correlations between SDQ and measures of anxiety, de-
pression, and hyperactivity also showed the expected
pattern. More precisely, SDQ emotional problems were
most convincingly connected to symptoms of anxiety
and depression, whereas SDQ hyperactivity-inattention
was most strongly linked to symptoms of ADHD. Finally,
the influence of social desirability on SDQ scores was
small: children who scored high on the RCMAS lie scale
reported less behavioural symptoms (i. e. conduct prob-
lems, hyperactivity-inattention) and more prosocial be-
haviour. It seems plausible that children and adolescents
who display a tendency to give socially desirable re-
sponses, also want to give a better picture of themselves.
The reliability of the SDQ scales appeared to be rea-
sonable. However, the internal consistency of three sub-
scales, viz. parent SDQ conduct problems, self-report
SDQ conduct problems, and self-report SDQ peer prob-
lems, was below acceptable limits. Given that SDQ sub-
scales only consist of 5 items, this result was hardly sur-
prising. In addition, inspection of the item-total
correlations of the pertinent scales showed that the low
reliability coefficients could be attributed to a number of
reversely scored (“good friend” in the case of SDQ peer
problems) and low frequent (“steals” in the case of SDQ
conduct problems) items.
It should be acknowledged that the present study suf-
fers from a number of limitations. First of all, the study
only relied on normal children and adolescents and so
the psychometric properties of the SDQ in clinically re-
ferred Dutch youths remain to be established. Second,
only SDQ scores of parents and youths were obtained.As
mentioned in the introduction, there is also a teacher
version of the SDQ as it is generally acknowledged that
this informant can provide important additional infor-
mation on the strengths and difficulties of children and
adolescents. Third, SDQ scales were only validated
against other questionnaires of psychopathology. Com-
parison of SDQ scores with psychiatric diagnoses (as
measured through standardised diagnostic interviews)
would certainly have strengthened this study. Finally, no
concurrent questionnaire (e. g. a scale assessing per-
ceived competence such as the Self-Perception Profile
for Children; 17) was included in order to validate the
SDQ prosocial behaviour subscale.
Despite these limitations, the current results are en-
couraging and provide further support for the utility of
the SDQ as an index of psychopathological symptoms in
8 European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2003)
© Steinkopff Verlag 2003

youths. The SDQ is particularly useful when a brief not
too time-consuming questionnaire is needed. For exam-
ple, the questionnaire can be employed by primary
health care workers as an initial screening tool for de-
tecting youths with psychiatric problems or by re-
searchers as an index of therapy outcome [12]. When a
more extensive standardised evaluation of youths’ psy-
chopathology is needed, clinicians and researchers may
choose to employ the Achenbach scales or more DSM [6]
based questionnaires [19].
■ Acknowledgements Philip Treffers, Brigit Van Widenfelt, Jan
Kuipers, Therese van Amelsvoort, Liz Barnes, Jan Hoeksma, and Peter
Hoffenaar are thanked for their contribution to the translation of the
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) into Dutch. Robert
Goodman is acknowledged for making the questionnaire available
through his webside: www.sdqinfo.com.

References
1. Achenbach TM (1991a) Manual for the
Child Behavior Checklist 4–18 and 1991
Profile. University of Vermont, Depart-
ment of Psychiatry, Burlington, VT
2. Achenbach TM (1991b) Manual for the
Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 Pro-
file. University of Vermont, Department
of Psychiatry, Burlington, VT
3. Achenbach TM (1991c) Manual for the
Youth Self-Report. University of Ver-
mont, Department of Psychiatry,
Burlington, VT
4. Achenbach TM (1998) Diagnosis, as-
sessment, taxonomy, and case formula-
tions. In Ollendick TH, Hersen M (eds)
Handbook of Child Psychopathology.
Plenum Press, New York, pp 63–87
5. Achenbach TM, McConaughy SH, How-
ell CT (1987) Child/adolescent behav-
ioral and emotional problems: implica-
tions of cross-informant correlations
for situational specificity. Psychological
Bulletin 101:213–232
6. American Psychiatric Association
(1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Man-
ual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition.
American Psychiatric Association,
Washington
7. Anderson JC, Williams S, McGee R,
Silva PA (1987) DSM-III disorders in
preadolescent children. Archives of
General Psychiatry 44:69–76
8. Elander J, Rutter M (1996) Use and de-
velopment of the Rutter parents’ and
teachers’ scales. International Journal
of Methods in Psychiatric Research 6:
63–78
9. Goodman R (1994) A modified version
of the Rutter parent questionnaire in-
cluding items on children’s strengths: a
research note. Journal of Child Psychol-
ogy and Psychiatry 35:1483–1494
10. Goodman R (1997) The Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire: a research
note. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry 38:581–586
11. Goodman R (1999) The extended ver-
sion of the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire as a guide to child psy-
chiatric caseness and consequent bur-
den. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry 40:791–799
12. Goodman R (2001) Psychometric prop-
erties of the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire. Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psy-
chiatry 40:1337–1345
13. Goodman R, Ford T, Simmons H, Gat-
ward R, Meltzer H (2000) Using the
Strengths and Difficulties Question-
naire (SDQ) to screen for child psychi-
atric disorders in a community sample.
British Journal of Psychiatry 177:
534–539
14. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V (1998)
The Strengths and Difficulties Ques-
tionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of
the self-report version. European Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry 7:125–130
15. Goodman R, Renfrew D, Mullick M
(2000) Predicting type of psychiatric
disorder from Strengths and Difficul-
ties Questionnaire (SDQ) scores in
child mental health clinics in London
and Dhaka. European Child and Ado-
lescent Psychiatry 9:129–134
16. Goodman R, Scott S (1999) Comparing
the Strengths and Difficulties Ques-
tionnaire and the Child Behavior
Checklist: is small beautiful? Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology 27:17–24
17. Harter S (1985) Manual for the Self-Per-
ception Profile for Children. University
of Denver, Denver
18. Hartman CA, Hox J, Auerbach J, Erol N,
Fonseca AC, Mellenbergh GJ, Nøvik TS,
Oosterlaan J, Roussos AC, Shalev RS,
Zilber N, Sergeant JA (1999) Syndrome
dimensions of the Child Behavior
Checklist and the Teacher Report Form:
a critical empirical evaluation. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 40:
1095–1116
19. Hartman CA, Hox J, Mellenbergh GJ,
Boyle MH, Offord DR, Racine Y, Mc-
Namee J, Gadow KD, Sprafkin J, Kelly
KL, Nolan EE, Tannock R, Schachar R,
Schut H, Postma I, Drost R, Sergeant JA
(2001) DSM-IV internal construct val-
idity: when a taxonomy meets data.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psy-
chiatry 42:817–836
20. Klasen H, Woerner W, Wolke D, Meyer
R, Overmeyer S, Kaschnitz W, Rothen-
berger A, Goodman R (2000) Compar-
ing the German version of the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-
Deu) and the Child Behavior Checklist.
European Child and Adolescent Psychi-
atry 9:271–276
21. Koskelainen M, Sourander A, Kaljonen
A (2000) The Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire among Finnish school-
aged children and adolescents. Euro-
pean Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
9:277–284
22. Kovacs M (1981) Rating scales to assess
depression in school-aged children.
Acta Paedopsychiatrica 46:305–315
23. Lengua LJ, Sadowski CA, Friedrich WN,
Fisher J (2001) Rationally and empiri-
cally derived dimensions of children’s
symptomatology: expert ratings and
confirmatory factor analyses of the
CBCL. Journal of Consulting and Clini-
cal Psychology 69:683–698
24. Mullick M, Goodman R (2001) Ques-
tionnaire screening for mental health
problems in Bangladeshi children: a
preliminary study. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology 36:94–99
25. Reynolds CR, Richmond BO (1978)
What I think and feel: a revised mea-
sure of children’s manifest anxiety.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
6:271–280
26. Rutter M (1967) A children’s behaviour
questionnaire for completion by teach-
ers: preliminary findings. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry 8:1–11
27. Rutter M, Tizard J, Whitmore K (1970)
Education, Health, and Behaviour.
Longman, London
28. Scholte EM, Van der Ploeg JD (1998)
ADHD Vragenlijst (ADHD Question-
naire). Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, The
Netherlands
29. Smedje H, Broman JE, Hetta J, Von
Knorring AL (1999) Psychometric
properties of a Swedish version of the
“Strengths and Difficulties Question-
naire”. European Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry 8:63–70
30. Verhulst FC, Van der Ende J, Ferdinand
RF, Kasius M (1997) The prevalence of
DSM-III-R diagnoses in a national sam-
ple of Dutch adolescents. Archives of
General Psychiatry 54:329–336