4.5 Article

Parent and child agreement on reports of problem behaviour obtained from a screening questionnaire, the SDQ

Journal

EUROPEAN CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY
Volume 17, Issue 8, Pages 491-497

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-008-0691-y

Keywords

strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ); parent-child agreement; diagnosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectives This study examined the level of agreement between parents and children on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in a clinical sample in Sydney, Australia. Methods Parent and child SDQ reports were collected from 379 parents-child pairs. Children were aged between 11 and 18 years and met criteria for at least one psychiatric diagnosis. Results Overall agreement between children and parents was low to modest. Sixty nine percent of parent-child pairs agreed that the child's problems were either clinically significant or not (neither, both), while in 27% of pairs only the parents regarded the problems as clinically significant (parent only), and in 4% of pairs only the children regarded the problems as clinically significant. There was higher agreement for children with mood, anxiety or somatoform disorders. Children with mood disorders were over-represented in the child only group, and those with conduct disorders were more likely to be in the parent only group. Children with anxiety and somatoform disorders were more likely to be in the neither group. Age was not assoctaed with rates of parent-child agreement, however more girls agreed with their parents that either they did not have a problem (neither) or they did have a problem without parental endorsement (child only). Conclusions This study highlights the limited. agreement between parent and child reports of problem behaviour and the importance of integrating discrepant information into child and adolescent mental health assessments, formulations and treatments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available