During the present decade a large body of research has employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the factor structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) across multiple languages and cultures. However, because CFA can produce strongly biased estimations when the population cross-loadings differ meaningfully from zero, it may not be the most appropriate framework to model the SDQ responses. With this in mind, the current study sought to assess the factorial structure of the SDQ using the more flexible exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Using a large-scale Spanish sample composed of 67,253 youths aged between 10 and 18 years (M = 14.16, SD = 1.07), the results showed that CFA provided a severely biased and overly optimistic assessment of the underlying structure of the SDQ. In contrast, exploratory structural equation modeling revealed a generally weak factorial structure, including questionable indicators with large cross-loadings, multiple error correlations, and significant wording variance. A subsequent Monte Carlo study showed that sample sizes greater than 4,000 would be needed to adequately recover the SDQ loading structure. The findings from this study prevent recommending the SDQ as a screening tool and suggest caution when interpreting previous results in the literature based on CFA modeling.
AchenbachT. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
AriasV. B.PonceF. P.NúñezD. E. (2018). Bifactor models of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): An evaluation of three necessary but underused psychometric indexes. Assessment, 25(7), 885-897. doi:10.1177/1073191116679260
BelferM. L. (2008). Child and adolescent mental disorders: The magnitude of the problem across the globe. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 226-236. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01855.x
6.
BjörnsdotterA.EnebrinkP.GhaderiA. (2013). Psychometric properties of online administered parental Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and normative data based on combined online and paper-and-pencil administration. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7, 40. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-7-40
7.
BøeT.HysingM.SkogenJ. C.BreivikK. (2016). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Factor structure and gender equivalence in Norwegian adolescents. PLoS ONE, 11, e0152202. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152202
8.
CaciH.MorinA. J.TranA. (2015). Investigation of a bifactor model of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24, 1291-1301. doi:10.1007/s00787-015-0679-3
9.
CapronC.ThérondC.DuymeM. (2007). Psychometric properties of the French version of the self-report and teacher Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 79-88. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.79
10.
ChalmersR. P. (2018). On misconceptions and the limited usefulness of ordinal alpha. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(6), 1056-1071. doi:10.1177/0013164417727036
11.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
12.
ChiorriC.HallJ.Casely-HayfordJ.MalmbergL. E. (2016). Evaluating measurement invariance between parents using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Assessment, 23, 63-74. doi:10.1177/1073191114568301
13.
CicchettiD. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284-290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284
14.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
15.
CookA.SpinazzolaJ.FordJ.LanktreeC.BlausteinM.CloitreM.. . . MallahK. (2017). Complex trauma in children and adolescents. Psychiatric Annals, 35, 390-398. doi:10.3928/00485713-20050501-05
16.
DuY.KouJ.CoghillD. (2008). The validity, reliability and normative scores of the parent, teacher and self report versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in China. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 2, 8. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-2-8
17.
ElanderJ.RutterM. (1996). Use and development of the Rutter parents’ and teachers’ scales. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 6, 63-78. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1234-988X(199607)6:2<63::AID-MPR151>3.3.CO;2-M
18.
EpskampS.BorsboomD.FriedE. I. (2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 195-212. doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1
19.
EpskampS.MarisG.WaldorpL. J.BorsboomD. (2016). Network psychometrics. In IrwingP.HughesD.BoothT. (Eds.), Handbook of psychometrics. New York, NY: Wiley.
20.
EssauC. A.OlayaB.Anastassiou-HadjicharalambousX.PauliG.GilvarryC.BrayD.. . . OllendickT. H. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire from five European countries. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 21, 232-245. doi:10.1002/mpr.1364
21.
Fox-WasylyshynS. M.El-MasriM. M. (2005). Handling missing data in self-report measures. Research in Nursing & Health, 28, 488-495. doi:10.1002/nur.20100
22.
GadermannA. M.GuhnM.ZumboB. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=17&n=3
23.
GarcíaP.GoodmanR.MazairaJ.TorresA.Rodríguez-SacristánJ.HervasA.FuentesJ. (2000). El cuestionario de Capacidades y Dificultades [The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire]. Revista de Psiquiatría Infanto-Juvenil, 1, 12-17.
24.
GarnerA. A.MarceauxJ. C.MrugS.PattersonC.HodgensB. (2010). Dimensions and correlates of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and sluggish cognitive tempo. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 1097-1107. doi:10.1007/s10802-010-9436-8
25.
GarridoL. E.AbadF. J.PonsodaV. (2013). A new look at Horn’s parallel analysis with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 18, 454-474. doi:10.1037/a0030005
26.
GarridoL. E.AbadF. J.PonsodaV. (2016). Are fit indices really fit to estimate the number of factors with categorical variables? Some cautionary findings via Monte Carlo simulation. Psychological Methods, 21, 93-111. doi:10.1037/met0000064
GolinoH. F.EpskampS. (2017). Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PLoS ONE, 12, e0174035. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174035
29.
Gómez-BeneytoM.NolascoA.MonchoJ.Pereyra-ZamoraP.Tamayo-FonsecaN.MunarrizM.. . . GirónM. (2013). Psychometric behaviour of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in the Spanish national health survey 2006. BMC Psychiatry, 13, 1-10. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-13-95
30.
GoodmanR. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x
31.
GoodmanR. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337-1345. doi:10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015
32.
GoodmanR.ScottS. (1999). Comparing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist: Is small beautiful?Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 17-24. doi:10.1023/A:1022658222914
33.
GoreF. M.BloemP. J.PattonG. C.FergusonJ.JosephV.CoffeyC.. . . MathersC. D. (2011). Global burden of disease in young people aged 10–24 years: A systematic analysis. Lancet, 377, 2093-2102. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60512-6
34.
GuayF.MorinA. J.LitalienD.ValoisP.VallerandR. J. (2014). Application of exploratory structural equation modeling to evaluate the Academic Motivation Scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 83, 51-82. doi:10.1080/00220973.2013.876231
35.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
36.
HaytonJ. C.AllenD. G.ScarpelloV. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191-205. doi:10.1177/1094428104263675
37.
HeJ. P.BursteinM.SchmitzA.MerikangasK. R. (2013). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): The factor structure and scale validation in US adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 583-595. doi:10.1007/s10802-012-9696-6
38.
HoofsH.JansenN. W. H.MohrenD. C. L.JansenM. W. J.KantI. J. (2015). The context dependency of the self-report version of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): A cross-sectional study between two administration settings. PLoS ONE, 10, e0120930. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120930
39.
HornJ. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447
40.
HsuH. Y.SkidmoreS. T.LiY.ThompsonB. (2014). Forced zero cross-loading misspecifications in measurement component of structural equation models: Beware of even “small” misspecifications. Methodology, 10, 138-152. doi:10.1027/1614-2241/a000084
41.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
42.
JoshanlooM.JoseP. E.KielpikowskiM. (2017). The value of exploratory structural equation modeling in identifying factor overlap in the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form (MHC-SF): A study with a New Zealand sample. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18, 1061-1074. doi:10.1007/s10902-016-9767-4
43.
KielingC.Baker-HenninghamH.BelferM.ContiG.ErtemI.OmigbodunO.. . . RahmanA. (2011). Child and adolescent mental health worldwide: Evidence for action. Lancet, 378, 1515-1525. doi:10.1016/S0140- 6736(11)60827-1
44.
KimM. H.AhnJ. S.MinS. (2015). Psychometric properties of the self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Korea. Psychiatry Investigation, 12, 491-499. doi:10.4306/pi.2015.12.4.491
45.
KoskelainenM.SouranderA.VaurasM. (2001). Self-reported strengths and difficulties in a community sample of Finnish adolescents. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 10, 180-185. doi:10.1007/s007870170024
46.
KuntsiJ.PintoR.PriceT. S.van der MeereJ. J.Frazier-WoodA. C.AshersonP. (2014). The separation of ADHD inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms: Pathways from genetic effects to cognitive impairments and symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 127-136. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9771-7
47.
LiuS. K.ChienY. L.ShangC. Y.LinC. H.LiuY. C.GauS. S. F. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 54, 720-730. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2013.01.002
48.
Lorenzo-SevaU.ten BergeJ. M. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2, 57-64. doi:10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57
49.
LundhL.Wångby-LundhM.BjärehedJ. (2008). Self-reported emotional and behavioral problems in Swedish 14 to 15-year-old adolescents: A study with the self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49, 523-532. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00668.x
50.
Mansbach-KleinfeldI.ApterA.FarbsteinI.LevineS. Z.PonizovskyA. M. (2010). A population-based psychometric validation study of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire–Hebrew version. Child and Neurodevelopmental Psychiatry, 1, 1-12. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2010.00151
51.
MarshH. W.HauK. T.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
52.
MarshH. W.LiemG. A. D.MartinA. J.MorinA. J.NagengastB. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 322-346. doi:10.1177/0734282911406657
53.
MarshH. W.MorinA. J.ParkerP. D.KaurG. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
54.
MarshH. W.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.MorinA. J. S.TrautweinU. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439-476. doi:10.1080/10705510903008220
55.
MarshH. W.NagengastB.MorinA. J. (2013). Measurement invariance of big-five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and la dolce vita effects. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1194-1218. doi:10.1037/a0026913
56.
MarshH. W.NagengastB.MorinA. J.ParadaR. H.CravenR. G.HamiltonL. R. (2011). Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and victimization: An application of exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 701-732. doi:10.1037/a0024122
57.
MarshH. W.ScalasL. F.NagengastB. (2010). Longitudinal tests of competing factor structures for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Traits, ephemeral artifacts, and stable response styles. Psychological Assessment, 22, 366-381. doi:10.1037/a0019225
58.
MartelM. M.von EyeA.NiggJ. T. (2010). Revisiting the latent structure of ADHD: Is there a “g” factor?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 905-914. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02232.x
59.
MathaiJ.AndersonP.BourneA. (2004). Comparing psychiatric diagnoses generated by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire with diagnoses made by clinicians. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 639-643.
60.
Maydeu-OlivaresA.CoffmanD. L. (2006). Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 11, 344-362. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.344
61.
McCroryC.LayteR. (2012). Testing competing models of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire’s (SDQ’s) factor structure for the parent-informant instrument. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 882-887. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.02.011
62.
MellorD. (2005). Normative data for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 40, 215-222. doi:10.1080/00050060500243475
63.
MellorD.StokesM. (2007). The factor structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 105-112. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.105
64.
MerikangasK. R.HeJ. P.BursteinM.SwansonS. A.AvenevoliS.CuiL.. . . SwendsenJ. (2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in US adolescents: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication–Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A). Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 980-989. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2010.05.017
65.
MerikangasK. R.NakamuraE. F.KesslerR. C. (2009). Epidemiology of mental disorders in children and adolescents. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 3, 7-20.
66.
MorinA. J.ArensA. K.MarshH. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 116-139. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
67.
NiclasenJ.SkovgaardA. M.AndersenA. N.SømhovdM. J.ObelC. (2013). A confirmatory approach to examining the factor structure of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): A large scale cohort study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41, 355-365. doi:10.1007/s10802-012-9683-y
68.
Ortuño-SierraJ.Fonseca-PedreroE.Aritio-SolanaR.VelascoA. M.de LuisE. C.SchumannG.. . . BokdeA. (2015). New evidence of factor structure and measurement invariance of the SDQ across five European nations. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24, 1523-1534. doi:10.1007/s00787-015-0729-x
69.
PalmieriP. A.SmithG. C. (2007). Examining the structural validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in a U.S. sample of custodial grandmothers. Psychological Assessment, 19, 189-198. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.2.189
70.
PatalayP.HayesD.DeightonJ.WolpertM. (2016). A comparison of paper and computer administered Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38, 242-250. doi:10.1007/s10862-015-9507-9
71.
PatelV.FlisherA. J.HetrickS.McGorryP. (2007). Mental health of young people: A global public-health challenge. Lancet, 369, 1302-1313. doi:10.1016/S0140- 6736(07)60368-7
72.
PercyA.McCrystalP.HigginsK. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the adolescent self-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 43-48. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.24.1.43
73.
PolanczykG. V.SalumG. A.SugayaL. S.CayeA.RohdeL. A. (2015). Annual research review: A meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56, 345-365. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12381
74.
PonsP.LatapyM. (2006). Computing communities in large networks using random walks. Journal of Graph Algorithms and Applications, 10, 191-218.
75.
RescorlaL.AchenbachT. M.IvanovaM. Y.DumenciL.AlmqvistF.BilenbergN.. . . ErolN. (2007). Epidemiological comparisons of problems and positive qualities reported by adolescents in 24 countries. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 351-358. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.75.2.351
76.
semTools Contributors. (2016). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. R package version 0.4-11. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/package=semTools
77.
ReynoldsC. R.KamphausR. W. (1992). Behavior assessment system for children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
78.
RhemtullaM.Brosseau-LiardP. É.SavaleiV. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354-373. doi:10.1037/a0029315
79.
RuchkinV.JonesS.VermeirenR.Schwab-StoneM. (2008). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: The self-report version in American urban and suburban youth. Psychological Assessment, 20, 175-182. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.175
80.
SarisW. E.SatorraA.van der VeldW. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications?Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 561-582. doi:10.1080/10705510903203433
81.
SchmittT. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 304-321. doi:10.1177/0734282911406653
82.
SchmittT. A.SassD. A. (2011). Rotation criteria and hypothesis testing for exploratory factor analysis: Implications for factor pattern loadings and interfactor correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 95-113. doi:10.1177/0013164410387348
83.
SmedjeH.BromanJ.HettaJ.von KnorringA. (1999). Psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the “Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.”European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 8, 63-70. doi:10.1007/s007870050086
84.
StevanovicD.UrbánR.AtilolaO.VostanisP.BalharaY. S.AvicennaM.… PetrovP. (2015).Does the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire–self report yield invariant measurements across different nations? Data from the International Child Mental Health Study Group. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 24(4), 323-334. doi:10.1017/S2045796014000201
85.
StoneL.OttenR.EngelsR.VermulstA.JanssensJ. (2010). Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for 4- to 12-year-olds: A review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13, 254-274. doi:10.1007/s10567-010-0071-2
86.
StoneL. L.OttenR.RingleverL.HiemstraM.EngelsR. C.VermulstA. A.JanssensJ. M. (2013). The parent version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Omega as an alternative to alpha and a test for measurement invariance. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 44-50. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000119
87.
TobiaV.GabrieleM. A.MarzocchiG. M. (2013). The Italian version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)—Teacher: Psychometric properties. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 493-505. doi:10.1177/0734282912473456
88.
TuckerL. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Washington, DC: Department of the Army.
89.
van de Looij-JansenP. M.GoedhartA. W.de WildeE. J.TreffersP. D. (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis and factorial invariance analysis of the adolescent self-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: How important are method effects and minor factors?British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 127-144. doi:10.1348/014466510X498174
90.
Van RoyB.GrøholtB.HeyerdahlS.Clench-AasJ. (2006). Self-reported strengths and difficulties in a large Norwegian population 10–19 years: Age and gender specific results of the extended SDQ-questionnaire. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 15, 189-198. doi:10.1007/s00787-005-0521-4
91.
Van RoyB.VeenstraM.Clench-AasJ. (2008). Construct validity of the five-factor Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in pre-, early, and late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 1304-1312. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01942.x
92.
ViladrichC.Angulo-BrunetA.DovalE. (2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Anales de Psicología, 33, 755-782.
93.
WarnickE. M.BrackenM. B.KaslS. (2008). Screening efficiency of the Child Behavior Checklist and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 13, 140-147. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3588.2007.00461.x
WhittakerT. A. (2012). Using the modification index and standardized expected parameter change for model modification. Journal of Experimental Education, 80, 26-44. doi:10.1080/00220973.2010.531299
96.
WidamanK. F. (2006). III. Missing data: What to do with or without them. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71, 42-64.
97.
WillcuttE. G.NiggJ. T.PenningtonB. F.SolantoM. V.RohdeL. A.TannockR.. . . LaheyB. B. (2012). Validity of DSM-IV attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptom dimensions and subtypes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 991-1010.
98.
WoodsC. M. (2006). Careless responding to reverse-worded items: Implications for confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28, 186. doi:10.1007/s10862-005-9004-7
99.
YangY.GreenS. B. (2015). Evaluation of structural equation modeling estimates of reliability for scales with ordered categorical items. Methodology, 11, 23-34. doi:10.1027/1614-2241/a000087
100.
YaoS.ZhangC.ZhuX.JingX.McWhinnieC. M.AbelaJ. R. (2009). Measuring adolescent psychopathology: Psychometric properties of the self-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a sample of Chinese adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 55-62. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.11.006
101.
ZumboB. D.GadermannA. M.ZeisserC. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6, 21-29. doi:10.22237/jmasm/1177992180
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
