Australian Psychologist, November 2005; 40(3): 215 – 222

Normative data for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

in Australia

DAVID MELLOR

School of Psychology, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to establish Australian norms for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a
recently developed screening instrument for child and adolescent mental health problems. A random sample consisting of
910 children aged 7 – 17 years recruited through government schools across Victoria, their parents and their teachers
completed the appropriate version of the SDQ. The sample contained the expected spread of normal and abnormal scores
according to the UK norms for the SDQ. As previous analyses have suggested that scores on the five subscales and the total
difficulties scale of the SDQ may very with age and gender, separate norms for each of the three informant versions, by age
and gender are presented in tabular form for children aged 7 – 17 years.

Goodman (1997) has recently developed a new
screening instrument to assist in the detection of
child and adolescent behavioural and emotional
problems that should be referred for further assess-
ment and/or intervention. The Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) consists of 25
items that cover five domains: emotional symptoms,
conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems and
prosocial behaviours. For children aged 4 – 11 years,
the SDQ relies on the report of parents and teachers.
For those between 11 and 16 years, there is also a
self-report version. Scoring is simple and as well as
providing a score in each of the above domains, the
instrument provides a total difficulties score. Cut-off
scores based on UK data differentiating normal,
borderline and abnormal scores for each of the three
versions are provided online at www.sdqinfo.com
The SDQ has been found to be comparable with,
or better than, the longer and relatively expensive
Achenbach Child Behaviour Checklist (Achenbach,
1991a,b,c) in detecting disorders when compared
with a standardised semi-structured interview (Good-
man & Scott, 1999), and several other studies on
community and clinical populations in various
European countries and other locations have demon-
strated its validity (e.g. Goodman et al., 2003;
Goodman, Renfrew & Mullick, 2000; Klasen et al.,
2000; Koskelainen, Sourander & Kaljonen, 2000;
Muris, Meesters & van den Berg, 2003; Smedje et al.,
1999). These studies have also demonstrated
good internal reliability for the subscales and total
difficulties scale across the three informant versions,
and sound inter-informant reliability. Other studies
(Goodman, 2001; Mellor, 2004; Muris et al., 2003)
have found the SDQ to have good test – retest reli-
ability across the parent, teacher and child versions.
The SDQ has numerous advantages over other
measures of child and adolescent adjustment, in-
cluding its brevity and free availability, the use of
multiple informant versions to provide different
perspectives on the child’s/adolescent’s adjustment,
its focus on strengths as well as difficulties, its cover-
age of subjective distress and impairment in home,
school, peer and leisure activities, the inclusion of an
assessment of the impact of the target child’s be-
haviours in the extended version, and its suitability
for use as a screening instrument by workers at the
community level who may have limited training in
mental health.
With these properties, the SDQ shows great
promise as a tool for routine screening of children
and adolescents for behavioural and mental health
problems and for evaluating treatment outcomes.
Indeed, in 2003 the Australian National Outcomes
and Casemix Collection project agreed that the SDQ
will be one of the key measures to be used by all child
and adolescent mental health services in Australia.
The instrument has thus been embraced and

Correspondence: David Mellor, School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood 3125, Victoria, Australia. E-mail: mellor@deakin.edu.au
ISSN 0005-0067 print/ISSN 1742-9544 online Ó 2005 Australian Psychological Society Ltd
Published by Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/00050060500243475
216 D. Mellor

adopted in Australia, although Australian norms are Table 1. Age and gender distribution of the sample
yet to be established. Notably, Goodman (1997) and Boys Girls Total
Koskelainen et al. (2000) have suggested that cut-off Age N N N
scores derived in England may need to be adjusted
according to location or cultural context. 7 5 7 12
Following this suggestion, Hawes & Dadds (2004) 8 44 48 92
9 53 64 117
administered the parent version of the instrument to 10 58 78 136
a large sample of parents of 4 – 9-year-olds. The 11 60 52 112
sample was not selected randomly from the popula- 12 47 53 100
tion, although it was argued that it may be repre- 13 41 39 80
sentative. Norms for this version of the SDQ were 14 33 40 73
15 27 39 66
derived for the age groups sampled, and the data 16 28 43 71
suggested that the instrument has moderate to strong 17 27 24 51
internal reliability across the subscales. Support was Total 423 487 910
also found for the five-factor structure and external
validity. The authors conclude that further Austra-
lian studies of the psychometric properties of the version IV: DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Associa-
teacher and self-report versions of the SDQ would tion, 1994) diagnostic category criteria] and factor
make an important contribution to knowledge of the analysis. A three-point response format is used.
instrument. Scores are allocated on the basis of 0 for items
Goodman (1997) has also suggested that it might checked as being ‘‘not true’’, 1 for items checked as
be necessary to adjust cut-off scores according to age being ‘‘somewhat true’’ and 2 for items checked as
and gender. This view is consistent with epidemio- certainly true. A small number of items are reverse-
logical studies of child and adolescent psychopathol- scored. A total difficulties score is obtained by
ogy (e.g. Anderson et al., 1987; Fergusson, Horwood adding the scores for all but the prosocial behaviour
& Lynskey, 1993; Sawyer et al, 2001) that frequently scale. The possible range of scores for each of the
report that the prevalence rates of various disorders subscales is 0 – 10, and for the total difficulties score
vary with gender and age. Although normative data it is 0 – 40. Cut-off scores, based on the 80th and
for boys and girls are provided separately at the SDQ 90th percentiles, distinguishing normal, borderline
website, the same cut-off scores are applicable to and abnormal adjustment vary between informant
children and adolescents of both genders and all versions, and across subscales and the total difficul-
ages. ties score. For example, the upper limit of the normal
In light of the above, the aim of this study was to range for the total difficulty score is 13 for the parent
provide specific age, gender and informant version version, 11 for the teacher versions and 15 for the
normative data for the SDQ in Australia for the ages child version. With the borderline range falling in
7 – 17 years. between, the lower limits for the abnormal range are
17, 16 and 20, respectively.

Method
Participants
A sample of 910 children, their parents and their
teachers participated in this study. The gender
and age of the child participants are summarised in
Table 1. The sample was drawn from schools across
Victoria, Australia.
Materials
The three informant versions (parent, teacher and
child) of SDQ were used. Each version consists of 25
items that make up five 6 five-item subscales assess-
ing conduct problems, hyperactivity-inattention,
emotional symptoms, peer problems and prosocial
behaviour. According to Goodman (2001), the items
and subscales are based on current nosological
concepts [e.g. the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
Procedure
Recruitment of schools. In order to establish norms, it
is necessary to obtain a representative sample from
the target population. In this study the sample was
drawn across the Australian state of Victoria (popu-
lation 4.9 million, Australian Bureau of Statistics,
2002). Victoria has a large capital city (Melbourne),
several large regional centres and many isolated rural
areas. Our aim was to recruit randomly 1000 chil-
dren across the state from 100 schools at each level of
schooling (primary and secondary). We thus selected
100 schools randomly at each level, and a back-up
school for each. Analysis of census data and distance
of schools from Melbourne indicated that both
samples of primary and secondary schools were
geographically representative of the state.
The principals of the selected schools in each list
were sent a letter outlining the project and inviting

participation in the study. Attached to the letter were
copies of the SDQ, the Deakin University Ethics
Committee-approved Plain Language Statement,
and the letter from the Victorian Education Depart-
ment approving the conduct of the research in
government schools. Shortly after the letter was sent,
the principals were contacted by telephone and asked
if they were agreeable for their school to participate
in the project. In 51 cases the principal declined the
invitation to participate, and the identified back-up
school was approached in the same way. None of the
back-up schools refused to participate in the study.
Recruitment of participants and data collection. Once
the principal agreed that the school would participate
in the project, a package was sent which included
instructions for the identification of one girl and one
boy from each of years 2 – 6 in primary schools or
years 7 – 11 in secondary schools. Each school
participating in the study was assigned a randomly
generated date of the year. The school was asked to
choose the children in each year level who had birth
dates on or closest to the allocated date.
Each questionnaire, one for the parent, one for the
child and one for the child’s teacher, together with the
relevant Plain Language Statements and the informed
consent forms, were placed in specially printed
envelopes that were identified by a code (e.g. year 7
girl – teacher) and addressed to the person who was to
complete that version of the SDQ. In the case of the
parent, the consent form was printed on the outside of
the envelope so that the completed questionnaire
could be sealed inside and the signature of the parent
still be visible to the school, so it would be known that
consent had been granted for the child to participate
in the project. When this parental consent was
received by the school, the child and the teacher
who was closest to the child were asked to complete
their versions of the SDQ. The child also completed
the child’s consent form. In each case the question-
naire and the consent form were sealed in the
envelope that had been supplied, and replaced in
the box in which the material had arrived at the
school. On this box was the return address and a
freepost number so return would be facilitated.
One hundred and twenty-seven (63.5%) of the
200 schools supplied with questionnaire packages
returned data. In total 910 complete data sets (i.e.
parent, teacher and child versions) were returned
from these schools, representing a response rate of
71.6% of the 1270 potential participants in these 127
schools. It is not clear whether the project was fully
facilitated in the schools that failed to return data,
but based on the worst-case scenario that it was all
parents and children from those schools who refused
to participate in the study, rather than the school
failing to facilitate the study, the overall response rate
Australian norms for the SDQ 217
(910 data sets from 2000 potential participant sets)
would be 45.5%.
Results
Upon receipt of the materials from schools, the
parent, child and teacher questionnaires were col-
lated for each child, and the data entered for analysis
with SPSS/PC (Version 11). Table 2 summarises the
distribution of subscale and total difficulties scores
for the sample, and Chronbach’s a for each scale,
according to informant. The mean scores are within
the ranges considered by Goodman (see www.sdqin-
fo.com) to be normal according to UK data, and the
range of scores for each scale and each informant
version extends across the normal, borderline and
abnormal ranges defined in the scoring instructions.
Indeed, according to the UK norms, these data
suggest that the sample contained the expected range
of mental health problems. On the total difficulties
scale, 12% of parents reported that their child was in
the abnormal range, and 6% in the borderline range;
8.5% of teacher-reported total difficulties were in
the abnormal range, and 14.6% in the borderline
range; and 5.8 and 8.2% of children’s self-reported
scores were in the abnormal and borderline ranges,
respectively.
Gender, age and informant
To assess whether or not subscale and total
difficulties scores vary according to age and gender,
a series of three-way multiple analyses of variance
(MANOVAs) were conducted. Table 3 summarises the
findings of these MANOVAs, showing a trend for
scores on both the self-report and informant versions
of the SDQ to vary as a function of age and/or
gender. There is no evidence of an interaction
between these two variables and the influence of
each depends on the particular scale in question.
Examination of the data revealed that males score
higher on all the scales apart from emotional
symptoms and the prosocial scale, where females
score higher. Because the major purpose of these
analyses was only to establish that scores may vary
according to age, where there are significant main
effects for age, no post-hoc analyses locating specific
age differences are reported.
Norms
In view of the above findings, it was considered
important to present norms by age and gender. In
order to make the data manageable in an applied
setting, it was decided to break the sample into three
age groups: 7 – 10 years, 11 – 13 years and 14 – 17
years. Tables 4 (boys) and 5 (girls) show the descriptive
218 D. Mellor

Table 2. Distribution of scores on SDQ domains

Total
Emotional Conduct Hyper- Peer difficulties
Informant N symptoms problems activity problems Prosocial1 score

Possible range 0 – 10 0 – 10 0 – 10 0 – 10 0 – 10 0 – 40
Parent 910 M 2.1 1.5 3.1 1.6 8.3 8.18
SD 2.0 1.6 2.4 1.9 1.7 6.06
Range 0–8 0–6 0 – 10 0–8 0 – 10 0 – 26
a 0.71 0.67 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.73
UK cut-offs
Borderline 4 3 6 3 5 14
Abnormal 5 4 7 4 4 17
Teacher 910 M 1.4 1.0 2.5 1.6 7.8 6.51
SD 1.7 1.5 2.6 1.8 2.1 6.03
Range 0–7 0–6 0 – 10 0–7 1 – 10 0 – 25
a 0.77 0.75 0.87 0.71 0.83 0.76
UK cut-offs
Borderline 5 3 6 4 5 12
Abnormal 6 4 7 5 4 16
Older child (11 + ) 553 M 2.4 1.8 3.2 1.5 8.0 8.96
SD 2.0 1.7 2.3 1.6 1.7 5.62
Range 0–9 0–7 0 – 10 0–7 2 – 10 0 – 27
a 0.65 0.64 0.75 0.59 0.66 0.70
UK cut-offs
Borderline 6 4 6 4–5 5 16
Abnormal 7 5 7 6 4 20
Younger child(5 11) 357 M 3.1 1.7 3.0 1.9 8.4 9.72
SD 2.3 1.7 2.4 1.7 1.6 5.95
Range 0–9 0–7 0 – 10 0–7 0 – 10 0 – 27
a 0.68 0.66 0.73 0.55 0.62 0.72
1
Lower scores indicate difficulties on the prosocial subscale.

Table 3. Summary of MANOVA analyses for age and gender effects

Self-report Parent report Teacher report

Emotional symptoms Age F11,889 = 3.44 P 5 0.05 F11,889 = 1.84 No effect*

Gender F1,889 = 7.61 P 5 0.05 F1,889 = 4.70 No effect*
Interaction No effect No effect No effect*

Conduct problems Age No effect* No effect No effect*

Gender F1,889 = 27.37 P 5 0.01* No effect F1,889 = 10.24 P 5 0.01*
Interaction No effect* No effect No effect*

Hyperactivity Age F11,889 = 2.07 P 5 0.05 F11,889 = 2.68* P 5 0.01* F11,889 = 2.21 P 5 0.01*
Gender F1,889 = 13.38 P 5 04.05 F1,889 = 27.24 P 5 0.01* F1,889 = 2.21 P 5 0.01*
Interaction No effect No effect* No effect*

Peer problems Age F11,889 = 2.09 P 5 0.01* No effect No effect

Gender No effect No effect No effect
Interaction No effect No effect No effect

Prosocial behaviour Age F11,889 = 2.67 P 5 0.01* No effect F11,889 = 2.79 P 5 0.01*
Gender F1,889 = 40.83 P 5 0.01* F1,889 = 21.28 F1,889 = 37.14 P 5 0.01*
Interaction No effect No effect No effect

Total difficulties Age F11,889 = 2.06 P 5 0.01* F11,889 = 2.09 No effect

Gender F1,889 = 6.28 P 5 0.01* No effect F1, 889 = 15.45 P 5 0.01*
Interaction No effect No effect No effect

*Assumption of homogeneity violated, alpha changed to 0.01.

Table 4. Mean scores and banding for SDQ subscales and total difficulties for boys

7 – 10 years (n = 160) 11 – 13 years (n = 148) 14 – 17 years (n = 115)

Self- Parent Teacher Self- Parent Teacher Self- Parent Teacher

Subscale report report report report report report report report report

Emotional symptoms Mean (SD) 2.99 (2.21) 2.29 (2.11) 1.49 (1.85) 1.99 (1.92) 1.79 (1.77) 1.06 (1.46) 2.07 (2.00) 1.52 (1.86) 1.30 (1.75)
Top 20% Borderline/query 5 4 3 4 3 2 4 3 2
Top 10% Abnormal/of concern 6 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 3
Conduct problems Mean (SD) 2.01 (1.85) 1.81 (1.73) 1.33 (1.70) 1.96 (1.82) 1.24 (1.66) 1.05 (1.59) 2.38 (1.93) 1.65 (1.63) 1.35 (1.55)
Top 20% Borderline/query 4 3 3 4 3 2 4 3 2
Top 10% Abnormal/of concern 5 4 4 5 4 3 5 4 3
Hyperactivity Mean (SD) 3.56 (2.47) 4.07 (2.66) 3.45 (3.03) 3.15 (2.25) 3.16 (2.51) 3.17 (2.78) 4.01 (2.37) 3.53 (2.45) 3.08 (2.41)
Top 20% Borderline/query 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 4
Top 10% Abnormal/of concern 7 8 9 6 7 7 7 7 6
Peer problems Mean (SD) 2.10 (1.84) 1.75 (2.00) 1.50 (1.91) 1.70 (1.59) 1.56 (1.90) 1.45 (1.62) 1.62 (1.60) 1.76 (2.02) 2.05 (1.86)
Top 20% Borderline/query 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
Top 10% Abnormal/of concern 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 6 4
Prosocial Mean (SD) 8.06 (1.80) 8.00 (1.76) 7.27 (2.28) 7.75 (1.88) 8.15 (1.68) 7.33 (2.28) 7.25 (1.76) 7.77 (1.77) 6.84 (2.15)
Bottom 20% Borderline/query 6 7 5 6 6 5 6 6 5
Bottom 10% Abnormal/of concern 5 6 4 5 5 4 5 5 4

Total difficulties Mean (SD) 10.65 (6.06) 9.91 (6.42) 7.82 (6.87) 8.80 (5.46) 7.78 (5.75) 6.78 (5.54) 10.12 (5.98) 8.45 (5.84) 7.82 (5.95)
Top 20% Borderline/query 16 16 14 14 13 12 15 13 13
Top 10% Abnormal/of concern 20 19 17 16 17 15 19 18 15
Australian norms for the SDQ
219
 220
D. Mellor

Table 5. Mean scores and banding for SDQ subscales and total difficulties for girls

7 – 10 years (n = 197) 11 – 13 years (n = 144) 14 – 17 years (n = 146)

Subscale Self- Parent Teacher Self- Parent Teacher Self- Parent Teacher
report report report report report report report report report

Emotional Symptoms Mean (SD) 3.13 (2.29) 2.26 (1.96) 1.53 (1.82) 2.60 (2.10) 2.04 (2.07) 1.39 (1.70) 2.85 (1.94) 2.23 (2.14) 1.36 (1.64)
Top 20% Borderline/query 5 4 3 5 4 2 5 4 2
Top 10% Abnormal/of concern 6 5 4 6 5 4 6 5 3
Conduct problems Mean (SD) 1.37 (1.50) 1.26 (1.50) 0.89 (1.46) 1.31 (1.50) 1.31 (1.59) 0.69 (1.34) 1.71 (1.50) 1.52 (1.60) 0.824 (1.44)
Top 20% Borderline/query 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 2
Top 10% Abnormal/of concern 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3
Hyperactivity Mean (SD) 2.60 (2.22) 2.59 (2.23) 1.78 (2.28) 2.63 (2.23) 2.50 (2.23) 1.69 (2.13) 3.13 (2.17) 2.53 (2.05) 2.03 (2.00)
Top 20% Borderline/query 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4
Top 10% Abnormal/of concern 6 6 5 6 6 5 6 6 5
Peer problems Mean (SD) 1.87 (1.67) 1.53 (1.86) 1.50 (1.97) 1.40 (1.62) 1.57 (1.92) 1.58 (1.81) 1.38 (1.40) 1.46 (1.91) 1.61 (1.78)
Top 20% Borderline/query 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
Top 10% Abnormal/of concern 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4

Prosocial Mean (SD) 8.66 (1.45) 8.68 (1.56) 8.43 (1.81) 8.56 (1.38) 8.68 (1.54) 8.42 (1.76) 8.36 (1.58) 8.53 (1.70) 7.88 (1.93)
Bottom 20% Borderline/query 8 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 5
Bottom 10% Abnormal/of concern 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6
Total difficulties Mean (SD) 8.95 (5.78) 7.65 (5.74) 5.73 (6.00) 7.96 (6.09) 7.46 (6.10) 5.38 (5.71) 9.08 (4.80) 7.78 (5.94) 5.98 (5.54)
Top 20% Borderline/query 14 12 12 12 12 10 13 12 12
Top 10% Abnormal/of concern 17 17 15 17 17 14 15 17 14

data and the suggested cut-off scores for each of the
age groups for borderline and abnormal behaviour
based on the same criteria followed by Goodman
(1997) in the initial norming of the SDQ. On the
basis that approximately 10% of the child and
adolescent populations exhibit some kind of mental
health problem, the borderline category included the
scores lying between the 80th and 90th percentiles,
while the abnormal range included scores above the
90th percentile. Here, given that the SDQ is pri-
marily a screening instrument rather than a diagnostic
instrument, it is suggested that these categories be
relabelled, or at least double-labelled to include
‘‘query’’ at the borderline level, and ‘‘of concern’’ at
the abnormal level.
Discussion
The SDQ is a screening instrument that shows much
promise for those working with children and
adolescents in both clinical and community settings.
Its psychometric properties have been well demon-
strated elsewhere, and the purpose of this study was
to provide Australian normative data. The need for
such norms is linked to the adaptation of this
instrument by Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Services in Australia. In our study, we extended the
self-report version of the questionnaire down to 7
years, and have reported elsewhere (Mellor, 2004)
that our child participants in the age group 7 – 10
years responded as reliably as older children in terms
of inter-rater congruence and test – retest reliability.
Overall, the reliability (inter-rater, test-retest and
internal) of all informant versions was found to be
sound.
We were able to collect complete data sets for 910
children. These children were sampled randomly
from government schools across Victoria, and we
believe them to be representative of Victorian
children in terms of their geographical distribution.
The sample sizes for each age group and gender
would appear to be adequate, apart from the 7-year
age group where the numbers are low. It is not clear
why the numbers were low, but it may be that
children in this age group did not wish to be involved
in the study, or that they were discouraged from
doing so by their teachers who thought that the
task was too difficult for them. However, a more
likely explanation is that at the time of data collection
(later in the academic year), there were few
students at the year 2 level who had not yet turned
8 years old. Because we sampled by year level rather
than age, we thus did not recruit many 7-year-olds
into the study.
Our analyses confirmed that on at least one of
the informant versions of the SDQ, each of the five
subscales and the total difficulties scale showed
Australian norms for the SDQ 221
significant gender and/or age differences. This
finding strongly supported our decision to provide
norms separately by age and gender. In establishing
these norms, we decided to follow the process used
by Goodman (1997), whereby the borderline range
was established by taking scores in between the 80th
and 89th percentile, and the abnormal range by
taking the scores beyond the 90th percentile (except
in the case of prosocial behaviour where the 10th and
20th percentiles are used). This process is based on
the supposition that approximately 10% of the child
and adolescent population have a significant mental
health problem, and another 10% have a borderline
problem. The alternative would be to establish the
scores that lie two and three standard deviations
above the mean, but this would be a more arbitrary
definition of problem identification.
In further recognition that the SDQ is primarily a
screening instrument that may be utilised in diverse
settings by a variety of health professionals, the
normative data in Tables 4 (for boys) and 5 (for girls)
are presented according to three age groups. This
allows all relevant information to be presented on one
page, without too much loss of age trends. In labelling
the categories we propose the terms ‘‘query’’ and ‘‘of
concern’’, on the basis that as a screening instrument
the SDQ probably should not be used to label a
child’s behaviour as abnormal, especially if it is used
in community rather than clinical settings.
While this study provides useful normative data for
the SDQ in Australia, there are some limitations that
need to be considered. Although it is adequate in
size, the sample was drawn from government schools
in the state of Victoria only, and although it was
geographically representative it may not necessarily
be representative of the whole community of children
and adolescents. Even though an initial analysis of
the data suggested that the sample was approximately
representative with regard to expected behavioural
and mental health concerns according to UK norms,
of particular concern is the consideration that some
of the more severely disturbed children in our
community may not attend school at all. This may
have reduced the percentile cut-off points established
from the data.
A further limitation of our study is that we did not
collect other demographic data from parents, so we
are unable to assess whether or not the sample
is representative of the population in terms of socio-
economic status or other characteristics. This should
be addressed in future studies, in which it may also
be useful to investigate the impact of the gender of
the parent completing that version of the question-
naire.
In summary, the normative data established in his
study should provide a useful baseline for commu-
nity screening, clinical evaluation and further studies
222 D. Mellor
with the SDQ. Future studies might extend the age
range covered in this study down to the preschool
level, utilising parent and teacher report.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by ARC SPIRT grant no.
C00107193. The author would like to acknowledge
the contributions of Tony Loquet in the data
collection phase of the study, Associate Professor
Damien Jolley in establishing the sampling proce-
dure and Natasha Muscat in the analyses of data and
preparation.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist
4 – 18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont
Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form
and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont
Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. M. (1991c). Manual for the Youth Self-Report.
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of
Psychiatry.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th edn). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, J. C., Williams, S., McGee, R., & Silva, P. A. (1987).
DSM-III disorders in pre-adolescent children: Prevalence in a
large sample from the general population. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 44, 69 – 76.
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Lynskey, M. T. (1993).
Prevalence and comorbidity of DSM-III-R diagnoses in a birth
cohort of 15 year olds. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 1127 – 1134.
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties question-
naire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 38, 581 – 586.
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337 – 1345.
Goodman, R., & Scott, S. (1999). Comparing the Strength and
Difficulties Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist:
Is small beautiful? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27,
17 – 24.
Goodman, R., Ford, T., Simmons, H., Gatward, R., & Meltzer,
H. (2003). Using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire
(SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community
sample. International Review of Psychiatry, 15, 166 – 172.
Goodman, R., Renfrew, D., & Mullick, M. (2000). Predicting
type of psychiatric disorder from Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ) scores in child mental health clinics in
London and Dhaka. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
9, 129 – 134.
Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Australian data and
psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,
38, 644 – 651.
Klasen, H., Woerner, W., Wolke, D., Meyer, R., Overmeyer, S.,
Kaschnitz, W., Rothenberger, A., & Goodman, R. (2000).
Comparing the German versions of the Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-Deu) and the Child Behavior
Checklist. European Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
9, 271 – 276.
Koskelainen, M., Sourander, A., & Kaljonen, A. (2000). The
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire among Finnish
school-aged children and adolescents. European Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 9, 277 – 284.
Mellor, D. (2004). Furthering the use of the SDQ: Reliability
with younger child respondents. Psychological Assessment, 16,
396 – 401.
Muris, P., Meesters, C., & van den Berg, F. (2003). The Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Further evidence for
its reliability and validity in a community sample of Dutch
children and adolescents. European Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 12, 1 – 8.
Sawyer, M. G., Arney, F. M., Baghurst, P. A., Clark, J. J., Graetz,
B. W., Kosky, R. J. et al. (2001). The mental health of young
people in Australia: Key findings from the Child and
Adolescent Component of the National Survey of Mental
Health and Well-Being. Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 35, 806 – 814.
Smedje, H., Broman, J.-E., Hetta, J., & von Knorring, A.-L.
(1999). Psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the
‘‘Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire’’. European Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 8, 63 – 70.