Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1946/8607
Objective: To examine the psychometric properties of the current Icelandic translation of
the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) teacher form in a community sample of
6-10 year old children.
Method: 16 teachers rated 5 children in their classes using the current Icelandic SDQ
totalling in 80 ratings in all. The children were chosen at random by the experimenter. Two
factor analyses were conducted, one in which no specific number of factors were to be
drawn and one in which five factors were determined to be drawn. This decision was
based on the original five factor structure of the SDQ and the fact that the first scree plot
seemed to indicate a five factor structure. In both cases a principal component analysis
with a varimax rotation was used.
Results: The original five factor structure was not replicated in either factor analyses. The
non-predetermined factor structure analysis produced 8 factors in total with Eigenvalues
over 1. Both factor analyses reproduced the hyperactivity scale, though it was not as clean
in the five factor structure analysis. The first factor analysis also reproduced the peer
problems subscale, which the second factor analysis failed to do. The second factor
analysis did however reproduce the prosocial subscale, which the first one failed to do.
Discussion: Some items proved quite problematic in this limited sample, though it seemed
that some of those were not caused by the small sample size. Those items may need
revision, but nothing conclusive can be drawn from such a small sample. Goodmans
(1997) suggestion to use the 90th percentile as a clinical cut-off in each subscale did not
seem appropriate in this study since the 90th percentile often landed on scores that were
deemed to be in the normal range in UK normative data. Once again, nothing conclusive
can be drawn from this due to the small sample size.
Conclusions: The results from this study indicates that the current Icelandic translation of
this questionnaire is not suitable for use in this age group. It did not replicate the original
five factor structure, nor did it provide a useful alternative factor structure. It is not clear
whether this is due to the small sample size or to peculiarities in the items themselves.
Further study is needed.
|Einar Kári Bogason_Lokaritgerð_2011.41.pdf||445.21 kB||Open||Heildartexti||View/Open|