Cited by 552Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentMental Health Research TopicsPsychological Testing and Assessment

Predicting type of psychiatric disorder from Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) scores in child mental health clinics in London and Dhaka

Goodman, R., Renfrew, D., Mullick, M.·2000·European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Abstract

A computerised algorithm was developed to predict child psychiatric diagnoses on the basis of the symptom and impact scores derived from Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires (SDQs) completed by parents, teachers and young people. The predictive algorithm generates "unlikely", "possible" or "probable" ratings for four broad categories of disorder, namely conduct disorders, emotional disorders, hyperactivity disorders, and any psychiatric disorder. The algorithm was applied to patients attending child mental health clinics in Britain (N = 101) and Bangladesh (N = 89). The level of chance-corrected agreement between SDQ prediction and an independent clinical diagnosis was substantial and highly significant (Kendall's tau b between 0.49 and 0.73; p < 0.001). A "probable" SDQ prediction for any given disorder correctly identified 81-91% of the children who definitely had that clinical diagnosis. There were more false positives than false negatives, i.e. the SDQ categories were over-inclusive. The algorithm appears to be sufficiently accurate and robust to be of practical value in planning the assessment of new referrals to a child mental health service.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s007870050008

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scales are well-validated and comparable with the Child Behaviour Check List.

    “It has been suggested that these scales are well-validated (Riso et al., 2010) and are comparable with the Child Behaviour Check List (CBCL), a respected measure used in assessing childhood problems and clinical child psychiatric diagnoses (Goodman et al., 2000; Goodman and Scott, 1999; Stone et al., 2010).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goodman, R., Renfrew, D., & Mullick, M.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Ayrshire Central Hospital (GB)
  • Bangladesh Medical University (BD)
Venue
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Published
2000-06-15
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
129-134
ISSN
  • 1018-8827 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-165X
OpenAlex
W2126595929
Cited by
552
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 20
FWCI
5.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, child psychiatric diagnosis, conduct disorder, emotional disorders, hyperactivity disorder, diagnostic accuracy, cross-cultural validation, London, Dhaka
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Algorithms, Bangladesh, Mental Disorders, Child, Child Psychiatry, Cultural Characteristics, England, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review