Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Normative data for the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in Australia

Mellor, David·2005·Australian Psychologist

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00050060500243475

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Mellor, D.
Venue
Australian Psychologist
Published
2005-11-01
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
215-222
ISSN
  • 0005-0067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-9544
OpenAlex
W2086358592
Cited by
258
References
2
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.