CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Construct Validity of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for Aboriginal Children Living in Urban New South Wales, Australia

Williamson, Anna, Mcelduff, Patrick, Dadds, Mark, D'Este, Catherine, Redman, Sally, Raphael, Beverley, Daniels, John, Eades, Sandra·2014·Australian Psychologist
DOI 10.1111/ap.12045
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The current study explores the construct validity of the standard Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for Aboriginal children living in urban communities in New South Wales, Australia. Parent report SDQ data from the first 717 Aboriginal children aged 4–17 years who participated in the baseline survey of the Study of Environment on Aboriginal Resilience and Child Health were analysed. The overall construct validity of the SDQ in our sample was acceptable but not “good.” The internal consistency reliability was excellent overall and good for all subscales with the exception of peer problems, a concept that may have a different significance for urban Aboriginal parents. Removing the peer relationships subscale, however, did not improve the fit of the model. The convergent validity of the SDQ was good. The prosocial behaviours scale and both the peer and conduct problems scales were highly correlated suggesting Aboriginal parents conceptualise these differently and that prosocial behaviours may be considered a key indicator of well‐being for Aboriginal children. Overall, the SDQ is a promising tool for urban Aboriginal children in New South Wales. Those working with Aboriginal young people should focus on the SDQ total difficulties score and limit their reliance on the peer relationships subscale.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ap.12045

Cites

29 of 29 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Williamson, A., Mcelduff, P., Dadds, M., D'Este, C., Redman, S., Raphael, B., Daniels, J., & Eades, S.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
  • School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle,
  • Sax Institute (AU)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • Aboriginal Medical Service Redfern, and
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Williamson, Anna
ORCID
Venue
Australian Psychologist
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2014-06-01
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
163-170
ISSN
  • 0005-0067 (ISSN-L)
  • 1742-9544
DOI
10.1111/ap.12045
OpenAlex
W1486356944
Cited by
60
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 457 d)
Locations
  • Australian Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, construct validity, Aboriginal children, urban Aboriginal communities, parent report, prosocial behavior, conduct problems, child well-being

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