Child Psychiatry & Human Development

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 1–8 | Cite as

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire-Parents for Italian School-Aged Children: Psychometric Properties and Norms

  • Valentina Tobia
  • Gian Marco Marzocchi
Original Article


The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire [SDQ; (1)] is a multi-informant instrument for screening developmental psychopathology. This study contributes to the validation of the Italian SDQ-Parent version (SDQ-P), analyzing its factorial structure, providing norms and investigating cross-informant agreement (parents-teachers). The SDQ-P and the SDQ-Teacher version (SDQ-T) were completed for 1917 primary and middle school students. Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to compare two factorial structures: the original five-factor model and the structure obtained in a past Italian study (2). The original model showed the best fit. Significant differences by gender and school grade were found; norms were provided separately for males and females attending 1st–2nd, 3rd–5th and 6th–8th grades. Finally, the analysis of parent-teacher agreement showed correlations ranging from small (prosocial behavior) to large (hyperactivity-inattention). This study offers some reflections on the best way to use this instrument in a community sample.


Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Parents Psychometric properties Italian norms Cross-informant agreement 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.


  1. 1.
    Goodman R (1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 38:581–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tobia V, Gabriele MA, Marzocchi GM (2013) The Italian version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)—Teacher: psychometric properties. J Psychoeduc Assess 31:493–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodman R (2001) Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 40:1337–1345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Achenbach TM (1991) Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist 4–18 and 1991 profile. University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodman R, Scott S (1999) Comparing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist: is small beautiful? J Abnorm Child Psychol 27:17–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stone LL, Otten R, Engels RC, Vermulst AA, Janssens JM (2010) Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for 4-to 12-year-olds: a review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 13:254–274CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li JB, Delvecchio E, Di Riso D, Lis A, Salcuni S (2016) Early Evidence of the Italian Parent-Report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ-P). Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 1–11Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marzocchi GM, Capron C, Di Pietro M, Tauleria ED, Duyme M, Frigerio A et al (2004) The use of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Southern European countries. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 13:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanne B, Torsheim T, Heiervang E, Stormark M (2009) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in the Bergen child study: a conceptually and methodically motivated structural analysis. Psychol Assess 21:352–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zuddas A, Marzocchi GM, Oosterlaan J, Cavolina P, Ancilletta B, Sergeant J (2006) Factor structure and cultural factors of disruptive behaviour disorders symptoms in Italian children. Eur Psychiatry 21:410–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jackson DA, King AR (2004) Gender differences in the effects of oppositional behavior on teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms. J Abnorm Child Psychol 32:215–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Costello EJ, Mustillo S, Erkanli A, Keeler G, Angold A (2003) Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 60:837–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Du Y, Kou J, Coghill D (2008) The validity, reliability and normative scores of the parent, teacher and self-report versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in China. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 2:8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niclasen J, Teasdale TW, Andersen AMN, Skovgaard AM, Elberling H, Obel C (2012) Psychometric properties of the Danish Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire: the SDQ assessed for more than 70,000 raters in four different cohorts. PLoS One 7:e32025CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Woerner W, Becker A, Rothenberger A (2004) Normative data and scale properties of the German parent SDQ. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 13:ii3–ii10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meltzer H, Gatward R, Goodman R, Ford F (2000) Mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain. The Stationery Office, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Symonds JE, Galton M (2014) Moving to the next school at age 10–14 years: an international review of psychological development at school transition. Rev Educ 2: 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tobia V, Marzocchi GM (2015) Il benessere scolastico nella scuola primaria e secondaria di I grado: Una ricerca su bambini con sviluppo tipico e con Bisogni Educativi Speciali. Difficoltà di Apprendimento e Didattica Inclusiva 3: 221–232Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brown TA (2006) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press, GuilfordGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Achenbach T, McConaughy S, Howell CT (1987) Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychol Bull 101:213–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Becker A, Steinhausen HC, Baldursson G, Dalsgaard S, Lorenzo MJ, Ralston SJ et al (2006) Psychopathological screening of children with ADHD: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a pan-European study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 15:i56–i62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frigerio A, Vanzin L, Pastore V, Nobile M, Giorda R, Marino C et al (2006) The Italian preadolescent mental health project (PrISMA): rationale and methods. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 15:22–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vanaelst B, De Vriendt T, Ahrens W, Bammann K, Hadjigeorgiou C, Konstabel K et al (2012) Prevalence of psychosomatic and emotional symptoms in European school-aged children and its relationship with childhood adversities: results from the IDEFICS study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 21:253–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wasserman D, Hoven CW, Wasserman C, Wall M, Eisenberg R, Hadlaczky G et al (2015) School-based suicide prevention programmes: the SEYLE cluster-randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 385:1536–1544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goodman A, Lamping DL, Ploubidis GB (2010) When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised five subscales on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): data from British parents, teachers and children. J Abnorm Child Psychol 38:1179–1191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Biederman J, Mick E, Faraone SV (2000) Age-dependent decline of symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: impact of remission definition and symptom type. Am J Psychiatry 157:816–818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verhulst FC, Dekker MC, Ende JVD (1997) Parent, teacher and self-reports as predictors of signs of disturbance in adolescents: whose information carries the most weight? Acta Psychiatr Scand 96:75–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kraemer HC, Measelle JR, Ablow JC, Essex MJ, Boyce WT, Kupfer DJ (2003) A new approach to integrating data from multiple informants in psychiatric assessment and research: mixing and matching contexts and perspectives. Am J Psychiatry 160:1566–1577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tobia V, Gabriele MA, Marzocchi GM (2011) Norme italiane dello Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Il comportamento dei bambini italiani valutato dai loro insegnanti/Italian norms of Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Italian children’s behavior evaluated by their teachers. Disturbi di Attenzione e Iperattività 6: 15–22Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Di Riso D, Salcuni S, Chessa D, Raudino A, Lis A, Altoè G (2010) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). Early evidence of its reliability and validity in a community sample of Italian children. Pers Individ Differ 49: 570–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Milan-BicoccaMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Centro per l’Età EvolutivaBergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations