The ability of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire to detect mental health disorders in a child and adolescent outpatient clinic in Northern-Norway

The aim of the study was to examine the ability of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to detect mental health disorders among patients referred to a child and adolescent outpatient clinic. The sample consisted of 100 participants between 5 and 17 years referred to an outpatient clinic in Northern-Norway. The SDQ-generated diagnostic predictions were compared to a gold standard to measure the screening efficiency of the SDQ. The gold standard consisted of psychiatric diagnoses assigned by experienced clinicians on the basis of the Developmental and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA). Screening efficiency was measured by using sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios. The results showed that 72% of the children and adolescents in the sample had a diagnosable mental disorder according to the SDQ. In terms of screening efficiency the findings showed mixed results for the different diagnostic disorders. Overall the results suggest that the SDQ might not be accurate enough to be of practical use as a screening instrument in a child and adolescent mental health clinic

The strengths and difficulties questionnaire as a screening instrument for norwegian child and adolescent mental health services, application of UK scoring algorithms

Background The use of screening instruments can reduce waiting lists and increase treatment capacity. The aim of this study was to examine the usefulness of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) with the original UK scoring algorithms, when used as a screening instrument to detect mental health disorders among patients in the Norwegian Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) North Study. Methods A total of 286 outpatients, aged 5 to 18 years, from the CAMHS North Study were assigned diagnoses based on a Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA). The main diagnostic groups (emotional, hyperactivity, conduct and other disorders) were then compared to the SDQ scoring algorithms using two dichotomisation levels: 'possible' and 'probable' levels. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio (ORD) were calculated. Results Sensitivity for the diagnostic categories included was 0.47-0.85 ('probable' dichotomisation level) and 0.81-1.00 ('possible' dichotomisation level). Specificity was 0.52-0.87 ('probable' level) and 0.24-0.58 ('possible' level). The discriminative ability, as measured by ORD, was in the interval for potentially useful tests for hyperactivity disorders and conduct disorders when dichotomised on the 'possible' level. Conclusions The usefulness of the SDQ UK-based scoring algorithms in detecting mental health disorders among patients in the CAMHS North Study is only partly supported in the present study. They seem best suited to identify children and adolescents who do not require further psychiatric evaluation, although this as well is problematic from a clinical point of view