Cross‐cultural equivalence of parental ratings of child difficulties during the pandemic: Findings from a six‐site study.
Saved in:
| Title: | Cross‐cultural equivalence of parental ratings of child difficulties during the pandemic: Findings from a six‐site study. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Foley, Sarah (AUTHOR), Ronchi, Luca (AUTHOR), Lecce, Serena (AUTHOR), Feng, Xin (AUTHOR), Chan, Meingold H. M. (AUTHOR), Hughes, Claire (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. Mar2023, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p1-12. 12p. 2 Charts, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | Confirmatory factor analysis, COVID-19 pandemic, Pandemics, School closings, Cleft palate children |
| Abstract: | Objectives: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) has been shown to be invariant across informants, developmental stage and settings, but tests of cross‐cultural equivalence are limited to adolescents' self‐reports. The COVID‐19 pandemic makes this gap particularly pertinent, given the need to understand whether distinct government approaches (e.g., school closures) are uniquely associated with variability in children's psychosocial outcomes and the reliance on parents' ratings for young children. Methods: Within a Confirmatory Factor Analysis framework, we tested the cross‐cultural measurement invariance of the SDQ across six countries: Australia, China, Italy, Sweden, the United Kingdom and USA, using a sample of 1761 parents of 3‐ to 8‐year‐olds (M = 5.76, SD = 1.09). Results: A five‐factors model showed good fit to the data and partial cross‐cultural scalar invariance. In this sample, Swedish parents reported the fewest peer problems (Cohen's d = 0.950) and the highest prosocial scores (Cohen's d = 0.547), whilst British parents reported the greatest child emotional (Cohen's d = 0.412) and hyperactivity problems (Cohen's d = 0.535). Conclusions: The present results indicate that the parent‐version of the SDQ is appropriate for use and comparison across different contexts during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objectives: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) has been shown to be invariant across informants, developmental stage and settings, but tests of cross‐cultural equivalence are limited to adolescents' self‐reports. The COVID‐19 pandemic makes this gap particularly pertinent, given the need to understand whether distinct government approaches (e.g., school closures) are uniquely associated with variability in children's psychosocial outcomes and the reliance on parents' ratings for young children. Methods: Within a Confirmatory Factor Analysis framework, we tested the cross‐cultural measurement invariance of the SDQ across six countries: Australia, China, Italy, Sweden, the United Kingdom and USA, using a sample of 1761 parents of 3‐ to 8‐year‐olds (M = 5.76, SD = 1.09). Results: A five‐factors model showed good fit to the data and partial cross‐cultural scalar invariance. In this sample, Swedish parents reported the fewest peer problems (Cohen's d = 0.950) and the highest prosocial scores (Cohen's d = 0.547), whilst British parents reported the greatest child emotional (Cohen's d = 0.412) and hyperactivity problems (Cohen's d = 0.535). Conclusions: The present results indicate that the parent‐version of the SDQ is appropriate for use and comparison across different contexts during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10498931 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/mpr.1933 |
