Factor structure of the parent-rated strengths and difficulties questionnaire in a sample of Canadian children from military families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire is a 25-item screening tool designed to measure the emotional and behavioral well-being of children. It includes five subscales including Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems, Peer Problems, Hyperactivity-Inattention and Prosocial Behavior. While the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire has been studied extensively on a global scale, it has not yet been evaluated among Canadian children from military families. This study used data collected from spouses and partners of Canadian Armed Forces members who completed a questionnaire assessing their quality of life, including the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for respondents with children aged 3–16 years (N = 651). Using two independent randomized samples drawn from the overall group of respondents, the factorial structure was studied using exploratory factor analysis (n = 323) and confirmatory factor analysis (n = 328). Results of this study provide evidence for the factorial validity of the parent-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire for a sample of children from military families. Specifically, the exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis supported the original proposed five-factor solution (CFI = 0.84; TLI = 0.82; SRMR = 0.073; RMSEA = 0.065) with good internal reliability of the Total Difficulties Scale and subscales. Overall, the results of this study were found to align with past research findings on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and support the future utility of this tool in assessing the well-being of Canadian children from military families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".