Sentences with phrase «subscales for hyperactivity»

Not exact matches

Fifty percent of children (mean score = 15.72) scored in the clinical range and scores on subscales were between 36 percent for hyperactivity to 44 percent for emotional symptoms and conduct problems.

Due to the ordinal and categorical nature of the response options, reliability was assessed using polychoric correlation - based version of the reliability coefficients.45 These analyses suggested satisfactory internal consistency for the SDQ total difficulties scale (α = 0.86) and for all subscales (α emotional problems = 0.82, conduct problems = 0.71, hyperactivity — inattention = 0.76, peer problems = 0.75 and prosocial behaviours = 0.77).

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire hyperactivity - inattention subscale is more sensitive for the ADHD - combined subtype than other subtypes in 7 — 9 - year - old school children

This pattern of change in means over the decade between the 2005 study and ours appears consistent with the small, but significant, increases observed between 2007 and 2012 in the self - report subscale means for Total Difficulties, Emotional Symptoms, Peer Relationship Problems and Hyperactivity - Inattention (but a decrease in Conduct Problems) in nationally representative New Zealand samples of children aged 12 — 15 years, 28 and with a similar increase in Emotional Symptoms and decrease in Conduct Problems between 2009 and 2014 in English community samples of children aged 11 — 13 years.29 The mean PLE score in the MCS sample aligned closely with that reported previously for a relatively deprived inner - city London, UK, community sample aged 9 — 12 years19 using these same nine items, although the overall prevalence of a «Certainly True» to at least one of the nine items in the MCS (52.2 %) was lower than that obtained in the London sample (66.0 %).8

To investigate the effect of the Zippy's Friends intervention on the children's emotional and behavioural functioning at post-intervention and at 12 - month follow - up, a model for each subscale (emotional symptoms, hyperactivity, conduct problems, peer relationship problems and prosocial behaviour) was fitted.

We used the UNSW system of combining items taken from APSD subscales (i.e., CU Traits, Impulsivity, and Narcissism) and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)[57] subscales (i.e., Prosocial Behavior, Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity, Emotional Problems, and Peer Problems) to form factors for CU traits, conduct problems, hyperactivity, anxiety, and peer Hyperactivity, Emotional Problems, and Peer Problems) to form factors for CU traits, conduct problems, hyperactivity, anxiety, and peer hyperactivity, anxiety, and peer problems [5].

In our Chinese sample the principle components analyses in the main support the Hyperactivity - Inattention, Emotional and Prosocial subscales but provide less support for the Conduct and Peer Problems subscales.

The SDQ Total Difficulties Score (TDS) was calculated by aggregating the scores for the emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity - inattention, and peer problems subscales (range 0 — 40).

Notes: Letters A — D indicate the four repeated measures for the study, each comprising two financial difficulty measures over which change is calculated, and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire - hyperactivity subscale outcome (SDQ Hhyperactivity subscale outcome (SDQ HyperactivityHyperactivity)

AVE scores for the preferred model C ranged from 0.34 (peer problems) to 0.60 (hyperactivity), with only hyperactivity achieving the 0.50 benchmark for satisfactory internal convergent validity.22 However, every subscale demonstrated adequate external discriminant validity, with AVE scores exceeding squared interfactor correlations.

Note: Letters A — D indicate the four repeated measures for the study, each comprising two financial difficulty measures over which change is calculated, and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire - hyperactivity subscale outcome

Measurement occasions and analysis groupings (not to scale) for the predictor: change in financial difficulties, and outcome: ADHD symptoms from the hyperactivity subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

An example of a question in the inattention - hyperactivity subscale is: «Restless, overactive, can not stay still for long».

Several studies have addressed the validity of the parent - reported SDQ in school - aged samples, predominantly confirming the intended 5 - factor structure.5, 6 A 3 - factor configuration of externalizing (conduct problems and hyperactivity), internalizing (emotional and peer problems), and prosocial factors has also been proposed and suggested for use in epidemiologic studies and in low - risk populations.7, 8 The internal reliability of SDQ subscales has been predominantly examined by using Cronbach's α, a measure of the interrelatedness of items; however, α estimates are a lower bound for reliability and is often underestimated.9 A meta - analytic review reported weighted mean α coefficients extracted from 26 studies that showed generally modest reliabilities for parent reports (0.53 < α < 0.76).10 McDonald's ω, which estimates the proportion of a scale measuring a construct, typically yields higher reliability estimates but has rarely been used to assess reliability of the SDQ.

The SDQ - s is a brief psychiatric screening instrument for children and adolescents consisting of 25 items, which make up five 5 - item subscales assessing Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity — Inattention, Emotional Symptoms, Peer Problems, and Prosocial Behavior.

None of the self reported measures had an α > 0.70 and only the hyperactivity — inattention subscale for the parent scale and the hyperactivity — inattention and the prosocial behaviour scales for the teacher scale reached this level.

However, an exception could possibly be made for the hyperactivity / inattention problem scale of the SDQ - T; this subscale demonstrated both the highest reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.88) and highest validity (Spearman's correlation coefficient 0.72) in our study.

For parent ratings there was a main effect of age on the emotional symptoms [F (1, 1963) = 11.8, p <.001] and hyperactivity / inattention [F (1, 1963) = 40.7, p <.001] subscales.

Mental health problems were assessed using the self - report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a multi-informant wide - angle screening questionnaire.26, 27 The SDQ has been used in a large number of population - based studies in several countries.27 It is a 25 - item questionnaire with five subscales, each consisting of five items, generating scores for emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity — inattention, peer problems and prosocial behaviour.

Model C demonstrated strong (ie, factor loadings and thresholds) invariance for conduct problems, hyperactivity, and prosocial subscales and metric (ie, factor loadings) invariance for emotional and peer problems.

The structural analysis suggests that whilst there is support for the Prosocial behaviour, Hyperactivity / Inattention and Emotional Problems subscales there appear to be differences in the way the Chinese interpret the questions relating to Conduct and Peer Problems.