The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire is a brief behavioural screening questionnaire for children and young people. Its 25 items are divided across five subscales of five items each - emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity-inattention, peer relationship problems and prosocial behaviour - with the first four summed into a Total Difficulties score from 0 to 40 (the prosocial scale is reported separately as a strength, not a difficulty). An optional impact supplement asks about chronicity, distress, social impairment and burden, which many services find at least as informative as the symptom score itself.
Versions exist for parents and teachers of 4-17-year-olds (with an adapted 2-4 form) and a self-report version for 11-17-year-olds. Unusually among child screening measures, the SDQ deliberately balances difficulties with strengths, which contributes to its acceptability to families. It functions as a screen and an outcome measure, not a diagnostic instrument.
02 - Origin & purpose
Where it comes from.
The SDQ was developed by the British child psychiatrist Robert Goodman and published in 1997 as a modern, shorter alternative to the Rutter questionnaires, adding coverage of concentration and peer relationships and a strengths dimension. 1 It has since been translated into more than 80 languages and become one of the most widely used child mental-health screening tools in the world, embedded in national outcome-monitoring programmes including UK CAMHS routine outcome measurement.
Its purpose is population and clinic screening, treatment outcome monitoring, and research epidemiology. Goodman's 2001 psychometric study in a representative sample of over 10,000 British 5-15-year-olds established the five-factor structure and the predictive link between high scores and independently diagnosed psychiatric disorder. 2
03 - Scoring & cutoffs
How scoring works.
Each item is scored 0-2 (not true / somewhat true / certainly true), giving subscale scores of 0-10 and a Total Difficulties score of 0-40. The current four-band UK categorisation for the parent-completed Total Difficulties score is: 0-13 close to average (about 80% of the population), 14-16 slightly raised (about 10%), 17-19 high (about 5%) and 20-40 very high (about 5%). Bands differ by informant (parent, teacher, self-report), and multi-informant use is recommended: agreement between informants is modest, and each contributes distinct information. Scores should prompt clinical assessment, not substitute for it.
04 - Validation evidence
How well it performs.
In Goodman's 2001 nationwide validation the predicted five-factor structure was confirmed, and scores above the 90th percentile predicted a substantially raised probability of independently diagnosed psychiatric disorder. 2 Reliability is adequate for a brief multi-informant screen rather than outstanding: internal consistency averages .73 across scales and informants, and stability over 4-6 months averages .62. A 2010 systematic review of the parent and teacher versions for 4-12-year-olds (Stone et al.) found broadly satisfactory psychometric properties, strongest for the total score. 4
mean α = 0.73
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY
mean r = 0.62
RETEST, 4–6 MTHS
OR 15.7 / 15.2
PREDICTION OF DISORDER
80 / 10 / 5 / 5%
POPULATION BANDING
05 - How it compares
How it compares to the alternatives.
Instrument
Items
Time
When to reach for it
SDQ
25
~5 min
Broad strengths-and-difficulties screen, ages 4-17, parent, teacher and self-report. Licensed: no item text may be republished.
Dimensional anxiety and depression subscales aligned to diagnostic categories, when the question is internalising symptoms specifically.
06 - When to use it
Right tool, wrong tool.
The SDQ is a first-line breadth measure: it tells you where difficulty is concentrated across emotional, behavioural, attentional and social domains, and how much it interferes. It is most useful where a licence is already in place and more than one informant can complete it.
Reach for it when
-Broad first-line screening in paediatric, school or CAMHS settings where a licence is in place.
-Multi-informant triangulation across parent, teacher and self-report.
-Routine outcome monitoring in services already licensed for electronic use.
-Epidemiological research with normative comparison.
Reach for something else when
-Not a diagnostic instrument - bands indicate probability, not diagnosis.
-Not for adults.
-Subscale scores below the total are less reliable in low-risk community samples.
-Electronic administration without a Youthinmind licence is not permitted; where licensing is a barrier, the PSC family offers a free public-domain alternative.
-Not ideal when the clinical question is a single specific disorder; use a targeted measure.
07 - Confidence & precision
Reading the score with care.
No published minimal clinically important difference exists for the SDQ Total Difficulties score. With mean internal consistency of .73 and 4-6-month stability of .62, single-informant score changes of a few points fall within measurement noise; interpret change using multiple informants and alongside the impact supplement. Added-value scores for routine outcome monitoring exist in the UK CAMHS literature but depend on service context.
08 - Limitations
What it cannot tell you.
Reliability of individual subscales, especially peer problems and conduct in community samples, is below the total score's. Informant agreement is modest, so single-informant screening misses cases. The self-report version's prediction of disorder is weaker than parent or teacher report (OR 6.2 vs ~15). Banding norms are UK-derived; distributions differ across countries and cultures. As a copyrighted instrument, it cannot be freely embedded in electronic systems, a real constraint for digital services. And as with any brief screen, it indicates probability of disorder, not diagnosis.
09 - Licensing, explained
How licensing works.
The SDQ is copyright Robert Goodman / Youthinmind and may not be modified. Paper versions may be downloaded from sdqinfo.org and photocopied without charge by individuals and non-profit organisations not charging families, but creating or distributing electronic versions requires prior authorisation from Youthinmind, and online scoring carries a per-use fee. That is why this page does not reproduce the questionnaire items. Free public-domain alternatives include the PSC-35, PSC-17 and Y-PSC.
See how Aisel removes friction where it costs most. A 20-minute walkthrough tailored to your clinic.
We value your privacy
We use cookies to analyse site usage and improve your experience. Analytics and embedded media (e.g. YouTube) only load if you accept. Read our cookie policy.