The Impact of Language Translation on the Internal Structure of a Rating Scale: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Spanish

The Impact of Language Translation on the Internal Structure of a Rating Scale: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Spanish

Ryan J. Kettler

Contact

Heather Blumert

Contact

Kimberley D. Lakes

Contact

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

The Impact of Language Translation on the Internal Structure of a Rating Scale: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Spanish

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

FBV28

The Impact of Language Translation on the Internal Structure of a Rating Scale: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Spanish Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a 25-item behavioral screener, with the English version. Participants included in this study were 363 English-speaking parents and 334 Spanish-speaking parents of preschool age children (ages 3-5) who took part in the Children’s Hospital of Orange County/University of California (Irvine) Initiative for the Development of Attention and Readiness (CUIDAR) program from 2004-2008. This study used data from the CUIDAR program to explore mean rating differences between the English and Spanish versions of the SDQ, along with coefficient alpha as an indicator of reliability at the scale and composite level, and factor analytic evidence of score validity. Mean ratings of the scales and the Total Difficulties scale were very similar across language forms. Reliability coefficients indicated alphas were higher for scores derived from the English forms compared to the Spanish forms at the scale and composite levels, although neither form produced scores with adequate reliability at the scale level. Finally, the Five First Order Factor Model was the best-fitting and most valid representation of all 25 items of the SDQ, regardless of the language of the form.

References

33 Cites in Article

Reference Format

P Bentler (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models.
J Buckley,G Ryser,R Reid,M Epstein (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale-2 (BERS-2) Parent and Youth Rating Scales.
T Campbell,J Gillaspy,B Thompson (1995). The factor structure of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI): A confirmatory factor analysis.
J Cortina (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.
Robert Goodman (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note.
Robert Goodman (2001). Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.
R Goodman,T Ford,H Simmons,R Gatward,H Meltzer (2000). Using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to screen for child psychiatric disorders in a community sample.
Robert Goodman,Stephen Scott (1999). Comparing the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist: Is Small Beautiful?.
Deborah Gross,Louis Fogg,Michael Young,Alison Ridge,Julia Cowell,Reginald Richardson,Abigail Sivan (2006). The equivalence of the Child Behavior Checklist/1 1/2-5 across parent race/ethnicity, income level, and language..
T Bradshaw,S Kingsley-Richards,J Foster,L Berkett (1991). Horticultural performance and juice quality of cold-climate grapes in Vermont, USA.
(1999). Estándares para Pruebas Educativas y Psicológicas.
R Henson,L Kogan,T Vacha-Haase (2001). A reliability generalization study of the Teacher Efficacy Scale and related instruments.
The equivalence of the child behavior checklist/11/2-5 across parent race/ethnicity, income level, and language.
J Guilford (1946). New Standards For Test Evaluation.
J Hair,W Black,B Babin,R Anderson (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis.
David Hawes,Mark Dadds (2004). Australian Data and Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.
W Hopkins (2002). New this month.
Leonard Feldt,Seonghoon Kim (2006). Testing the Difference Between Two Alpha Coefficients With Small Samples of Subjects and Raters.
Shane Jimerson,Jill Sharkey,Vanessa Nyborg,Michael Furlong (2004). Strength-Based Assessment and School Psychology: A Summary and Synthesis.
K Joreskog,D Sorbom (1986). Lisrel VI. 4th Ed.
Ryan Kettler,Stephen Elliott,Peter Beddow,Elizabeth Compton,Dawn Mcgrath,Kristopher Kaase,Charles Bruen,Lisa Ford,Kent Hinton (2010). What Do Alternate Assessments of Alternate Academic Achievement Standards Measure? A Multitrait—Multimethod Analysis.
La Greca,A Lopez,N (1998). Social anxiety among adolescents: Linkage with peer relations and friendships.
K Lakes (2012). Restricted sample variance reduces generalizability.
Kimberly Lakes,Steven López,Linda Garro (2006). Cultural competence and psychotherapy: Applying anthropologically informed conceptions of culture..
Kimberley Lakes,Ryan Kettler,Janeth Schmidt,Marche Haynes,Kelly Feeney-Kettler,Laura Kamptner,Jim Swanson,Leanne Tamm (2009). The CUIDAR Early Intervention Parent Training Program for Preschoolers at Risk for Behavioral Disorders.
J Pedrotti,L Edwards (2010). The intersection of positive psychology and multiculturalism in counseling.
J Sharkey,S You,G Morrison,A Griffiths (2009). Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale-2 Parent Report: Exploring a Spanish Version with At-Risk Students.
H Smedje,J-E Broman,J Hetta,A-L Von Knorring (1999). Psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the "Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire".
Paul Smokowski,Arthur Reynolds,Nikolaus Bezruczko (1999). Resilience and Protective Factors in Adolescence.
Bruce Thompson,Larry Daniel (1996). Factor Analytic Evidence for the Construct Validity of Scores: A Historical Overview and Some Guidelines.
B Tinkler (2002). A review of literature on Hispanic/Latino/a parent involvement in K-12 education.
Ping Yin,Xitao Fan (2000). Assessing the Reliability of Beck Depression Inventory Scores: Reliability Generalization across Studies.
Heather Blumert,Ryan Kettler,Kimberley Lakes (2011). Psychometrics of the SDQ for a Spanish-Speaking Population.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Ryan J. Kettler. 2015. \u201cThe Impact of Language Translation on the Internal Structure of a Rating Scale: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Spanish\u201d. Global Journal of Human-Social Science - G: Linguistics & Education GJHSS-G Volume 15 (GJHSS Volume 15 Issue G1): .

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

Download Article

GJHSS Volume 15 Issue G1
Pg. 49- 60

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJHSS

Print ISSN 0975-587X

e-ISSN 2249-460X

Keywords

Not Found

Classification

GJHSS-G Classification: FOR Code: 200499

Submission ReceivedJune 7, 2015
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted July 5, 2015
Published July 15, 2015

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

February 19, 2015

Language

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 133

Country: United States

Subject: Global Journal of Human-Social Science - G: Linguistics & Education

Authors: Heather Blumert, Ryan J. Kettler, Kimberley D. Lakes (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 145

Total Views (Real + Logic): 4464

Total Downloads (simulated): 2212

Publish Date: 2015 02, Thu

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 61 views
Month 2: 48 views
Month 3: 66 views
Month 4: 49 views
Month 5: 27 views
Month 6: 37 views
Month 7: 36 views
Month 8: 39 views
Month 9: 32 views
Month 10: 54 views
Month 11: 40 views
Month 12: 15 views
Month 13: 22 views
Month 14: 17 views
Month 15: 12 views
Month 16: 36 views
Month 17: 32 views
Month 18: 18 views
Month 19: 27 views
Month 20: 37 views
Month 21: 16 views
Month 22: 22 views
Month 23: 47 views
Month 24: 45 views
Month 25: 30 views
Month 26: 18 views
Month 27: 45 views
Month 28: 24 views
Month 29: 24 views
Month 30: 16 views
Month 31: 41 views
Month 32: 28 views
Month 33: 31 views
Month 34: 41 views
Month 35: 17 views
Month 36: 38 views
Month 37: 29 views
Month 38: 30 views
Month 39: 23 views
Month 40: 29 views
Month 41: 28 views
Month 42: 21 views
Month 43: 26 views
Month 44: 46 views
Month 45: 49 views
Month 46: 19 views
Month 47: 31 views
Month 48: 21 views
Month 49: 21 views
Month 50: 31 views
Month 51: 48 views
Month 52: 48 views
Month 53: 26 views
Month 54: 26 views
Month 55: 30 views
Month 56: 33 views
Month 57: 21 views
Month 58: 26 views
Month 59: 24 views
Month 60: 33 views
Month 61: 24 views
Month 62: 47 views
Month 63: 25 views
Month 64: 23 views
Month 65: 38 views
Month 66: 15 views
Month 67: 41 views
Month 68: 28 views
Month 69: 17 views
Month 70: 35 views
Month 71: 44 views
Month 72: 28 views
Month 73: 38 views
Month 74: 45 views
Month 75: 32 views
Month 76: 43 views
Month 77: 39 views
Month 78: 25 views
Month 79: 27 views
Month 80: 24 views
Month 81: 35 views
Month 82: 25 views
Month 83: 34 views
Month 84: 24 views
Month 85: 47 views
Month 86: 31 views
Month 87: 12 views
Month 88: 33 views
Month 89: 32 views
Month 90: 20 views
Month 91: 19 views
Month 92: 38 views
Month 93: 31 views
Month 94: 20 views
Month 95: 20 views
Month 96: 29 views
Month 97: 37 views
Month 98: 44 views
Month 99: 21 views
Month 100: 20 views
Month 101: 21 views
Month 102: 29 views
Month 103: 36 views
Month 104: 44 views
Month 105: 35 views
Month 106: 45 views
Month 107: 28 views
Month 108: 29 views
Month 109: 18 views
Month 110: 40 views
Month 111: 39 views
Month 112: 29 views
Month 113: 39 views
Month 114: 19 views
Month 115: 38 views
Month 116: 31 views
Month 117: 30 views
Month 118: 20 views
Month 119: 32 views
Month 120: 25 views
Month 121: 27 views
Month 122: 21 views
Month 123: 26 views
Month 124: 29 views
Month 125: 32 views
Month 126: 40 views
Month 127: 30 views
Month 128: 77 views
Month 129: 50 views
Month 130: 49 views
Month 131: 68 views
Month 132: 41 views
Month 133: 45 views
Month 134: 43 views
Month 135: 34 views

Total Views: 4464

Total Downloads: 2212

2026 Trends

Published Article

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]