the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in glasgow city primary schools
DESCRIPTION
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Glasgow City Primary Schools. Louise Marryat, Researcher. Presentation outline. What is the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)? Why are we are we collecting these data? How can schools use results? What have we found so far?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in Glasgow City
Primary Schools
Louise Marryat, Researcher
1.What is the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)?
2.Why are we are we collecting these data?
3.How can schools use results?4.What have we found so far?
Presentation outline
What is the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire?
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
(www.sdqinfo.org)
• A brief behavioural screening questionnaire for 3-16 year olds.• 2 versions – 3-4 years, 4-16 years • Can be completed by teachers, parents, or children (11-15 yrs)• Already used:
• as before- and after- measure • as a population measure of children’s wellbeing e.g.
‘Growing up in Scotland study’• as part of the annual assessment of looked-after children in
England• routinely in Glasgow as part of ‘Nurture Group’ assessment
• NOT a diagnostic tool
Emotional Symptoms
Conduct problem
Hyperactivity/inattention
Peer Relationships
Pro-social skills
The SDQ domains
SDQs in Glasgow
When are we collecting SDQs in Glasgow?
30 months• Completed by
parents• Administered by
Health Visitors
Pre-School• Completed by
nursery staff
P3• Completed by
class teachers
P6 • Completed by
children (self-complete)
Why are SDQs being collected in Glasgow?
• Part of the Evaluation of the Parenting Support Framework in Glasgow City
• Explore levels of social, emotional and behavioural difficulties in Glasgow
• Look at individual difficulties across childhood
• Part of a wider parenting evaluation
• Part of the transition documentation
• To inform Education Services/NHS
• For use in schools• Big Noise evaluation
How are SDQs being used in Glasgow?
What do schools receive and what can they do with
results?
e.g. Results passed to P1 staff at transition:
What schools receive
GLASGOW ROAD PRIMARY SCHOOL SDQ 2012
NAME EMOTIONAL SYMPTOMS
CONDUCT PROBLEMS HYPERACTIVITY PEER
PROBLEMS TOTAL DIFFICULTIES PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Paul Jenkins 1 1 1 0 3 7Jamie Famer 3 3 6 3 15 3Aimee Burney 1 2 5 3 11 5Brian Jenkins 0 0 1 0 1 8Bilal Farooq 1 1 1 2 5 7Shaun Brown 6 7 4 2 18 2 KEY:Andrew Watson 0 1 1 0 2 8 NORMALJoe Peters 2 2 1 4 9 5 BORDERLINEElenor Candlish 5 2 3 5 15 3 DIFFICULTIESCalum Nicholson 1 0 0 2 4 6Jack Smith 4 3 4 1 12 7Lorna Whiley 5 8 4 3 20 3Amy Shandon 1 0 0 0 1 7Katie Ross 2 1 2 2 7 7Lee Hope 5 2 2 5 14 3
Formalises measures of social/emotional development
Creates a shared languageUsed for class/seat planningAn ‘early warning system’ to highlight children
who may need extra supportA document to go back to if problems arise laterTo highlight where additional training may be
required by a teacherAs a baseline for tracking progressAny other suggestions?
How can SDQs be used in schools?
• “it gives people a wee bit more insight into this wee one, he could be a wee Einstein but…no social skills” Nursery Head n.9
• “it also highlighted some wee children that maybe we had never actually thought about (in this way) before” Nursery Head n.4
What do preschool staff say about the
SDQ?
• “It definitely makes you think about the pupil. Because although we often have to consider that pupil, their behaviours and so on, not a lot of the time do you actually sit down and think about a pattern you see about things.” [P3 staff]
• “Well, for myself it’s an eye opener, you know, that many children in the survey feel like that... for adults, its enlightening for us, and the children, I think it’s comforting for them to know that.” [P6 staff]
Staff views of the P3/6 Pilot
What have we found out so far?
• 3-8% of children had indications of language difficulties
• 8.8% had likely total difficulties on the SDQ• 13.4% having difficulties with conduct
problems• Substantial overlaps between SDQ subscale
scores• Children with difficulties on the SDQ are about
3x as likely to have language delay than those with no difficulties
• Most children with difficulties on SDQ or language assessments were in the lowest (“core”) category of developmental risk
30 month findings
Total Difficul-ties
Emotional Conduct Hyperactivity Peer relations Pro-social0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
6.4
2.8
4.7
9.2
8.2
11.8
6.2
2.8
4.8
8.8
7.8
11.1
7.2
1.9
6.7
9.2
7.8
12.6
6.5
2.5
7.2
8.8
6.9
11.3
2010201120122013
Preschool “Likely Difficulties” on
subscales by year: 2010 to 2013
Total
Emotional
Conduct
Hyperactivity
Peer Relations
Pro Social
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
3.4
2.5
4.2
4.3
5.1
6.2
9.6
2.5
10.1
13.1
8.6
16.2
BoysGirls
2013: Preschool girls vs. Boys likely difficulties
2010-2012 Preschool results: SDQ scores once level of deprivation etc. Is taken account of.
Red = worse Cream = averageGreen = better
Emotional Conduct Hyperactivity Peer Relations Total Difficulties Pro-social0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
3.7
6.7
15
4.7
8
9.7
5.5
8.1
15.8
4.5
9.38.5
2.6
4.3
10.1
3.9
7.9
12
Glasgow Pilot 2012 Glasgow 2013 UK 5-10yr olds
P3 “Likely Difficulties” on subscales cohort: 2012 pilot; 2013; UK 5-10 yrs
Emotional
Conduct
Hyperactivity
Peer Relations
Total Difficulties
Pro-social
0 5 10 15 20 25
5
5
8.7
3.5
5.9
3.8
6.1
11
22.4
5.4
12.5
12.8
BoysGirls
P3 Pilot results by gender
Preschool 2013 P3 2013 P6 Pilot 20120
5
10
15
20
25
30
Total difficultiesConductHyperactivityEmotionalPeer relationsPro-social
Proportion of boys in Glasgow with likely difficulties by age
Joining up the data:School Inductions 2012
White UK Non-white UK0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
65.5
46
34.5
54
Did not attendAttended
Linking data – Who attends School induction/Triple P
seminars?
Linking data – Who attends School induction/Triple P
seminars?
Emotional Conduct Hyperactivity Peer Relations Pro-social Total Difficulties0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1.3
6.5 6.6
5
8.7
4.5
1.9
5.7
9
7.3
11.3
6.1
AttendedDid Not attend
• The EY establishments, parents and primary staff who took part• John Butcher, Morag Gunion, Amanda Kerr, Dr Michele McClung,
and City of Glasgow Education Services• Prof. Phil Wilson Dr Lucy Thompson, Dr Jane White and Fiona
Sim• Dr Graham Connelly• Kim Jones, Sheena McGowan, Elsa Ekevall & Kelly Chung• Dr Sarah Barry (Robertson Centre for Biostatistics)
Acknowledgements
