Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaires strengths and limitations as an evaluation and practice tool in Social Work
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol30iss2id403Keywords:
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, Social Workers in Schools, Funding AllocationAbstract
INTRODUCTION: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is an internationally recognised psychometric and behavioural screening tool. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) have endorsed the SDQ as the primary behavioural screening and client outcome evaluation tool for the Social Workers in Schools (SWiS) service in 2018. The usefulness of the SDQ in social work practice and in evaluating client outcomes, however, remains unclear. This study explored two years of aggregated Youth Workers in Secondary Schools (YWiSS) SDQ scores to understand what client outcomes could be evidenced. This study further reflects on SDQs as a contractually mandated practice tool and their appropriateness in social work practice.
METHOD: Data were collected from the Family Works Northern (FWN) YWiSS database.Data modelling and analysis tested what aggregated client, parent and teacher SDQ scorescommunicated for changes in clients’ behavioural difficulties at service entry, mid-point and exit.
FINDINGS: Analysis of two years of YWiSS client, parent and teacher SDQ scores aggregated at a service level provided inconsistent evidence of client need and outcomes by SDQ thematic categories. A number of factors, including the SDQ being voluntary, clients exiting service early and the challenge of asking the same teachers and parents to complete an SDQ, meant that there were very few SDQ scores completed by all parties at the service exit point, following a two-year intervention.
CONCLUSION: The findings in this research suggest that the SDQ as a standalone behavioural screening and outcome evaluation tool within social work is limited. Aggregated YWiSS SDQ results provided limited insights about the complexity of client needs or any intervention outcomes to practitioners, social service providers and funders. The use of SDQ in social work requires further scrutiny to test its ability to communicate a client’s level of need and any intervention outcomes to these stakeholders.
References
ANZASW. (2014). ANZASW Social Work Practice Standards: Enhancing Competent Social Work Practice. Retrieved from https://anzasw.nz/wp-content/uploads/Practice-Standard-Publication-Full-Nov-14.pdf
Beddoe, L. (2014). A matter of degrees: The role of education in the professionalisation journey of social work in New Zealand. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 26(2–3), 17–28.
Beddoe, L. (2017). Harmful supervision: A commentary. The Clinical Supervisor, 36(1), 88–101.
Black, S., Pulford, J., Christie, G., & Wheeler, A. (2010). Differences in New Zealand secondary school students’ reported strengths and difficulties. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 19–23.
Bruns, E. J., Walker, J. S., Bernstein, A., Daleiden, E., Pullmann, M. D., & Chorpita, B. F. (2014). Family voice with informed choice: Coordinating wraparound with research-based treatment for children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 43(2), 256–269.
Bruce, M. (2014). The voice of the child in child protection: whose voice? Social Sciences, 3(3), 514–526.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2016). Building community economies: Women and the politics of place. In W. Harcourt (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of gender and development (pp. 287–311). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Harrison, J., Van Deusen, K., & Way, I. (2016). Embedding social justice within micro social work curricula. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 86(3), 258–273.
Hunt, S. (2017). The social work regulation project in Aotearoa New Zealand. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 29(1), 53–64.
Kersten, P., Czuba, K., McPherson, K., Dudley, M., Elder, H., Tauroa, R., & Vandal, A. (2016). A systematic review of evidence for the psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(1), 64–75.
Kersten, P., Dudley, M., Nayar, S., Elder, H., Robertson, H., Tauroa, R., & McPherson, K. M. (2016). Cross-cultural acceptability and utility of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: views of families. BMC Psychiatry, 16(1), 1–9.
Kersten, P., Vandal, A., McPerson, K., Elder, H., Nayar, S., & Dudley, M. (2014). A validation for norming study of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in the New Zealand context (AUT University Centre for Person Centred Research). Auckland, New Zealand: AUT.
Kirby, P., Lanyon, C., Cronin, K., & Sinclair, R. (2003). Building a culture of participation: Involving children and young people in policy, service planning, delivery and evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.gyerekesely.hu/
childpoverty/docs/involving_children_report.pdf
Lim, L., Hart, H., Mehta, M. A., Simmons, A., Mirza, K., & Rubia, K. (2015). Neural correlates of error processing in young people with a history of severe childhood abuse: An fMRI study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 172(9), 892–900.
Ministry of Social Development. (2018). Social workers in schools: Service specifications (including group programmes). Retrieved from https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/service-guidelines/social-workers-in-schools-service-specification-f18.docx.pdf
O'Neill, J. (2014). Voice and the ethics of children’s agency in educational research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 49(2), 219–232.
Oranga Tamariki Practice Centre. (2017). Practice tools overview. Retrieved from https://practice.mvcot.govt.nz/documents/policy/assessment-and-decision-making/practice-tools-overview.pdf
Sargisson, R. J., Stanley, P. G., & Hayward, A. (2016). Multi-informant scores and gender differences on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire for New Zealand children. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 45(2), 4–28.
St Lukes Innovation Resources. (2018). Strengths cards and the bear cards. Retrieved from https://innovativeresources.org/social-workers/
Thomson, J., Seers, K., Frampton, C., Hider, P., & Moor, S. (2016). Sequential population study of the impact of earthquakes on the emotional and behavioural well‐being of 4‐year‐olds in Canterbury, New Zealand. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 52(1), 18–24.
Tisdall, E. K. M. (2012). The challenge and challenging of childhood studies? Learning from disability studies and research with disabled children. Children & Society, 26(3), 181–191.
Toseeb, U., Pickles, A., Durkin, K., Botting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2017). Prosociality from early adolescence to young adulthood: A longitudinal study of individuals with a history of language impairment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 62, 148–159.
Vostanis, P. (2006). Strengths and difficulties questionnaire: Research and clinical applications. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 19(4), 367–372.
Weller, J. A., Moholy, M., Bossard, E., & Levin, I. P. (2015). Preadolescent decision‐making competence predicts interpersonal strengths and difficulties: A 2‐year prospective study. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 28(1), 76–88.
Wilson, P. (2017). Big book of blob trees. London, UK: Routledge.
Wylie, C., & Felgate, R. (2016). “I enjoy school now”: Outcomes from check and connect trials in New Zealand (New Zealand Council for Educational Research). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Youth in Mind. (2017). Uses of SDQ. Retrieved from http://www.cite.auckland.ac.nz/2_1_5.html
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.
You and any co-authors
If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.
First publication
By submitting the work you are:
- granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
- confirming that the work is original; and
- confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.
Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
Copyright
You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.
The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.
A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.
Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.
This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.
Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.
The copyright of others
If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:
- falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
- that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.
