Today, the issue of inclusivity is an important matter to be taken into account. A person’s background can define a large variety of social factors, from acceptance in society to personal well-being. It often defines a person’s ability to adapt to the community. Various psychometric assessments are used to achieve proper diversity appreciation by identifying significant problems in diverse surroundings. Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) proves to be one of the most efficient psychometric tools for screening mental health and behavior concerns in diverse communities.
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
SDQ is a tool used as a screening mechanism for mental health that relies on statistical data. It is especially relevant for diverse communities of various ethnicities, identities, and orientations. SDQ results show significant differences across different groups, allowing the researchers to evaluate specific group behaviors and concerns (Yu et al., 2016). The analysis also provides the scale to determine the score from minimally acceptable to satisfactory. However, SDQ lacks absolute psychometric soundness and does not differentiate the type of problem a person faces (Yu et al., 2016). This tool can be used in a school setting, as school students can already analyze their emotional condition and social behavior. Thus, SDQ allows determining and analyzing the people’s experiences in a diverse community to differentiate the general difficulties that the person faces.
Applicability to Diverse Populations
The cultural variations in SDQ contribute to the outcomes of the questionnaire. The SDQ originated in Britain and was tailored for the British population and their idea of mental health (Yu et al., 2016). Thus, using the test in alternative cultures can lead to less reflective results due to cultural specifics. Cultural distinctions appear different not only across nationalities but within one too, depending on the country’s diverse ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic composition. The study reflects how the SDQ was applied in varying sub-populations in the United States and reports having similar interpretations for them (Yu et al., 2016). The linguistic factor also determines the understanding of the questionnaire and the outcomes. The country’s culture defines the appropriate translation of specific concepts in SDQ that may have a different correlation. Even subtle changes significantly affect the interpretation of the question as every ethnic group has unique cultural norms.
The conduct and peer relationship problem scales reflected the most change across various ethnic and language groups. An SDQ showed low consistency in Spanish-speaking males’ conduct scale, which is needed to be taken into account when forming a curriculum with the following group (Yu et al., 2016). On the other hand, the low reliability of the peer relationship problems was identified in Asian-American children (Yu et al., 2016). Thus, administrators need to pay closer attention to race and ethnicity subscales to achieve more productive results.
An SDQ scale also allows the differentiation of gender results to identify the issues specific to one’s gender identity. During the study, no significant sex differences in emotional symptoms were found. However, it was established that males scored significantly higher than females on the total difficulties scale, which is needed to be taken into account in school settings (Yu et al., 2016). Males were generally rated to experience more difficulties in almost all scales of conduct, peer relationship, and hyperactivity-inattention problems. On the other hand, the prosocial scale was the only scale on which females scored significantly higher than male students (Yu et al., 2016). The SDQ tool allows identifying the following issues and decreasing peer pressure and other social factors relevant to all genders.
SDQ Effectiveness
The screening instruments gain popularity lately as they can identify the concerns in a variety of contexts. It allows for quick administration and completion with a questionnaire. The schools with large populations of diverse students appear to effectively implement the screening procedures to alter the policies (Yu et al., 2016). An SDQ proves to be highly effective in diverse communities as it helps identify the groups that struggle and need help. It is free to use and available in over 60 languages, making it essential to tailor the questioner for specific populations (Yu et al., 2016). Screening results facilitate making decisions and creating policies to ensure community inclusivity based on a psychometric tool’s specific data.
The current study supports the screening methodology of SDQ in mental health and cultural diversity. It proves the reliability of the tool used in school settings by teachers without a medical degree and with diverse students. However, the author underlines several issues in the phrasing of the peer relationship problem scale, which could have affected the subjects’ understanding (Yu et al., 2016). Thus, the total difficulties scale can be used with diverse students for mental health screening, while the peer relationship problems scale should be considered with caution (Yu et al., 2016). Overall, the author considers the following screening tool highly beneficial, especially in pinpointing specific problem areas in diverse students but requiring further development.
The various assessment techniques can be applied depending on the specific population of various gender and ethnicity. Each tool needs to be considered through the paradigm of the cultural perspective that determines the question’s interpretation. Careful consideration of underlying psychological and cultural factors allows the researchers to successfully evaluate a particular community’s social structure. Thus, underlining and improving the problem parts can lead to improving social inclusivity in a long-term perspective.
Reference
Yu, J., Sun, S., & Cheah, C. S. L. (2016). Multitrait–multimethod analysis of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in young Asian American children. Assessment, 23(5), 603-613. Web.