SDQ Questionnaire: A Teacher’s Guide to Strengths and Difficulties

If you work in a UK school, you will almost certainly encounter the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at some point. Developed by Professor Robert Goodman at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, the SDQ has become one of the most widely used mental health screening tools in education worldwide. The official SDQ guidance describes teacher, parent and self-report versions for researchers, clinicians and educators, while clinical or statutory decisions still need the appropriate professional assessment route.

What makes the SDQ particularly useful for teachers is its brevity and accessibility. Unlike thorough assessment batteries such as the Boxall Profile, which requires detailed observation across 34 strands, the SDQ can be completed in as little as five minutes. This makes it an ideal first-step screening tool - a way to identify which learners may need further assessment without consuming hours of teacher time.

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) helps teachers and SENCOs notice patterns in emotional symptoms, conduct, hyperactivity, peer relationships and prosocial behaviour. Use it as structured screening evidence: administer the right version, interpret scores against the scoring guidance and then plan support alongside observation, family context and professional advice (Goodman, 1997; Goodman, 2001).

What Is the SDQ?

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire is a brief behavioural screening questionnaire designed for children and young people aged 2 to 17. It consists of 25 items divided into five scales of five items each. Each item is a statement about the child's behaviour. For example, "Considerate of other people's feelings" or "Often has temper tantrums". Items are rated on three points: Not True, Somewhat True, or Certainly True.

The five scales are:

1. Emotional Symptoms Scale - measures anxiety, worry, unhappiness, somatic complaints, and fearfulness
2. Conduct Problems Scale - measures oppositional behaviour, aggression, rule-breaking, and temper
3. Hyperactivity/Inattention Scale - measures restlessness, fidgeting, distractibility, and impulsivity
4. Peer Relationship Problems Scale - measures social isolation, being bullied, and difficulty making friends
5. Prosocial Behaviour Scale - measures kindness, helpfulness, sharing, and consideration for others

The first four scales combine to produce a Total Difficulties score (range 0-40). The prosocial scale is scored separately because the absence of prosocial behaviour is conceptually different from the presence of difficulties. A child can have both high difficulties and high prosocial behaviour, or low scores on both.

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) has an impact section. This asks if learners struggle with emotions, focus, behaviour, or relationships. If yes, questions follow about duration, distress, and social impact (Goodman, 1997). These questions also assess burden on teachers or family (Goodman, 1997).

‍

The Three SDQ Versions and When to Use Each

The SDQ comes in three informant versions, and using multiple versions together provides the most reliable picture of a child's needs.

‍

Teacher Version (SDQ-T)

Teachers or TAs who know the learner best complete it. This shows behaviour in classrooms: how the learner handles rules, works with others, and manages schoolwork. The teacher SDQ highlights hyperactivity or inattention, as these show clearly in class. Research shows good reliability (0.73) and validity in spotting later neurodevelopmental issues.

‍

Parent Version (SDQ-P)

Parents or carers complete this form, showing behaviour at home and in the community. Their view may differ from the school view because demands, routines and relationships are different at home. Treat that difference as useful evidence to explore rather than as proof that one informant is wrong, especially for learners who mask distress or social difficulty during the school day.

‍

Self-Report Version (SDQ-S)

For young people aged 11-17. This version asks the same questions but in first person ("I worry a lot" rather than "Often worried"). The self-report version is the only way to capture internal experiences that adults cannot see. This is particularly important for emotional difficulties and internalising problems such as anxiety and low mood.

Use more than one informant version when the question needs a fuller assessment picture. Teacher, parent or carer, and self-report forms can show whether difficulties are consistent across settings or linked to particular demands. Agreement can increase confidence; disagreement is still useful because it tells the SENCO what to investigate next (Goodman et al., 1998; Goodman et al., 2000).

‍

How to Score the SDQ

Scoring the SDQ is straightforward, though some items require reverse scoring. Each item scores 0, 1, or 2. For most items, "Not True" scores 0, "Somewhat True" scores 1, and "Certainly True" scores 2. However, five items are positively worded, for example "Has at least one good friend". These are reverse scored: "Certainly True" = 0, "Somewhat True" = 1, "Not True" = 2.

Each of the five scales produces a score from 0 to 10. The Total Difficulties score is the sum of the first four scales (excluding prosocial), giving a range of 0 to 40.

The scoring bands for the teacher-rated SDQ are:

Scale	Close to Average	Slightly Raised	High	Very High
Total Difficulties	0-11	12-15	16-18	19-40
Emotional Symptoms	0-3	4	5-6	7-10
Conduct Problems	0-2	3	4-5	6-10
Hyperactivity/Inattention	0-5	6	7-8	9-10
Peer Problems	0-2	3	4-5	6-10
Prosocial Behaviour	6-10	5	3-4	0-2

Important: These banding thresholds differ between teacher-rated, parent-rated, and self-report versions. Always use the correct norms for the version you have administered. The sdqinfo.org website provides the full scoring instructions for each version.

‍

Interpreting SDQ Results in the Classroom

Raw scores tell you the severity of difficulties. But effective interpretation requires looking at the pattern across scales, not just the total.

‍

Profile Patterns to Watch For

Learners with high emotional scores and low conduct scores may be internalising distress. They might be anxious, withdrawn or avoiding attention, so they are sometimes missed because they do not disrupt lessons. Use check-ins, pastoral routes, family discussion and emotional-literacy support where appropriate, while remembering that the SDQ does not diagnose anxiety or depression.

High hyperactivity and conduct scores can point towards attention, impulse-control or externalising needs, but they should not be treated as an ADHD diagnosis. Use the SDQ as initial evidence, then follow the school's SEND, pastoral and referral pathways if ADHD or another neurodevelopmental need is suspected.

Learners scoring highly across several SDQ scales may need more than one classroom adjustment. Use the profile to decide what to explore next: behaviour function, attendance, anxiety, peer context, communication, trauma history or possible unmet SEND. Treat the SDQ as a prompt for coordinated assessment, not as an explanation on its own.

Learners struggling with peer relationships and prosocial items may need support with communication, friendship, social anxiety, bullying, sensory load or classroom routines. Do not use the SDQ as an autism, PDA or attachment screen. If scores raise a concern, triangulate with observation, family discussion, learner voice and the appropriate SEND or clinical route.

Low prosocial scores should be interpreted cautiously. They may reflect communication differences, language barriers, anxiety, peer context, sensory load, cultural expectations or limited opportunity to show helping behaviour. Do not infer a lack of empathy or caring from this subscale alone; triangulate with learner voice, family context and observation.

‍

The Impact Supplement Matters

Some learners may have elevated SDQ scores while still appearing to cope in class. The impact supplement helps show whether difficulties are affecting everyday life. High scores with low impact may need monitoring; lower scores with clear distress or impairment may still need timely support (Goodman, 1999).

‍

Using the SDQ Within the SEND Framework

The SDQ can contribute to England's graduated approach by providing structured screening evidence. It does not replace assess-plan-do-review: use scores alongside observation, family discussion, learner voice and professional advice to decide what to assess, plan, do and review next.

‍

At the Assess Stage

Use the SDQ as part of your initial screening when you first have concerns about a learner's social, emotional and mental health. The multi-informant approach is particularly powerful here: ask the class teacher, the parent, and (if the child is 11+) the young person to complete their respective versions. You now have three perspectives on the same child, which gives the SENCO a much stronger evidence base than a single observation or teacher report.

‍

At the Plan Stage

SDQ subscale scores help you target support. Learners with high emotional scores need different help than those with conduct issues. Use the profile for interventions. For example, ELSA sessions support emotional needs. Functional analysis can create Behaviour Intervention Plans (BIP) for conduct (Goodman, 1997).

‍

At the Review Stage

Use the SDQ after a term to track progress. A drop from 22 to 14 may indicate improvement, but it does not prove that one intervention caused the change. Triangulate SDQ scores with observations, attendance, learner voice, family feedback and review notes before using the data in reports or funding applications.

‍

SDQ and Other Assessment Tools: How They Fit Together

The SDQ does not exist in isolation. Think of it as the first layer in an assessment toolkit, with more detailed tools used when the SDQ flags specific concerns.

SDQ Finding	Next Assessment	Purpose
High Total Difficulties	Boxall Profile	Detailed social-emotional developmental profile
High hyperactivity/inattention	Conners Rating Scale	Detailed ADHD symptom profiling
High emotional symptoms	EBSA Screening	Check for emotionally based school avoidance
High peer problems + low prosocial	Autism screening tools	Social communication assessment
Broad concerns across scales	B Squared	Curriculum-linked progress tracking for SEN
Learning and attention concerns	STAR Assessments	Academic screening alongside behavioural data

The key principle is to use the SDQ as a broadband screener and then follow up with narrowband tools that provide depth in specific areas. This approach is more efficient than administering thorough assessments to every child who causes concern.

‍

Whole-School SDQ Screening: Benefits and Practicalities

Where schools use the SDQ for cohort or whole-school screening, treat it as a structured wellbeing snapshot rather than a standalone decision tool. Aggregated scores can help SENCOs and pastoral teams notice patterns, but individual support decisions still need consent where required, safeguarding judgement, family context and follow-up assessment.

‍

Benefits of Universal Screening

1. Catches the quiet ones: Universal screening identifies internalising children who would never be referred through behaviour-driven systems
2. Establishes baselines: Year group data allows you to track cohort-level mental health trends over time
3. Targets resources: Data-driven identification ensures SEND provision reaches those who need it most
4. Supports transition: SDQ data collected in Year 6 provides receiving secondary schools with meaningful information about incoming learners
5. Evidences need: Aggregated SDQ data can support bids for wellbeing funding and justify staffing decisions

‍

Practical Considerations

Timing: Screen in the second half of the autumn term, once teachers have had 6-8 weeks to get to know their classes. Avoid screening immediately before or after holidays, SATs, or other high-stress periods.

Who completes it: The adult who knows the child best should complete the teacher version. This is usually the class teacher in primary and the form tutor in secondary. Teaching assistants who work closely with a child can also be informants.

Data management: SDQ data is sensitive personal data under GDPR. It should be stored securely and shared on a need-to-know basis. Keep it according to your school's data retention policy. Many schools use CPOMS or similar SEND administration systems to record and track SDQ scores.

Staff time: At roughly five minutes per child, a class teacher can screen 30 learners in approximately 2.5 hours. Build this into directed time or provide cover to protect staff from additional workload pressure. Use the SENCO annual calendar to plan screening windows that do not clash with other assessment demands.

‍

Common Mistakes When Using the SDQ

The SDQ is simple to administer, but interpretation requires care. These are the most common errors we see in schools:

1. Using the SDQ as a diagnostic tool. The SDQ is a screening tool, not a diagnostic instrument. It identifies children who may need further assessment. A high SDQ score does not mean a child has a disorder - it means they are showing elevated levels of difficulty that warrant investigation.

Do not stop at the first 25 items when the impact supplement is available. The impact questions record distress, duration, social impairment and burden, which helps separate elevated scores that need monitoring from difficulties that are affecting everyday life (Goodman, 1999).

3. Relying on a single informant. Teacher and parent scores often differ, and this disagreement is informative. A child scoring high on the teacher version but low on the parent version may be struggling specifically with the demands of the classroom environment.

4. Comparing scores across informant versions. The scoring bands are different for teacher, parent, and self-report versions. A teacher Total Difficulties score of 15 falls in the "slightly raised" band, while the same score on the parent version falls in the "close to average" band. Always check you are using the correct norms.

5. Over-interpreting small changes. A small reduction in Total Difficulties could reflect genuine improvement, but it could also be measurement noise, a change in informant or a different classroom context. Look for a meaningful pattern across scores, observations and review notes before concluding that change has occurred.

Cultural and language context can shape how SDQ items are understood. Use authorised translated versions where appropriate and discuss answers when a learner or family may interpret an item differently. Never alter SDQ wording yourself, because the questionnaire's comparability depends on using the authorised versions.

‍

The SDQ for Specific Learner Groups

‍

Learners with ADHD

The SDQ hyperactivity scale can contribute to initial evidence when attention or activity level is a concern, but it is less detailed than a specialist ADHD assessment route. Use it to structure the concern, not to confirm ADHD. If scores and observations point to ADHD, follow the school's SEND process and local referral guidance.

‍

Autistic Learners

The SDQ is not an autism screening tool. Autistic learners may score differently on peer relationships or prosocial items because the questionnaire reflects conventional social expectations. Interpret these scores cautiously and use autism-specific assessment routes when autism is the concern.

‍

Looked After Children

For looked-after children in England, statutory and data-collection guidance expects local authorities to ensure an SDQ is completed for applicable children and used as part of the statutory health assessment record. For this group, the SDQ serves a dual purpose: identifying individual support needs and contributing to the wider record of emotional and behavioural health. The score should still be interpreted with care, especially when a learner has a complex care, trauma or SEND history.

‍

Young People with EBSA

The SDQ emotional symptoms scale gives baseline data on learner anxiety and mood. But the SDQ doesn't capture school avoidance complexity. Combine it with an EBSA screening tool. Analyse attendance patterns, triggers, and maintaining factors as well (Goodman, 1997).

‍

Accessing and Administering the SDQ

The SDQ is freely available for non-commercial use (which includes schools, NHS, and local authority use) from the official website at sdqinfo.org. The site provides:

• Downloadable PDF versions of all three informant versions (teacher, parent, self-report)
• Versions for different age groups (2-4, 4-17, and 11-17 for self-report)
• Translations in over 80 languages
• Scoring instructions and normative data
• The impact supplement
• A follow-up version for measuring change over time

The SDQ is designed to be brief and accessible, but accurate scoring still matters. Use the official scoring instructions or authorised scoring tools, check that you are using the correct version and norms, and keep a record of who completed each form and when. Training is helpful where schools are using SDQ data in SEND reviews, PEP meetings or multi-agency discussions.

For digital administration, several platforms integrate the SDQ into their assessment workflows. This makes it easier to score, store, and track results over time without manual calculation. If you are using B Squared or similar SEND tracking software, check whether SDQ integration is available.

‍

Linking SDQ Data to Classroom Practice

SDQ results are only useful if they inform what happens in the classroom. Here is how to translate scores into practical adjustments:

Learners with high emotional symptoms need more frequent check-ins. Provide a quiet area so learners can self-regulate emotions. Teach them methods for managing anxiety. Check if a Zones of Regulation intervention is required and watch for school avoidance.

Functional analysis can help when conduct scores are high, but avoid guessing the cause from the SDQ alone. Check whether the behaviour is linked to task difficulty, communication, attention, sensory demands, peer conflict or avoidance, then test positive support strategies with observation data.

Learners with high hyperactivity scores may benefit from shorter waits, clear instructions, planned movement, reduced verbal load and explicit routines. Choose supports from observed need and review whether they improve participation; do not treat the SDQ score itself as an ADHD intervention plan.

Learners with high peer-problem scores may need safer social routines, adult noticing, anti-bullying action, communication support or planned opportunities to work with supportive peers. Check whether the issue is friendship, anxiety, language, sensory load, bullying or curriculum access before choosing an intervention.

Model prosocial behaviour and teach it directly, but keep the interpretation broad. A low prosocial score may reflect language, confidence, anxiety, cultural expectations or neurodivergent communication as well as skill gaps. Review communication needs before assuming the learner lacks motivation to cooperate.

‍

Research Evidence Behind the SDQ

The SDQ is one of the most extensively researched child mental health measures in existence. Key findings from the evidence base include:

1. Validity: the five-factor structure and screening value of the SDQ are supported in the core psychometric literature (Goodman, 2001; Stone et al., 2010).
2. Reliability: reliability varies by scale and informant, so the Total Difficulties score is usually more stable than a single subscale.
3. Screening performance: multi-informant SDQs can show good specificity and moderate sensitivity, but a high score indicates risk, not diagnosis.
4. Predictive validity: high SDQ scores can predict later mental-health service use and psychosocial difficulties at population level (Goodman & Goodman, 2009).
5. Use across settings: the SDQ has been used widely across countries and languages, but score interpretation still needs age, language, culture and context.
6. Outcome monitoring: follow-up SDQs can help track change, but they do not prove that a single classroom intervention caused the change.

The evidence base supports the SDQ as a strong, valid, and reliable screening tool. However, no screening tool is perfect. The SDQ has modest sensitivity (around 70%), which means approximately 30% of children with genuine difficulties will score in the normal range. This is why the SDQ should always be used alongside professional judgement, not as a replacement for it.

‍

Frequently Asked Questions About the SDQ

Is the SDQ free? Yes, for non-commercial use. Schools, the NHS, and local authorities can download and use it without charge. Commercial organisations (such as software companies wishing to embed the SDQ in their products) need a licence.

How often should I re-administer the SDQ? Once per term is reasonable for children on a graduated response plan. For whole-school screening, annually is sufficient. Avoid re-administering more frequently than every 4-6 weeks, as the scores may reflect transient mood rather than stable patterns.

Can I use the SDQ for children under 2? No. The SDQ is validated for ages 2-17 only. For children under 2, consider the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) instead.

What if teacher and parent scores disagree? This is common and informative. Explore why the scores differ - is the child's behaviour context-specific? Are there environmental factors (such as classroom demands or family stress) that explain the discrepancy? Both perspectives are valid data points.

Can you use the SDQ for EHCP evidence? It can form one piece of evidence about social, emotional or mental-health needs, but it should not stand alone. Combine it with provision maps, observations, attendance, learner and family voice, professional advice and review evidence showing the impact of support over time.

Is the SDQ suitable for autistic learners? The SDQ can be used with autistic learners, but interpret prosocial and peer relationship scores with caution. These scales reflect neurotypical social norms and may not accurately capture an autistic child's social competence.

‍

‍

Further Reading

• Strengths & Difficulties Questionnaire View official SDQ guidance
  Youthinmind. Use this for the SDQ versions, impact supplement, follow-up questions, scoring tools and appropriate uses by researchers, clinicians and educators.
• The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note View PubMed record
  Goodman, R. (1997). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(5), 581-586. This is the foundational SDQ paper.
• Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire View PubMed record
  Goodman, R. (2001). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(11), 1337-1345. Use this for validity, reliability and screening performance, not as a diagnosis claim.
• The extended version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as a guide to child psychiatric caseness and consequent burden View PubMed record
  Goodman, R. (1999). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(5), 791-799. Supports careful use of the impact supplement.
• Predicting type of psychiatric disorder from SDQ scores in London and Dhaka clinics View PubMed record
  Goodman, R., Renfrew, D. and Mullick, M. (2000). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 9(2), 129-134. Useful for multi-informant screening, while still keeping diagnosis separate.
• The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of the self-report version View PubMed record
  Goodman, R., Meltzer, H. and Bailey, V. (1998). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 7(3), 125-130. Supports cautious use of adolescent self-report versions.
• Psychometric properties of the parent and teacher versions of the SDQ for 4- to 12-year-olds View Springer article
  Stone, L. L. et al. (2010). Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13, 254-274. This review supports multi-informant practice and highlights psychometric limits.
• Promoting the health and wellbeing of looked-after children View GOV.UK statutory guidance
  Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care. Use this for looked-after children policy context and statutory health assessment responsibilities in England.
• Children looked after by local authorities: SSDA903 collection guide 2025 to 2026 View DfE collection guide
  Department for Education. This is the current collection guidance for SDQ score returns for looked-after children aged 4 to 16.
• The British child and adolescent mental health survey 1999 View university record
  Ford, T., Goodman, R. and Meltzer, H. (2003). Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(10), 1203-1211. Use this for population-level UK child mental health prevalence, not individual diagnosis.