Adolescent psychological functioning difficulties questionnaire

Tikslas. Remiantis prielaida, kad paaugliai, prisitaikydami prie vykstančių biologinių, psichologinių ir socialinių pokyčių, kasdienybėje natūraliai susiduria su įvairiais sunkumais, sudarytas Paauglio psichologinio funkcionavimo sunkumų klausimynas. Šiame straipsnyje aprašomi klausimyno sudarymo principai ir pristatomi metodikos faktorių struktūros bei kitų psichometrinių charakteristikų pirminės analizės rezultatai. Metodai. Atlikta metodikos faktorių analizė, skalių patikimumo, konstrukcinio validumo (palyginti su 11-18 m. jaunuolių savęs vertinimo klausimyno įverčiais) bei vertinimo stabilumo (testo-retesto) analizė. Siekiant įvertinti, kiek klausimynas padeda atskleisti skirtumus tarp įvairių grupių, buvo atlikti klausimyno skalių vidurkių palyginimai tarp klinikinės ir lyginamosios mokinių grupių bei pagal lytį ir amžių. Tyrime dalyvavo 2430 paauglių (12-18 m.), iš kurių buvo 1158 berniukai ir 1272 mergaitės. Duomenys rinkti bendrojo lavinimo mokyklose, vaikų globos namuose, sveikatos priežiūros įstaigose. Rezultatai, išvados. Paauglio psichologinio funkcionavimo sunkumų klausimyno vertinimo stabilumo bei konstrukcinio validumo bei skalių patikimumo pirminė analizė leidžia teigti, kad klausimynas gana patikimas, jautrus ir gali būti naudojamas paauglių psichologinio-socialinio funkcionavimo sunkumams įvertinti. Tačiau pirminės analizės rezultatai atskleidė poreikį tikslinti metodikos faktorinę struktūrą.Background. An evaluation of psychological functioning is important reaching for the better understanding of development in adolescence but at the same time problematic task due to the complexity of the phenomenon. Researchers usually apply separate methods to evaluate difficulties in different functioning areas. On the other hand, existing methods, allowing evaluating difficulties in several areas of psychological functioning (e.g. Youth Self-Report , Strengths and difficulties questionnaire) arebased on the psychopathology perspective, thus measure the prevalence of symptoms (Achenbach, Dumenci, 2001; Goodman, 2001; Goodman et al., 2000; Ivanova, Achenbach, Rescorla et al., 2007). The method presented in this article is based on different assumption that in order to reach better understanding of adolescents' life it is important to evaluate difficulties of everyday life referring to difficulties typical for most adolescents but not necessarily demonstrating psychopathology. Purpose. Introduce to the composition of Adolescent Psychological Functioning Difficulties Questionnaire and results of primary psychometric analysis. Methods and materials. In the first phase of questionnaire composition an extended list of common difficulties of adolescents was made referring to the analysis of scientific literature leading to the list of 118 items. In the second phase the list was extensively reviewed (resulting in the list of 58 difficulties) and grouped into five areas. The third phase involved formulation of questionnaire items with dichotomous answers (true/false). In last phase the data presented in the article was collected and analyzed. Psychometric analysis included factor analysis, reliability and validity of the scales, construct validity (comparing with Youth Self-Report questionnaire (Ivarsson, Gillberg, Arvidsson, Broberg, 2002; Žukauskienė, Kajokienė, 2006)) and test-retest analysis. In order to assess questionnaire's sensibility for differences between different respondents' groups the comparison between clinical and control as well as different age and gender groups was executed. Sample consisted of 2430 (1158 male and 1272 female) 12-18 years' adolescents. The data was collected in schools, children foster care homes and health care settings. Results and conclusions. Adolescent Psychological Functioning Difficulties Questionnaire factor analysis confirmed structure of five factors. As a result five scales (emotional difficulties; adjustment at school difficulties; social insensibility; non-adaptive behavior; self-esteem difficulties) were composed. However the percent of total variance explained (29 %) was comparatively low. On the other hand the primary results of test-retest (ranged between 0.58 and 0.78), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranged between 0.63 and 0.85) and construct analysis as well as comparisons between different groups are good. Thus preliminarily it can be concluded that the questionnaire can be viewed as reliable and valid. However the factor structure of the questionnaire requires further examination