Primer acercamiento a una catalogación de vestuario

The same SDQ measure was also completed by the teachers of the five-year-olds during the follow-up school phase. Some descriptive statistics for the teacher reports are presented in Table 4.2. They appear to show the same general trends as the parental reports, albeit with slightly lower total difficulties and pro-social scores; similar findings were reported in the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (Davis et al., 2010). The teachers also seem to have been more likely to give children a score of 0 on the individual subscales, effectively meaning they reported no issues in that area.

It may be that teachers, with more children to compare the Study Child to, give more favourable ratings to individuals than parents. However, it may also be that (a) children had matured somewhat in the months between the home and school phases, (b) that some are better behaved in the classroom environment than at home, or (c) parents have the opportunity to observe the Study Child in a wider variety of situations.

Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics for teacher-reported SDQ scales at 5 years

SDQ Scale Mean (SD) – 5 years Achieved min and max % scoring 0 on each difficulties subscale

Emotional symptoms 1.3 (1.9) 0-10 50%

Conduct problems 0.8 (1.4) 0-10 66%

Hyperactivity 3.1 (2.9) 0-10 24%

Peer problems 1.0 (1.5) 0-10 56%

Total Difficulty Score 6.2 (5.4) 0-34

Pro-social 7.8 (2.2) 0-10

Non-manual / Skilled Manual Professional /

Managerial Unskilled Semi- / Never Worked One parent, one child two+ children One parent, Two parents, one child two+ children Two parents,

% of 5-year-olds 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 8% 12% 15% 22% 21% 20% 12% 10%

74

Table 4.3 shows the relationship between being in the ‘at risk’ group according to the parent-reported SDQ and the teacher-reported SDQ.29 _{If an ‘at risk’ SDQ score based on the top decile of the teacher-reported} SDQ score is calculated and compared with the ‘at risk’ score from the parent report, over one-third of children who were in the ‘at risk’ group according to the parental report were also in the ‘at risk group’ according to the reports from their teachers (see Table 4.3) and two-thirds were not in the ‘at risk’ group. In contrast, only 8% of children not ‘at risk’ according to the parental reports had a teacher SDQ score in the ‘at risk’ range. This means that, overall, 4% of children at five years scored in the ‘at risk’ range on both the parent and teacher report.

Table 4.3: Comparison of children receiving an SDQ score in the ‘at risk’ range from both parent and teacher

Teacher report

Not ‘at risk’ ‘At risk’ Total

Parent report

Not ‘at risk’ (by teacher report) 92% 8% 100%

‘At risk’ (by teacher report) 66% 34% 100%

As percentage of total

Parent report ‘Not at risk’ 82% 7% 89%

Parent report ‘At risk’ 8% 4% 11%

Figure 4.2 shows that similar socio-demographic patterns and trends are observed when using the teacher- reported SDQ as were illustrated in Figure 4.1 for parent reports. Children from households where there is no parent with an employment history (i.e. the ‘never employed’ social class group) were most likely to be rated in the top decile on the teacher-reported SDQ ‘total difficulties scale’, with a similar contrast for one-parent versus two-parent families. Likewise, teacher-reported scores also indicate an increased risk for boys (14% to 7%), children born at low birthweight (17% to 10%) and urban children (13% versus 10% for children in rural areas).

Figure 4.2: Percentage of children in the top decile on the ‘total difficulties’ scale (teacher report SDQ) at 5 years by household social class and family type

29 _{The ‘at risk’ range is the top decile on the ‘total difficulties’ score. For the teacher reports, the threshold is also 14 but represents} 10.8% in the top ‘decile’.

Non-manual / Skilled Manual Professional /

Managerial Unskilled Semi- / Never Worked One parent, one child two+ children One parent, Two parents, one child two+ children Two parents,

% of 5-year-olds 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Social Class Family Type

8% 10% 12% 20% 18% 17% 12% 8%

75

4.2.3 LONgITUDINAL TRENDS

From age 3 years

As noted above, parents also completed the SDQ in respect of the Study Child when he/she was aged three years, allowing a comparison over time. Figure 4.3 compares the same children on whether they were at risk of socio-emotional and behavioural problems (as measured by being in the top 10% on the ‘total difficulties’ scale) at the two waves.

Expressed as percentages of the overall sample, this chart shows that 81% of children avoided the ‘at risk’ range at both time points and only 5% were at risk of socio-emotional and behavioural problems on both occasions. Whilst 6.5% became at risk between Waves 2 and 3, 7.5% moved in the opposing direction. Expressed as a percentage of those who were at risk of socio-emotional or behavioural problems at age three, about 40% were also at risk at age five, compared to just 7% of those who had not been at risk at age three. The corollary of this, of course, is that of those who had been at risk of socio-emotional or behavioural problems at age three, most (60%) were no longer at risk by age five. This indicates that, although there is some persistence over time of the chance of having socio-emotional or behavioural problems, there is also quite a bit of improvement.

Figure 4.3: Proportion of children in the top decile (‘at risk’) on the SDQ ‘total difficulties’ scale at ages 3 and 5 years

From infancy

When the Study Children were nine months old, their parents completed a measure called the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) about their developmental progress. The ASQ included a scale reflecting ‘personal-social’ abilities and comprised items such as whether the infant had the ability to conduct basic self-care tasks such as feeding themselves a biscuit, as well as their engagement with personal interactions. By five years of age, it appears that those children who had performed poorly in the personal-social subscale at nine months were more likely to have a later SDQ in the top decile, indicating an increased risk of socio- emotional and behavioural problems. These differences were statistically significant, but smaller than the differences by family type or between the most and least advantaged social classes.

In the top decile at age 5 In the top decile at age 3 Always in the top decile Never in the top decile

81% 5%

7.5% 6.5%

76

As shown in Figure 4.4, 14% of infants who scored below the age-specific threshold suggested by the scale developers on the ASQ personal-social scale were in the top decile on the SDQ ‘total difficulties’ scale (based on parent report) by age five years, compared to 11% of those who had scored above the threshold at nine months. Of particular interest is that the same trend, with a somewhat wider gap, was also observed for the teacher-reported SDQ (14% in the top decile versus 9% on the infant measure). Note that the nine-month measure was not one of ‘problem behaviour’ as such. As noted above, it reflects their progress in self-care and personal interactions. However, it does indicate that, for some children, difficulties with socio-emotional development present earlier than others (or that they make slower progress than other children). A small number of children, just over 1%, who scored below the threshold on the ASQ personal- social scale at nine months were also in the top decile on the SDQ ‘total difficulties’ scale at both three years and five years (i.e. at all three waves).

Figure 4.4: Percentage of children in the top decile on the SDQ ‘total difficulties’ scale at 5 years according to score on the ASQ personal-social measure at 9 months