Cross-Informant Agreement Patterns and Behavioral Profiles in Post-Institutionalized Youth: A Latent Profile Analysis of Parent and Teacher Ratings in Azerbaijan

This study asks whether the pattern of agreement between parents and teachers on behavioral ratings can identify meaningful subgroups of post-institutionalized children, and whether those subgroups predict how children are doing across a range of outcomes. The sample was 435 children aged 7 to 12 who had been reunified with families in Azerbaijan after a period in institutional care. Using latent profile analysis on parent and teacher Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) total scores, I found that a two-class solution best fit the data. Children in the first class, roughly 43%, had elevated ratings from both parents and teachers. Children in the second class, roughly 57%, had moderate parent ratings and low teacher ratings. The two groups differed substantially on every child selfreport outcome examined, including depression (d = 0.42), self-concept (d = −0.29), PTSD symptoms (d = 0.26), social support (d = −0.37), and academic performance (d = −0.71), with the largest gap appearing in academic performance. All five differences held up after correction for multiple comparisons. A supplementary three-class model identified a subgroup whose parents reported high problems but whose teachers did not. These children looked emotionally similar to the both-high group on depression, self-concept, and PTSD, but their academic functioning sat between the two concordant classes. This pattern suggests that parent-only elevations on the SDQ are picking up real distress that is present at home but not visible at school. Profile membership showed low stability over one year (Cohen's κ = 0.26), with approximately one in six children improving and one in five worsening. The three components of the parent factorial trial, Mental Health Services, Family Strengthening, and Economic Support, produced no detectable effects on profile transitions or on any continuous outcome after multiple testing correction. The main practical takeaway is that averaging informant reports, or relying on just one, would miss a group of children who are genuinely struggling.