This brief report presents an analog test of the relative classification validity of three cutoff values (CVs; 16, 18, and 20) derived from responses to the self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: Total Difficulties Scale. Results from Bayesian t-tests, using several school-specific subjective well-being indicators as dependent variables, yielded evidence suggesting all CV models effectively differentiated between students with lower and higher levels of risk. Evidence also indicated that the lowest CV (16) was more effective than the higher CVs (18, 20) at identifying students with greater levels of risk, and that the higher CVs functioned comparably well. Implications for future research and practice are noted.