Trait and Ability Emotional Intelligence in Children With ADHD

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine trait and ability emotional intelligence (EI) in children with ADHD. Method: Forty-one children with ADHD (9-11 years) completed two measures of EI—the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version–short form (EQi:YV-Brief) and the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Youth Research Version (MSCEIT-YRV). Results: Children with ADHD did not differ on total EI scores from the normative data on either the ability or trait EI measures. However, they scored above the group norms on the MSCEIT-YRV subscale of Managing Emotions and lower on Understanding Emotions. On the EQi:YV-Brief, children with ADHD reported significantly lower Interpersonal and Adaptability EI. Conclusion: Children with ADHD are relatively similar to children without ADHD when examining EI scores. However, there is some variability in the EI measures which should be considered when creating intervention programs.

Keywords

ADHD trait emotional intelligence ability emotional intelligence children

Children with ADHD are defined by a pattern of symptoms or behaviors that includes inattention, over activity, and impulsivity. These behaviors also carry into their often spontaneous and sometimes inappropriate interactions with their peers. Indeed, social difficulties are one of the hallmarks of ADHD, frequently resulting in these children experiencing rejection or failure to make or maintain age-appropriate friendships (Barkley, 2014). However, Barkley (1997) also describes ADHD as a disorder of performance in which individuals with ADHD have the prior knowledge necessary to understand how they should act but struggle with the application of this knowledge. Specifically, he notes that, “The problem, then, for those with ADHD is not one of knowing what to do, but of doing what they know when it would be most adaptive to do so” (Barkley, 1997, p. 244, emphasis in original). Consequently, the problematic behaviors associated with poor application of knowledge may result in impairment across a number of domains, including, but not limited to social or emotional situations (Barkley, 2014).

The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the emotional intelligence (EI) skills of children with ADHD, given the little available published research. In addition, this study is one of the first to utilize a newer child-appropriate version of an ability-based EI measure with a clinical population. Information regarding the EI strengths and limitations of school-aged of children with ADHD may help to guide intervention practices, particularly those related to emotional regulation and control such as social skills training activities.

EI

Salovey and Mayer’s (1990) first paper outlined the construct known as EI and identified it as the “ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (p. 189). It has been further conceptualized as the ability to recognize and understand emotional meanings, identify, reason, and problem-solve using these emotions (Goleman, 2006).

Theoretical Underpinnings

Following from these initial descriptions of EI, two distinct models of EI have been proposed: the ability-based EI model and the trait EI model (Petrides & Furnham, 2000; Petrides, Siegling, & Saklofske, 2016). These models define and examine EI from differing perspectives and provide contrasting insight into the abilities defined by this construct. In a sense, these models look at the “knowing” versus “doing” when it comes to behavior. Ability models focus on what the individual knows to do in a specific situation, regardless of what action is taken (i.e., cognitive-emotional capacity). As such, ability EI is assessed with performance measures and is more related to cognitive factors such as general intelligence than trait EI. In contrast, trait theorists focus on what individuals would actually do or self-report they would do in a situation and whether they would use their knowledge in everyday social situations (i.e., emotional self-efficacy; Freeland, Terry, & Rodgers, 2008).

Ability-based EI

The ability-based EI model (e.g., Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) identifies EI as the ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions, and regulate emotions to promote personal growth (Salovey & Grewal, 2005; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Emotions are seen as useful sources of information that help one to make sense of and navigate, as well as interact appropriately in, the social environment.

Ability EI includes two area scores, Experiential EI quotient (EIQ) and Strategic EIQ, and four types of emotional ability, or “branches,” which are linked together in hierarchical order beginning with basic psychological processes and moving toward more complex processes that integrate both emotion and cognition (Mayer et al., 2002; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Experiential EIQ describes the way in which one experiences emotions and contrasts them to other sensations (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2014) and includes perceiving emotions and facilitating thoughts. Strategic EIQ explores the way in which emotional information is understood and how one manages emotions and includes the understanding and managing emotions branches.

Perceiving emotions focuses on the ability to detect and decipher emotions in faces, pictures, and voices, including identifying one’s own emotions. It is the most basic aspect of EI development as it makes all other processing of emotional information possible. Facilitating emotions helps individuals to harness emotions to perform various cognitive activities (e.g., thinking or problem solving) and helps to determine and reflect upon important information as well as to assist in the consideration of others’ perspectives. Understanding emotions focuses on the ability to comprehend the “language” of emotion, identify and organize emotions, and appreciate more complex relationships among emotions (e.g., the ability to be sensitive to slight variations between emotions). Managing emotions, or the ability to regulate emotions in both ourselves and others, is the ability to harness emotions and use them to achieve intended goals.

Trait-based EI

In contrast to the ability-based approach to EI, Bar-On (1997) proposed a trait-based approach to defining and assessing EI in which EI is described as “an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (p. 14). Bar-On (1997, 2006) developed the first measure of EI that used the term “Emotional Quotient” (EQ). EI from this perspective is defined as effectively understanding oneself and others (intrapersonal skills), relating well to people (interpersonal skills), and adapting to and coping with immediate surroundings (stress management and adaptability) to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands. Bar-On posits that EI develops over time and can be improved through training and intervention.

Measuring EI in Children

Different models of EI have led to the development of various instruments for the assessment of EI. The measurement of EI abilities in children, however, is more challenging. As with any measure of children’s abilities, developmental differences must be taken into consideration when creating or utilizing a children’s assessment measure or when modifying an existing adult measure to be suitable for children.

Ability-based EI

The development of ability EI measures is somewhat limited, as few researchers have created reliable and valid measures of individuals’ ability-based EI (Siegling, Saklofske, & Petrides, 2015). The most often cited and used measure of ability EI is the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), which is based on a series of emotion-based problem-solving items. Consistent with the model’s claim of EI as a type of intelligence, the test is modeled on ability-based IQ tests and generates scores for each of the four branches (Perceiving Emotions, Facilitating Thoughts, Understanding Emotions, and Managing Emotions) as well as the two areas (Experiential and Strategic EIQ) and an overall score (Salovey & Grewal, 2005). The Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Youth Research Version (MSCEIT-YRV) was developed for children aged 10 to 17 years (Mayer et al., 2014). Although research with this measure is only now emerging, a recent study concluded that it provided a valid measure of ability EI (Peters, Kranzler, & Rossen, 2009) and it has begun to show utility when compared to other measures (e.g., Qualter et al., 2015). In the MSCEIT-YRV manual, internal consistency scores are provided for the four branches; these scores range from high of a = .86 on Branch 3 (Understanding Emotions) to a low of a = .67 on Branch 1 (Perceiving Emotions). The internal consistency coefficient for the overall measure is reported to be α = .91.

Trait-based EI

There are a number of measures designed to capture trait-based EI (Siegling et al., 2015); however, the most recognized measure is the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I; Bar-On, 1997). The EQ-I is a self-report measure developed to assess success in dealing with environmental demands and pressures. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version (EQi:YV) is a self-report measure for individuals aged 7 to 18 years and consists of five subscales (intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, and general mood) and total EQ (Bar-On & Parker, 2000). Positive impression and inconsistency index scores allow the examiner to identify individuals who may be striving to appear overly positive about their abilities or who respond in an inconsistent manner. A short form, the EQi:YV-Brief, is also available and includes the same subscales as the full measure. Internal reliability values range from .65 to .90 for the EQ-I:YV and .65 to .87 for the EQi:YV-Brief (Bar-On & Parker, 2000), indicating good to strong psychometric properties.

EI and ADHD

There are few published studies that specifically explore EI in individuals with ADHD and none include a child sample. Fleming and Snell (2008) reported an inverse relationship between ADHD symptoms and EI where university students with lower levels of EI had a greater indication of ADHD symptomatology. Kristensen and colleagues (2014) found moderate to strong associations between ADHD symptomatology and trait EI across adult and adolescent samples, with stress management being the strongest predictor of hyperactive-impulsivity and inattentive symptoms. Both studies advocated for the need to expand the understanding of EI in an ADHD population and we argue to further examine EI in children with ADHD.

Current Study

Although there is extensive research describing children with ADHD and their challenges, as well as a substantial literature base examining EI, there is limited intersection between these two research fields. There are no known studies that have specifically explored EI abilities in a school-aged ADHD population, although there is a small published study on EI and other groups of exceptional children (e.g., Schwean, Saklofske, Widdifield-Konkin, Parker, & Kloosterman, 2006). Given the dearth of research on this topic, the current study examined EI in children with ADHD to allow for an informed understanding and comparison with their same-age peers. Specifically, this study queried, what is the EI profile of children with ADHD assessed by ability (MSCEIT-YRV) and trait (EQi:YV-Brief) EI measures?

Method

Participants

Children were required to meet a number of criteria for inclusion in this study including residence with their parents/guardians for at least the previous 5 years; attendance at school full-time; no indication of or previous diagnosis related to gross neurological, sensory, or motor impairments; and cognitive abilities that fell within the average range. Participants must have received a diagnosis of ADHD from a psychologist, psychiatrist, or medical doctor, and also have T-scores on the inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive scales of the Conners Rating Scale–3rd edition–Parent Form (Conners-3; Conners, 2008) greater than or equal to 70 on at least one scale and a T-score of 65 on the second scale.

Participants in the final sample included 41 children (82.9% male) between the ages of 9 years 1 month and 11 years 11 months (M = 10.29 years, SD = .80). One child did not complete the Bar-On EQi:YV-Brief due to time constraints of testing and six children did not complete the MSCEIT-YRV due to technical difficulties (n = 4) or participant refusal to complete the measure (n = 2). Of note, in consultation with the test developers of the MSCEIT-YRV (Multi-Health Systems Inc.) and for the purpose of this study, 9-year-old children were included in the sample, despite the recommended age of 10 to 17 years for the MSCEIT-YRV. Statistical analyses compared children with ADHD to the children in the norm sample of each measure as reported in the technical manuals of the publisher. The normative data of these measures include responses from large numbers of children representative of the ages of those in the current study.

Measures

Parents completed the Conners-3 (Conners, 2008) to determine a child’s eligibility to participate in this study (see inclusionary criteria above). Child participants also completed a number of measures assessing their cognitive capabilities (Wechsler Abbreviated Intelligence Scale; Wechsler, 1999) as well as the two measures of EI—Bar-On EQi:YV-Brief and MSCEIT-YRV.

The MSCEIT-YRV (Mayer et al., 2014) is a 102-item online measure that yields scores for total EI, two areas (Strategic and Experiential), and four branches (Facilitating Thoughts, Perceiving Emotions, Managing Emotions, and Understanding Emotions). As this is an ability measure, participants’ responses are evaluated and scored according to a criterion of correctness rather than relying on a self-evaluation. Participant responses were scored by the test publisher, Multi-Health Systems Inc., using the expert scoring criteria, where points were awarded according to a scoring key agreed upon by the authors of the MSCEIT-YRV. Support for the factor structure and reliability of the scale has been reported by Mayer et al. (2014) as well as other published studies (see Siegling et al., 2015).

The Bar-On EQi:YV-Brief (Bar-On & Parker, 2000) is a self-report EI measure comprised of 30 questions answered on a 4-point Likert-type scale. Respondents indicate the extent to which each question describes them. The Bar-On EQi:YV-Brief consists of a total EQ score, as well as five subscales (intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, and general mood). For the purpose of this project, the short form of the measure was utilized. The scale has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties, as noted above (Bar-On & Parker, 2000; see also Siegling et al., 2015).

Results

An initial examination of the data revealed that there were no significant outliers in responding to either of the EI scales. Descriptive analyses were conducted and single-subject t tests (two-tailed) were used to compare the ADHD group with the normative populations used in the standardization of the MSCEIT-YRV and the Bar-OnEQi:YV-Brief . For each measure, scores for the overall EI score as well as individual subscale scores were compared with the standardization mean score of 100 (SD = 15) as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Single Sample Comparisons of EI for ADHD Group and Normative Group.

Variable	N	M (SD)	Mean difference^a	Significant (two-tailed)	Effect size (r)^b
MSCEIT-YRV
Total EI score	35	101.39 (12.08)	1.386	.502	—
Area 1—Experiential EI	35	102.39 (13.52)	2.394	.302	—
Area 2—Strategic EI	35	100.69 (11.24)	0.693	.717	—
Perceiving Emotions	35	100.36 (14.21)	0.360	.882	—
Facilitating Thoughts	35	102.53 (14.52)	2.525	.311	—
Understanding Emotions	35	96.13 (10.48)	−3.872	.036	.148
Managing Emotions	35	104.77 (12.72)	4.770	.033	.169
Bar-On EQ-i:YV-Brief
Total Emotional Quotient	40	98.63 (12.93)	−1.375	.505	—
Intrapersonal Scale	40	101.80 (12.82)	1.800	.380	—
Interpersonal Scale	40	93.95 (14.51)	−6.050	.012	.201
Stress Management Scale	40	99.93 (12.51)	−0.075	.970	—
Adaptability Scale	40	94.58 (17.19)	−5.425	.053	.166
Positive Impression Scale	40	91.78 (16.06)	−8.225	.002	.256

Note. EI = emotional intelligence; MSCEIT-YRV = Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Youth Research Version; Bar-On EQ-i:YV-Brief = Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version–brief.

Mean difference from average normed sample score (100).

Effect sizes are only reported for those scales that showed significant group differences.

In examining the data from the MSCEIT-YRV, the overall EI score for the ADHD group did not differ from that of the norm group. However, a closer examination of branch scores revealed interesting findings. The ADHD group performed significantly better than the norm group on the Managing Emotions branch but significantly lower than the norm group on the Understanding Emotions branch score. Performance on the two area scores (Experiential and Strategic EI), as well as the Perceiving Emotions and Facilitating Emotions branches, did not significantly differ from the norm group.

Examination of the overall performance on the Bar-On EQi:YV-Brief indicated that the ADHD group did not differ from the norm group on the Total EQ score but did score lower on the Positive Impressions scale indicating that they did not present themselves in an overly positive light and, in fact, were slightly less positive than the normed group. However, Bar-On and Parker (2000), state that only standard scores greater than 130 on the positive impression index were considered problematic and that lower scores, as with the current ADHD sample, were acceptable. No scores within the current sample were greater than 118; therefore, no further adjustments to the data were deemed to be necessary. Further examination of the Bar-On EQi:YV-Brief revealed that the ADHD group reported significantly lower self-ratings on the Interpersonal and Adaptability scales. It should be noted that group differences were less than .5 of a SD but that the actual score variance was greater for children with ADHD. No differences were found on the Intrapersonal or Stress Management scales.

To examine whether this sample of children with ADHD demonstrated a significant difference in performance on trait and ability EI, a paired samples t test was performed. There was no significant difference between mean scores of the overall EI on the MSCEIT-YRV or the total EQ on the Bar-On EQi:YV-Brief; the total scores for the children with ADHD on both EI measures were very close to the average scores reported for the scales. Finally, to examine the extent to which the MSCEIT-YRV and Bar-On EQi:YV-Brief measured similar constructs, a Pearson correlation examined the total scores between each measure. Overall, a significant positive (r = .41, p < .05) correlation was found, indicating a moderate relationship between the two measures which is in line with previous studies comparing the two scales (Peters et al., 2009; Windingstad, McCallum, Bell, & Dunn, 2011).

Discussion

The data reported in this study provide encouraging findings regarding the EI abilities of children with ADHD. This study highlights areas in which children with ADHD were mostly similar to typically developing children on a number of aspects of both trait- and ability EI. Considering that much of the literature in the ADHD field is deficit-focused, results indicating that these children have abilities that are more alike those without ADHD can be viewed positively. Recent papers (e.g., Climie & Mastoras, 2015) have highlighted the importance of a strengths-based approach to addressing the needs of children with ADHD, through the identification, recognition, and promotion of areas strength and ability. Importantly, it may be possible to use strengths-based information in the formation of individualized interventions to help children with ADHD use their abilities to build on areas of need. The current results are discussed in relation to current ADHD and child development literature building from a strengths-based framework.

EI Profile of Children With ADHD

In the examination of the pattern of responses on the MSCEIT-YRV, children with ADHD demonstrated an overall EI score comparable to that of the normed sample. Specifically, the overall ability EI scores of children in the current study did not statistically differ from the norm group, nor did their scores within the Perceiving Emotions or Facilitating Thoughts subscales. This finding suggests that children with ADHD are knowledgeable regarding a number of aspects of ability-based EI. In addition, children in this sample demonstrated better understanding on the Managing Emotions subtest than the normed sample, and although their score on understanding emotions was slightly lower than the scale mean, it was still within the Average range.

In general, these results are encouraging but not necessarily surprising. Children with ADHD of average and above cognitive ability are often able to problem-solve when given adequate time to consider alternatives. However, it is not their intelligence or even their knowledge and skill that may impair their performance but instead, their impulsivity and lack of attention to detail that can impact their abilities. On the MSCEIT-YRV, children were able to work through the task at their own pace, guided by the examiner (e.g., reading questions). There were no time constraints on task completion and extraneous interfering information was removed from the situation (e.g., background noise, other children). In this circumstance, these children were able to demonstrate their knowledge of what to do and how to act in a given socially based situation. They demonstrated equal or above average performance across domains examining their ability to correctly identify emotions and feelings, using their emotions to solve problems creatively, and control their emotions (e.g., how to make themselves feel better after experiencing a negative situation). Their single area of lowered performance was on a subtest that asked them to identify similar emotion-related words from a multiple choice list (e.g., “which word means the same as . . .”). This subtest is more abstract than the other three subtests as there are no pictures or contextual cues. As such, the children’s motivation and interest in the subtest may have been lower compared with the more engaging components.

Children with ADHD also reported comparable performance abilities on the trait-based Total EQ-I score, as well as on the Intrapersonal and Stress Management scales. However, they scored significantly lower on the Interpersonal and Adaptability Scales, as well as on the Positive Impression Scale. These results are interesting given the literature that highlights that children with ADHD often view themselves in a more favorable light than those around them such as parents or teachers (Owens, Goldfine, Evangelista, Hoza, & Kaiser, 2007). The Positive Impression scale is designed to ensure that children are not biased in their responding nor trying to make themselves appear in a more favorable light. Instead, the children in this study answered in a slightly less favorable manner than those in the norm sample which may suggest they could be underestimating their own patterns of strength.

In examining the Bar-On scale, the self-rated Intrapersonal abilities of children with ADHD, or their ability to understand, recognize, and communicate their emotions to others, as well as their ability to respond appropriately to stressful situations, are within the average range. Children with ADHD are often specifically supported in developing strategies to manage stressful situations, which may have influenced their rating on this subscale. Their concurrent stronger performance on the Managing Emotions subscale on the MSCEIT provides further support for their knowledge of how to influence their own moods and change their emotions. This suggests that, within the context of this scenario, they have the capacity to draw on their emotional knowledge to manage stressful occurrences.

Conversely, these children reported somewhat less skill in interacting appropriately with others, including understanding and recognizing the feelings and emotions of others, as well as being flexible and effective at managing change. The literature base on the social and adaptability difficulties of children with ADHD is extensive (e.g., Barkley, 2014); however, it is again encouraging to see that the mean score for these children still fell within the average range albeit statistically lower than the norm. Practically speaking, a majority of these children do not demonstrate impairment in EI although there is much more variability in the self-report ratings of this scale and adaptability compared with the other factors.

It is also interesting to note that the EQ-i:YV-Brief is a self-report scale and that children were able to recognize and acknowledge their own shortcomings in these domains. This finding may be especially interesting given that other researchers have reported that children, with ADHD, are more likely to overestimate their own competencies than children without ADHD or those with ADHD-I (inattentive subtype; Hoza et al., 2004; Owens et al., 2007; Wiener et al., 2012). Children with ADHD have been found to demonstrate a “positive illusory bias” toward their own behaviors, whereby they rate themselves more favorably as compared with ratings from parents or teachers. In particular, they have been found to overestimate their abilities in domains where they demonstrate greatest deficit (e.g., those with co-morbid learning difficulties overinflate their perceived abilities in academic domains; Hoza et al., 2004). Therefore, it is possible that although the children in the current sample have acknowledged some aspect of deficit in the areas of Interpersonal Relations and Adaptability, there is uncertainty as to whether they may have still inflated their self-rated abilities.

Finally, there was no statistical difference in total scores on the MSCEIT-YRV and the EQi:YV-Brief, where children with ADHD in this study scored similar to the normative samples. Further analyses examining the correlation between the total scores also revealed a moderate positive relationship between the variables, despite the fact that these measures purported to examine different constructs. However, although only a small number of studies have examined both ability and trait-based El measures to examine the extent of the overlap, some previous research examining the adult versions of these measures has found similar results (e.g., Conte, 2005; Windingstad et al., 2011). For example, Brackett and Mayer (2003) reported a correlation of .21 on the MSCEIT (adult version) and Bar-On scales. Given these findings, in addition to the present study, it is apparent that these measures generally measure different constructs, although there is some overlap.

Together, these findings align with Barkley’s (1997) position in which he advocates that children with ADHD do not demonstrate a deficit in knowledge regarding appropriate actions but instead may have a difficult time putting knowledge into practice. In this study, across a number of ability-based subscales, it was evident that children with ADHD tend to demonstrate average or above ability when knowing what to do in a given situation compared with the normed sample. It may then be that when these children are in a low-pressure, un-timed, distraction-free situation, they are better able to reasonably work through emotionally based scenarios, evaluate possible options, and apply their knowledge appropriately and accurately if they have the knowledge and skills from which to build. As such, other factors associated with ADHD, such as impulsivity or inattention, may have a significant impact on children’s ability to demonstrate their knowledge appropriately.

However, children with ADHD also rated themselves slightly lower on average in some areas when it came to putting this EI knowledge into practice. Specifically, lower scores were found on self-rated performance when interacting with others, as well as adapting to new environments. Both of these skills are more common areas of difficulty for children with ADHD (Barkley, 2014). In naturalistic settings, such as in the classroom or on the playground, some children with ADHD may be more often overwhelmed with information to process; they must consider their own and others’ feelings, situational cues, and context, and are less able to inhibit their impulsive responses. As a result, they may more often respond in a manner that is incongruent with their knowledge. Indeed, if children with ADHD are asked how they “should” have responded in a given situation, they can often provide the correct or a more appropriate answer. However, in the moment, they are unable to consider the best option and often act impulsively. Given time and opportunity to consider their response in a social situation, children with ADHD are likely better able to recognize the emotions of others and adjust their own feelings and behaviors accordingly.

Implications

Overall, this study expands the current understanding of the EI abilities of children with ADHD. This study shows evidence that they have the emotional knowledge necessary to interact appropriately but may require additional support in implementing their knowledge in some contexts or situations. This finding argues that the focus of EI-related intervention should be on the application of knowledge, not just rote teaching of knowledge. It is clear that, as with many other skills, children with ADHD possess adequate knowledge but do not always apply these skills in the necessary situations or at the necessary time. Parents and teachers must understand that the impulsivity and distractibility of children with ADHD may be the key impediment to their success within emotionally laden situations.

Limitations

Two primary limitations to the current study are noted. First, given the relatively small sample size, analyses were limited to descriptive and comparative analyses. Methodologically, it is important to note that the children with ADHD in the current study were compared to the normative samples on each measure and not matched controls. However, the norm sample provides a strong indicator of “typical” patterns of responding of a large number of children on which the tests are standardized and provides a relevant basis of comparison.

The MSCEIT-YRV is a relatively new measure of EI, and the research edition of this measure was utilized for this study. Of note, the published version is slightly different from the research edition (i.e., some items were removed from the research edition to form the final version based on reliability values; Mayer et al., 2014). As well, it is important to note that this measure was not specifically normed for an ADHD sample and further, that the participants in this study were at the lower end of the intended age range. However, despite these inconsistencies, the current study provides a first exploration into the trait and ability EI competencies of children with ADHD.

In conclusion, it is important that research recognizing the abilities of children with ADHD continues. The importance of identifying areas of individual strength, such as those identified through the exploration of EI, is critical in supporting positive long-term outcomes in children diagnosed with ADHD.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Emma A. Climie is an assistant professor and registered psychologist in the School and Applied Child Psychology program in the Werklund School of Education at the University of Calgary. Her research focuses on understanding children with ADHD from a strengths-based perspective, with an emphasis on resilience, social-emotional well-being, emotional intelligence, stigma, and social cognition.

Donald H. Saklofske is a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario. He is an elected fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association and Association for Psychological Science. His research focuses on intelligence, personality, individual differences, and psychological assessment.

Sarah M. Mastoras is a school psychologist with the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Her research and practice interests are focused on increasing teacher capacity in promoting resilience and social-emotional well-being in the classroom, and in using strengths-based approaches to understand and support students with ADHD.

Vicki L. Schwean is a professor and dean of education at the University of Western Ontario. She is also director of the Mary J. Wright Research and Education Centre. Her research focuses on the mental health and well-being of children.

References

Barkley

R. A.

(1997). ADHD and the nature of self-control. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Barkley

R. A.

(2014). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bar-On

(1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional intelligence. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Bar-On

(2006). The Bar-On Model of Emotional-Social Intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18, 13-25.

Bar-On

Parker

J. D.

(2000). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version (EQ-I:YV) technical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Brackett

M. A.

Mayer

J. D.

(2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147-1158.

Climie

E. A.

Mastoras

S. M.

(2015). ADHD in schools: Adopting a strengths-based perspective. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 56, 295-300. doi:10.1037/cap0000030

Conners

C. K.

(2008). Conners 3rd edition technical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Conte

J. M.

(2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 433-440.

10.

Fleming

Snell

W. E.

(2008). Emotional intelligence in adults with ADHD. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 13(2), 86-95.

11.

Freeland

E. M.

Terry

R. A.

Rodgers

J. L.

(2008). Emotional intelligence: What’s in a name? In Cassady

Eissa

(Eds.), Emotional intelligence: Perspectives on educational and positive psychology (pp. 93-117). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

12.

Goleman

(2006). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam.

13.

Hoza

Gerdes

Hinshaw

Arnold

Pelham

Molina

. . . Wigal

(2004). Self-perceptions of competence in children with ADHD and comparison children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 382-391. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.382

14.

Kristensen

H. A.

Parker

J. D.

Taylor

R. N.

Keefer

K. V.

Kloosterman

P. H.

Summerfeldt

L. J.

(2014). The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and ADHD symptoms in adolescents and young adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 36-41. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.031

15.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

(2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

16.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

(2014). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test: Youth Version (MSCEIT-YRV). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

17.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

Caruso

Sitarenios

(2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT. Emotion, 3, 97-105. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97

18.

Owens

Goldfine

Evangelista

Hoza

Kaiser

(2007). A critical review of self-perceptions and the positive illusory bias in children with ADHD. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 10, 335-351. doi:10.1007/s10567-007-0027-3

19.

Peters

Kranzler

J. H.

Rossen

(2009). Validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test: Youth Version-Research edition (MSCEIT-YRV). Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24, 76-81. doi:10.1177/0829573508329822

20.

Petrides

K. V.

Furnham

(2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320.

21.

Petrides

K. V.

Siegling

A. B.

Saklofske

D. H.

(2016). Theory and measurement of trait emotional intelligence. In Kumar

(Ed.), The Wiley handbook of personality assessment (pp. 90-103). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.

22.

Qualter

Pool

L. D.

Gardner

K. J.

Ashley-Kot

Wise

Wols

(2015). The Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale adaptation and validation for young adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 33-45.

23.

Salovey

Grewal

(2005). The science of emotional intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 17-21. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00381.x

24.

Salovey

Mayer

(1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211. doi:10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG

25.

Schwean

V. L.

Saklofske

D. H.

Widdifield-Konkin

Parker

Kloosterman

(2006). Emotional intelligence and gifted children. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 2(2), 30-37.

26.

Siegling

A. B.

Saklofske

D. H.

Petrides

K. V.

(2015). Measures of ability and trait emotional intelligence. In Boyle

G. J.

Saklofske

D. H.

Matthews

(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychology constructs (pp. 381-414). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

27.

Wechsler

(1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Intelligence Scale (WASI): Technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

28.

Wiener

Malone

Varma

Markel

Biondic

Tannock

Humphries

(2012). Children’s perceptions of their ADHD symptoms positive illusions, attributions, and stigma. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27, 217-242.

29.

Windingstad

McCallum

R. S.

Bell

S. M.

Dunn

(2011). Measures of emotional intelligence and social acceptability in children: A concurrent validity study. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26, 107-126.