i An update to this article is included at the end

Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 83–91

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Ability emotional intelligence, trait emotional intelligence, and academic success in

British secondary schools: A 5 year longitudinal study
Pamela Qualter a,⁎, Kathryn.J. Gardner a, Debbie.J. Pope b, Jane.M. Hutchinson a, Helen E. Whiteley b
a
School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK
b
Department of Social and Psychological Science, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examines the long-term effects of ability- and trait EI on academic performance for British adoles-
Received 11 April 2011 cents. The sample comprised 413 students from three secondary schools in the North-West of England. Stu-
Received in revised form 3 October 2011 dents completed tests of ability EI, trait EI, personality, and cognitive ability in Year 7 (mean age = 11 years
Accepted 11 November 2011
2 months). Performance data at the end of Year 11 (mean age = 15 years 10 months) were collected. Struc-
tural Equation Modelling examined the longitudinal relationships between latent variables of these con-
Keywords:
Emotional intelligence structs. Results show that the importance of ability EI resides in the fact that it moderates the effect of
Emotional self-efficacy cognitive ability on performance in Year 11. Trait EI has a direct effect on Year 11 performance for boys
Emotions only. This suggests that initiatives that help to develop ability EI and increase trait EI offer educators oppor-
Academic success tunities to improve educational achievement.
Academic achievement © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Adolescence
Prospective study

1. Introduction 1.1. The ability and trait EI distinction

Emotional skills support both social and cognitive development in
young children (see Denham, 2007, for review). Emotional knowl-
edge also predicts academic competence and task orientation in mid-
dle childhood, even when controlling for verbal ability (Izard, 2002;
Izard et al., 2001). Furthermore, poor emotional competence amongst
adolescents results in school difficulties associated with subsequent
academic underachievement, such as school drop-out and persistent
antisocial behaviour (Gagnon, Craig, Tremblay, Zhou, & Vitaro, 1995;
Haapasalo & Tremblay, 1994; Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996). In keeping
with this notion that emotional functioning is linked to academic per-
formance and success, we investigated associations between ability-
and trait-emotional intelligence (EI) and academic achievement
amongst British adolescents in mainstream education. A prospective
design determined whether ability and trait EI at transfer into British
secondary school (aged 11–12: Year 7) predict academic performance
at age 16 (Year 11). Such work provides comprehensive information
about how reasoning and problem-solving in the emotion domain
(ability EI) and individual self-perceptions in emotional capabilities
(trait EI) predict academic success in adolescence.
⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire,
UK, PR1 2HE. Tel.: + 44 01772 893877.
E-mail address: PQualter@uclan.ac.uk (P. Qualter).
EI has been conceptualised as an emotion-related cognitive ability
involving the ability to perceive, use, understand and regulate emo-
tion (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004). Others
have defined EI as a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions
at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Petrides, Furnham, &
Mavroveli, 2007; Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). These two per-
spectives have been termed ability EI and trait EI, respectively. This
distinction between ability- and trait EI is well-supported in the
adult literature, with meta analyses (Joseph & Newman, 2010; Van
Rooy, Viswesvaran, & Pluta, 2005) showing non-significant associa-
tions between measures of trait EI and intelligence and a positive, al-
though still relatively weak, association between ability EI and
measures of crystallised intelligence and verbal IQ. Furthermore,
meta-analysis data also support a fairly moderate association be-
tween trait EI, but not ability EI, and personality facets (Van Rooy et
al., 2005). In addition, Joseph and Newman (2010) found the correla-
tion between self-report (trait) EI measures and performance-based
(ability) EI measures to be low enough to suggest two distinct con-
structs, which supports evidence from earlier meta-analyses (O'Boyle,
Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2010; Van Rooy et al., 2005). Re-
cent work also shows that trait- and ability EI can be validly measured
in middle and late childhood (e.g., Barlow, Qualter, & Stylianou, 2010;
Mavroveli, Petrides, Sangareau, & Furnham, 2009; Rivers, Brackett, &
Salovey, 2008), and are distinct from one another (Qualter, Barlow, &
Stylianou, 2011).

1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.007
84 P. Qualter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 83–91
1.2. The significance of ability and trait EI in predicting academic success
Ability EI theory provides a framework within which to study the
role of emotions in predicting academic performance (Mayer, Salovey,
& Caruso, 2008). Successful academic performance includes being able
to identify emotional stressors (Lyons & Schneider, 2005), a process
which ability EI can facilitate by providing emotion-related knowledge
and capabilities such as emotion perception and emotional understand-
ing. Further, skills such as effective management of one's emotions fos-
ter emotional resilience (e.g., see Fabes & Eisenberg, 1997), allowing
individuals to adapt to stressful situations or crises, which, if unresolved,
may hinder their academic performance.
Trait EI may also be important for academic performance and suc-
cess, primarily because emotional self-efficacy is an important aspect
of this construct (Kirk, Schutte, & Hine, 2008; Petrides, Frederickson,
& Furnham, 2004; Petrides & Furnham, 2003; Petrides, Furnham, &
Mavroveli, 2007; Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007; Petrides,
Sangareau, Furnham, & Frederickson, 2006; Qualter et al., 2011).
Our argument builds on previous work suggesting an association be-
tween beliefs about ability to perform a behaviour and actually per-
forming the behaviour (e.g. Bandura, 1986; Crick & Dodge, 1994;
Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). We argue that perceived emotional self-
efficacy (an aspect of trait EI) plays an important role in emotion
self-management in education situations: it affects actions not only
directly, but also through its influence on other decisions that might
impact on academic performance (Bandura, 1999, 2001). Thus, with-
in the context of education, Bandura argues that beliefs of one's emo-
tional self efficacy are likely to influence what self-regulative
standards people adopt during learning activities, including revision;
whether they think in an enabling or debilitating manner when con-
sidering their academic performance; how much effort they invest in
any one particular learning or revision strategy; how they persevere
in the face of academic difficulties; how resilient they are to academic
stressors; how vulnerable they are to non-academic stressors; and
choices they make in non-academic aspects of their lives. In addition,
self-efficacy theory suggests that beliefs about earlier successes and
failures in affect regulation in response to academic stressors will in-
fluence future emotional responses and emotion management in sim-
ilar academic situations (e.g. Parsons & Ruble, 1977).
With regard to empirical evidence, concurrent and one-year stud-
ies show that ability EI is important within the context of academic
success, even after personality and academic intelligence are statisti-
cally controlled (Gil-Olarte Marquez, Martin, & Brackett, 2006; Lyons
& Schneider, 2005; Mestre, Guil, Lopes, Salovey, & Gil-Olarte, 2006).
Trait EI is also an important factor in the academic achievement of
university and high school students (e.g., Austin, Evans, Goldwater,
& Potter, 2005; Downey, Mountstephen, Lloyd, Hansen, & Stough,
2008; Parker, Summerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, 2004; Parker et al.,
2004; Vidal Rodeiro, Bell, & Emery, 2009). In addition, it is an impor-
tant predictor when academic success is conceptualised as dropout
versus completion of Year 1 at university (Parker, Hogan,
Easterbrook, Oke, & Wood, 2006; Qualter, Whiteley, Morley, &
Dudiak, 2009), and exclusions versus non-exclusions in secondary
school (Petrides et al., 2004; Qualter, 2008; Qualter, Whiteley,
Hutchinson, & Pope, 2007).
Whilst there is evidence that trait EI relates to academic perfor-
mance, several studies report no significant association (Barchard,
2003; Bastian, Burns, & Nettelbeck, 2005; Newsome, Day, & Catano,
2000; Van Der Zee, Thijs, & Schakel, 2002). Petrides et al. (2004)
argue that whilst trait EI may not be associated directly with academ-
ic achievement, it moderates the relationship between cognitive abil-
ity and academic performance; because they experience more stress
during their studies, adolescents with low IQ benefit academically if
they have appropriate self-perceived emotional skills. If we relate
this back to notions of emotional self-efficacy, an example will help:
lower IQ for a student who says they cannot manage stress well
could lead to poor academic performance because it creates a nega-
tive self-concept that begins to undermine the student's academic
motivation. In contrast, students who say they manage stress well,
but have low IQ are able to draw upon perceived emotion manage-
ment resources in order to successfully recover from falling grades,
or reconcile continuous poor performance, and use appropriate emo-
tion management strategies in the lead-up to examinations. Current-
ly, research has investigated how trait EI moderates the relationship
between IQ and academic performance (Petrides et al., 2004), but
ability EI is also likely to work in the same way; both trait- and ability
EI will inform the behavioural response chosen to the stressor. Thus,
both types of EI may be important in predicting academic perfor-
mance because they act as moderators of cognitive ability. An impor-
tant step in extending existing research is a prospective examination
of both ability- and trait EI and their interaction with cognitive ability
in predicting academic performance.
1.3. Other predictors of academic success: the importance of cognitive
ability, gender and personality
The overall aim of this study is to determine whether ability EI and
trait EI can predict academic performance when other important non-
cognitive factors (personality) and cognitive ability (IQ) are controlled.
Given previous literature, within our model of academic performance,
we expect cognitive ability to predict academic performance very
well. Given findings from previous studies showing correlations be-
tween intelligence test scores and overall exam results, r = .49 to .69
(Deary, Strand, Smith, & Fernandes, 2007; Furnham, Monsen, &
Ahmetoglu, 2009), we expect cognitive ability to have the most impact
on academic achievement within our model.
In addition to cognitive ability, personality has also been shown to
be important in predicting academic performance, and Eysenck's
model of personality has proven useful. Empirical investigation shows
that neuroticism (characterised by low self esteem, depression, shyness,
moodiness, and anxiety) is a negative predictor of academic perfor-
mance, particularly when students are assessed by final examinations
(Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Laidra, Pullman, & Allik,
2007). Psychoticism (aggressive, tough-minded, apathetic, antisocial,
creative, impulsive, and reckless: Pervin, 1993) has also been shown
to be a negative predictor of academic success (Goh & Moore, 1987;
Maqsud, 1993; McLaughlin, Moutray, & Muldoon, 2007; Petrides,
Chamorro-Premuzic, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2005; Sanchez-Marin,
Rejano-Infante, & Rodriguez-Troyano, 2001). In addition, extraversion
(sensation-seeking, assertive, and sociable) is associated with academic
success, although there is evidence that this relationship changes from
childhood to adolescence (Wolf & Ackerman, 2005). Specifically, there
is a change from a positive relationship between extraversion and per-
formance between ages 7 and 13 to a negative relationship when the
child reaches 14.
Another important variable to consider is gender. Boys typically per-
form less well on school assessments than girls, despite similar scores
on cognitive tasks (e.g. Deary et al., 2007; Ferguson & Horwood, 1997;
Mestre et al., 2006). This may arise due to the impact of EI on the aca-
demic performance. Females typically score comparatively higher on
EI tests compared to boys (e.g., Goldenberg, Matheson, & Mantler,
2006; Schneider, Lyons, & Williams, 2005), and girls may be able to uti-
lise these EI skills in a way that facilitates performance (e.g., via stress
management). To explore the possibility that EI impacts on perfor-
mance for girls and not boys, we examined the same model separately
across boys and girls.
1.4. Rationale and aims of the study
The overall aim of this prospective study is to establish the direct
and moderating effects of both ability- and trait EI in predicting aca-
demic performance. Currently, there exist only concurrent or short-
 P. Qualter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 83–91
term (1–2 year) longitudinal studies that examine the role of ability-
and trait EI in academic achievement. Further, previous research has
only examined how trait EI moderates the relationship between IQ
and academic performance (Petrides et al., 2004), but there is no in-
vestigation of whether ability EI may work in the same way. The
aims of the current study were (1) to determine whether ability-
and trait EI at transfer into secondary school are associated with aca-
demic performance five years later, and (2) to investigate whether
trait and ability EI moderate the relationship between cognitive abil-
ity and academic performance.
1.5. Impact of the study
The findings of this research have important theoretical and prac-
tical implications for researchers and educationalists. This research
expands the knowledge base concerning the relationship between
two types of EI – ability and trait – and provides new information re-
garding (1) their relationship in childhood, (2) their incremental va-
lidity with regard to the prediction of academic performance beyond
cognitive ability and personality, and (3) the moderating role played
by both trait- and ability EI in the association between cognitive abil-
ity and academic performance. It also addresses a gap in the literature
by examining these relationships for boys and girls separately. The
findings provide educationalists with further examination of whether
ability- and trait EI are important to academic success, when other
important variables (cognitive ability and personality) are controlled.
Such an analysis has implications for government policy linked to the
teaching of emotional skills.
2. Method
2.1. Sample
413 students (199 males; 214 females) took part in the study dur-
ing Year 7 at transfer into secondary school. Performance data (GCSE)
were collected in Year 11 for 411 children: two males had moved out
of Lancashire between Year 7 and Year 11.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Trait EI
The Bar-On EQ-i:Yv (Bar-On, 1997; Bar-On & Parker, 2000) is a self-
report measure that assesses the level of trait EI in children and adoles-
cents. It consists of 60 items with four main subscales: interpersonal, in-
trapersonal, stress management, and adaptability. Example questions
include: ‘It is easy for me to tell people how I feel’ (intrapersonal), ‘I
am good at understanding the way other people feel’ (interpersonal),
‘I can stay calm when I am upset’ (stress management), ‘I can under-
stand hard questions’ (adaptability). Children are asked to rate each
statement using a rating scale from 1 (very seldom true of me) to 4
(very often true of me). Higher scores on each dimension indicate higher
trait EI. For this sample, internal consistency scores for the subscales
were reasonable for girls and boys respectively: α = .64 and .62 (intra-
personal), .82 and .75 (stress management), .79 and .74 (adaptability)
and .82 and .78 (interpersonal).
2.2.2. Ability EI
The MSCEIT-Yv is the youth version of the MSCEIT and is designed
for pre-adolescents and adolescents (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
2005). The scale uses 101 items (of which 97 are scored) to measure
how well children perform tasks and solve emotional problems.
Multi-Health Systems, the test distributor, using expert norms, scored
the data. This instrument yields a single overall performance score, in
addition to the two area scores for emotional experience and emo-
tional reasoning. These area scores are further elaborated to encom-
pass the four central areas of emotional intelligence: In Section A
85
(perceive), the child must identify the emotions expressed by a series
of faces; Section B (facilitate) includes a set of vignettes and tasks
which assess whether the child understands how different emotions
impact on behaviour and decision making; Section C (understand) in-
cludes vignettes and requires that the child choose the emotion a pro-
tagonist is feeling; and Section D (manage) includes vignettes and
requires the child to choose how helpful certain strategies may be
in managing certain emotions. Internal consistency scores of the
MSCEIT-Yv are provided in the manual for the four branches, with
split half reliabilities ranging from α = .67 (Section A: Perceiving
emotion) to .86 (Section C: Understanding emotions); the overall
measure α = .91. Internal consistency scores are currently not avail-
able from the test publisher for male and females separately.
2.2.3. Personality
The Revised Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: Short-Form
(JEPQR-S; Corulla, 1990). The self-report scale measures the personal-
ity dimensions of psychoticism, neuroticism, and extraversion. A
fourth factor, the lie scale, was not included in the current study. In-
dividuals respond to items using a true/false format. Participants re-
spond to 48 items using a dichotomous scale (True/False). For this
sample, the internal consistencies for Psychoticism, Extraversion,
and Neuroticism were α = .78, .93, and .84 respectively for girls, and
α = .73, .88, and .85 for boys.
2.2.4. Cognitive ability
The CAT (Cognitive Ability Test) is the most widely used test of
reasoning abilities in UK schools. The data reported here relate to
the CAT third edition (CAT3). It has 10 separate subtests, which are
aggregated into three batteries of tests, providing standardised mea-
sures of verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning abilities.
2.2.5. Academic performance in Year 11
With the exception of a small number of children with severe
learning difficulties, most pupils in England sit national examinations
(General Certificate of Education: GCSE) at the end of compulsory ed-
ucation (approximately 16 years old). GCSEs are offered in a wide
range of subjects, but all pupils in the current sample took English
Language, English Literature, Maths, and Science. These are graded
from A* down to G (and U for ungraded). For the purposes of our
study, grades for each subject were scored from 9 to 0 respectively.
Where participants took Double Science, a mean was calculated.
2.3. Procedure
During the first eight weeks of transfer to secondary school, 413
pupils from four secondary schools in Lancashire (UK) completed
the EI and personality measures during three sessions. Each session
was group administered with Session 1 (completion of trait EI mea-
sure and personality questionnaire) taking 15 min. The MSCEIT-Yv
(ability EI measure) was completed over two sessions, which each
took approximately 60 min. Cognitive ability and academic perfor-
mance indicators were collected from school databases at the start
of Year 7 and at the end of Year 11 respectively. Parents gave permis-
sion for us to access this academic information.
2.4. Analyses plan
First, we established the bivariate associations between the mani-
fest variables that would later make up the latent variables of ability
EI, trait EI, and cognitive ability, and academic performance (GCSE)
in the Structural Equation Model (SEM). The associations between
neuroticism, extraversion, and psychoticism with these manifest vari-
ables were also calculated. Correlational analyses were conducted for
boys and girls separately.
86 P. Qualter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 83–91

Following this, we determined the measurement models for the Table 1

latent variables of ability EI, trait EI, cognitive ability, and GCSE per- Means, standard deviations (SDs), and gender differences for study variables (all indi-
cator variables of latent variables later used in the SEM and the variables of neuroti-
formance that we would later use in the SEM to test the longitudinal cism, extraversion, and psychoticism).
association between these variables. Latent variables were used in the
full SEM model as they are free of random measurement error be- Boys mean (SD) Girls mean (SD) t d

cause all variability in the manifest variables that is not associated N= 199 214
with the latent variables is excluded as error variance, thus making Cognitive ability (CAT)
the test more powerful. We created a latent variable of GCSE Perfor- - CATv 5.74 (1.86) 6.13 (1.64) 2.08 .21⁎
mance from the manifest variables of Maths, English Language, En- - CATq 5.60 (1.92) 5.82 (1.52) 1.28 .13
glish Literature, and Science grades. Latent variables of Cognitive - CATnv 5.65 (1.88) 5.79 (1.57) .82 .08
Ability EI (MSCEIT-YV)
ability (verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning abilities), trait - Section A [perceive] 105.88 (12.86) 108.93 (9.87) 2.69 .27⁎⁎⁎
EI (interpersonal, intrapersonal, stress management, and adaptability) - Section B [facilitative] 107.06 (12.82) 111.12 (9.76) 3.60 .36⁎⁎⁎
and ability EI (perceive, facilitate, understand, and manage emotion) - Section C [understand] 100.92 (25.61) 106.61 (9.85) 4.39 .44⁎⁎⁎
were also created. - Section D [manage] 88.61 (11.45) 96.48 (9.02) 7.71 .77⁎⁎⁎
Trait EI (EQi-YV)
Before calculating the full SEM, the fit indices and factor loading of
- Intrapersonal 13.87 (3.47) 15.36 (3.85) 4.13 .41⁎⁎⁎
these latent variables were considered. These are calculated to ascer- - Interpersonal 36.66 (5.09) 40.25 (4.52) 7.55 .75⁎⁎⁎
tain that misfit in the full SEM model is not due to problems in the - Stress management 33.19 (5.13) 33.61 (5.94) .77 .08
measurement model of each latent variable. Fit indices were con- - Adaptability 29.43 (6.71) 28.26 (5.28) 1.96 .19
sulted to assess model fit, which included the root mean square Neuroticism 10.63 (4.74) 11.49 (4.35) 2.63 .26⁎⁎
Extroversion 19.79 (3.43) 19.43 (3.67) 1.03 .10
error of approximation (RMSEA) and the Comparative Fit Index Psychoticism 3.88 (3.00) 3.73 (2.88) 1.19 .12
(CFI). Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested RMSEA b .06, and CFI > .95 as GSCE Performance
cut-off criteria indicative of good fit. More liberal criteria indicative - Maths 5.03 (1.36) 5.19 (1.14) 1.29 .13
of moderate levels of model fit are RMSEA b .08 and CFI > .90 (Marsh, - English Language 4.68 (1.13) 5.25 (1.14) 5.14 .51⁎⁎⁎
- English Literature 5.02 (1.16) 5.42 (1.12) 3.56 .35⁎⁎⁎
Hau, & Wen, 2004).The measurement models were calculated in
- Science 4.82 (1.48) 4.90 (1.33) .58 .06
MPlus 5.1. Measurement models for each latent variable provided an
⁎⁎ p b .01.
appropriate fit to the data using the cut-off criteria proposed by
⁎⁎⁎ p b .001.
Marsh, Hau, et al., which meant they could be included in the full SEM.
The full SEM examined the structural links between the latent var-
iables of cognitive ability, ability EI, and trait EI taken when the chil-
dren were in Year 7 (at transfer into secondary school) and the variables presented no problems of normality, with skewness ranging
academic performance (GCSE) latent variable in Year 11. Based on from −.70 to .99 and kurtosis ranging from −.41 to .90.
the idea that EI might moderate the effect of cognitive ability on aca- Table 1 shows differences between girls and boys on these vari-
demic performance, we created latent interaction terms for ability ables. Gender differences were observed for verbal cognitive ability
EI × cognitive ability and trait EI × cognitive ability, which were also (CATv), all dimensions of ability EI, two aspects of trait EI (intraper-
entered into the model. Initial model testing followed an uncon- sonal and interpersonal), and GCSE performance for English Language
strained approach for creating and testing the interaction terms and English Literature: in each case, girls scored significantly higher
(Marsh, Wen, & Hau, 2004), but both interaction terms (ability than boys. Girls also reported significantly more neuroticism than
EI × cognitive ability and trait EI × cognitive ability) showed high cor- boys. There were no gender differences on all other variables.
relations with cognitive ability. Thus, in the final model, we used Table 2 shows the correlations between all study variables for
Little, Bovaird, and Widaman's (2006) 1 approach to create the two in- males and females. For girls, GCSE performance was associated with
teraction terms (ability EI × cognitive ability and trait EI × cognitive all aspects of cognitive ability and ability EI. For boys, GCSE perfor-
ability). For each latent interaction term, every possible product indi- mance was associated with these same variables, but aspects of trait
cator is created and then regressed onto its own set of constituent EI (interpersonal, stress management and adaptability) were also re-
non-product indicators; the resulting residuals represent the interac- lated. GCSE performance for boys and girls was not correlated with
tion terms, which are uncorrelated with the corresponding set of any of the personality variables.
non-product indicators. These residualized products become the As shown in Table 2, correlational analyses revealed significant as-
manifest variables of the corresponding interaction latent factor. sociations between certain aspects of ability EI and cognitive ability
Within this approach, error covariances are specified between pairs for girls and boys. Ability EI and trait EI were also moderately corre-
of residualized product indicators based on common non-product in- lated. Neuroticism was associated with certain aspects of trait EI for
dicators. This SEM was conducted in MPlus 5.1. Testing was con- girls, but not boys. Further, the manifest variables that would later
ducted for boys and girls separately. make up particular latent variables were highly correlated.

3. Results 3.2. Measurement models of the latent variables

3.1. Means and correlations
Before conducting the analyses, we examined the data for univar-
iate and multivariate outlying cases using the procedure devised by
Tabachnick and Fidell (2001); no participants were detected as out-
liers. Table 1 presents the means and variances for the manifest vari-
ables that are later used to create latent variables of cognitive ability,
ability EI, trait EI and GCSE performance. The variables of neuroticism,
extraversion, and psychoticism are also included in this table. The
1
The Marsh, Wen and Hau (2004) and Little et al. (2006) methods yielded similar
parameter estimates.
Calculation of measurement models for each latent variable, in-
cluding fit indices and factor loadings, for boys and girls separately,
can be found in Table 3. Given that fit indices and factor loadings for
each latent variable revealed moderate levels of model fit, we
moved on to calculate the full SEM model.
3.3. Structural Equation Model (SEM)
SEM was used to explore structural links between EI and academic
performance. In the full SEM, we allowed correlations between the
following pairs of latent variables: (a) ability EI and trait EI, and (b)
ability EI and cognitive ability. Latent interaction terms for ability
 P. Qualter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 83–91 87

Table 2
Zero-order correlations between all study variables, including manifest variables of each latent factor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Cognitive ability (CAT)

1. CATv – .66⁎⁎ .68⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ −.09 .15⁎ .19⁎⁎ .24⁎ .02 .16⁎⁎ −.07 .69⁎⁎ .69⁎⁎ .58⁎⁎ .71⁎⁎
2. CATq .64⁎⁎ – .71⁎⁎ .05 .34⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ −.07 .13 .11 .22⁎ .03 .06 −.05 .73⁎⁎ .61⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .67⁎⁎
3. CATnv .70⁎⁎ .71⁎⁎ – .22⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ −.11 .06 .09 .16⁎ .11 .13 −.13 .74⁎⁎ .58⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎

Ability EI (MSCEIT-YV)
4. Perceive .26⁎⁎ .05 .15⁎ – .19⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎ –.02 .25⁎⁎ –.03 .09 –.04 .13 –.16⁎ .15⁎ .22⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎
5. Facilitative .18⁎⁎ .07 .16⁎ .25⁎⁎ – .51⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎ −.10 .05 −.04 .16⁎ −.08 .21⁎ .15⁎ .35⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎
6. Understand .31⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎ – .67⁎⁎ −.11 .16⁎ .09 .06 .01 .31⁎ −.04 .39⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎
7. Manage .33⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎ .46⁎⁎ – −.15⁎ .17⁎ .24⁎⁎ .02 −.02 .21⁎ .06 .31⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎

Trait EI (EQi-YV)
8. Intrapersonal −.08 −.06 −.11 .11 −.01 −.04 −.03 – .13 .09 .30⁎⁎ .002 −.01 −.05 .04 −.04 −.03 −.03
9. Interpersonal .28⁎⁎ .09 .19⁎⁎ .10 .29⁎⁎ .17⁎ .16⁎ .26⁎⁎ – .26⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎ −.04 −.03 .03 .16⁎ .16⁎ .21⁎⁎ .14⁎
10. Stress Management .07 .13⁎ .13 .17⁎ .08 –.05 .10 .37⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ – .15⁎ .08 –.04 –.06 .22⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .16⁎ .26⁎⁎
11. Adaptability .12 .25⁎⁎ .11 .03 .14⁎ .08 .08 .19⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ – .03 −.10 −.11 .25⁎ .23⁎ .30⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎
12. Neuroticism .01 .23⁎⁎ −.02 −.03 −.02 .04 .07 .30⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .14⁎ .09 – .18⁎ .11 .09 −.03 .03 .11
13. Extraversion −.50 −.07 −.02 −.16⁎ .07 −.98 −.09 .05 .08 .09 .20⁎⁎ −.32⁎⁎ – .14⁎ .08 .20⁎⁎ −.06 .05
14. Psychoticism .07 −.01 .01 −.04 .09 −.02 −.18⁎ .02 −.11 .06 .09 −.002 .16⁎ – −.11 −.03 −.09 −.14

GCSE Performance
15. Maths .45⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .49⁎⁎ .02 .23⁎⁎ .12 .12 .17⁎ .03 .07 .12 .02 .02 −.07 – .77⁎⁎ .62⁎⁎ .84⁎⁎
16. English Language .55⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .11 .22⁎⁎ .16⁎ .22⁎⁎ .13 .23⁎⁎ .01 .10 −.07 −.12 −.03 .69⁎⁎ – .72⁎⁎ .82⁎⁎
17. English Literature .49⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .13⁎ .22⁎⁎ .17⁎ .22⁎⁎ .01 .01 .09 .26⁎⁎ −.14⁎ .05 .04 .61⁎⁎ .83⁎⁎ – .73⁎⁎
18. Science .55⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .50⁎⁎ .15⁎ .27⁎⁎ .28⁎ .25⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .10 .07 .12 .03 −.02 −.09 .84⁎⁎ .75⁎⁎ .68⁎⁎ –

Note. Correlations for boys appear in upper triangle and correlations for girls are in the lower triangle.
⁎ p b .01.
⁎⁎ p b .001.

EI × cognitive ability and trait EI × cognitive ability were also included
in the model following the approach recommended by Little et al.
(2006). We examined the model for boys and girls separately. Based
on the original theorising and the correlational analyses, the initial
SEM includes the following assumptions: (a) the latent variable of
cognitive ability at Year 7 will predict academic performance in
Year 11, (b) the latent variables of ability- and trait EI at Year 7 will
have direct effects on future academic performance at Year 11 and
(c) the latent variables representing the cognitive ability × ability EI
and cognitive ability × trait EI interaction terms will predict academic
performance in Year 11, demonstrating the moderating effects of abil-
ity EI and trait EI on future academic performance.
SEM analyses of the full model suggested poor fit of the specified
model to the current data for boys (χ 2 (df = 675) = 2410.89,
p b .001, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .11) and girls (χ 2 (df = 675) = 2831.96,
p b .001, CFI = .62, RMSEA = .12). In each case, we examined modifica-
tion indices to determine the removal of paths (Bentler, 1990; Bryne,
2010). This examination suggested the removal of the following paths
(1) trait EI × cognitive ability interaction term for the model for boys,
and (2) trait EI and the interaction term trait EI x cognitive ability for
the model for girls. Modification indices did not suggest improvement
to the model by inclusion of additional paths. We made changes to
the models based on these indices and improved the overall model
fit (Boys: χ 2 (df = 310) = 961.66, p b .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .09;
Girls: χ 2 (df = 253) = 3289 p = .01, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .10). The
final model specifications for boys and girls, with significant path
co-efficients are detailed in Figs. 1 and 2. The factor loadings for the
latent variables are not included in these figures for ease of

Table 3
Measurement models (factor loadings and fit indices) for each latent variable to be used in the full SEM model for boys and girls separately.

Boys (N = 199) Girls (N = 214)

Factor loadings χ2 df RMSEA CFI Factor loadings χ2 df RMSEA CFI

Cognitive ability (CAT) CATv = .79 210.48⁎ 6 .04 .98 CATnv = .77 301.29⁎ 6 .08 .95
CATq = .80 CATq = .81
CATnv = .88 CATnv = .88
Ability EI (MSCEIT-Yv) Section A = .57 .71 2 .04 .95 Section A = .54 .77 2 .06 .92
Section B = .61 Section B = .63
Section C = .89 Section C = .76
Section D = .69 Section D = .64
Trait EI (EQi-YV) Intrapersonal = .65 7.58⁎ 2 .09 .92 Intrapersonal = .65 5.08 2 .08 .95
Interpersonal = .59 Interpersonal = .53
Stress manage = .57 Stress manage = .61
Adaptability = .73 Adaptability = .79
GSCE Performance Maths = .87 11.70⁎ 2 .08 .99 Maths = .84 11.58⁎ 2 .07 .98
English Language = .88 English Language = .88
English lit. = .84 English lit. = .84
Science = .95 Science = .90

† Standardised estimates; CFA for each latent variable conducted in MPlus 5.1.
Note: Cut-off criteria indicative of good fit are RMSEA b .06, and CFI > .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). More liberal criteria indicative of moderate levels of model fit are RMSEA b .08 and
CFI > .90 (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004).
⁎ p b .05.
88 P. Qualter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 83–91
Fig. 1. Final Model for EI predicting Academic Success for Boys.†Notes: † path coeffi-
cients are standardised; the factor loadings of manifest variables for the latent variables
of GCSE, ability EI, and cognitive ability can be found in Table 3. We used Little et al.'s
(2006) approach to create the interaction term detailed above.
Fig. 2. Final Model for EI predicting Academic Success for Girls.†Notes: † path coeffi-
cients are standardised; the factor loadings of manifest variables for the latent variables
of GCSE, ability EI, and cognitive ability can be found in Table 3. We used Little et al.'s
(2006) approach to create the interaction term detailed above.
Fig. 3. Interactive effects of cognitive ability and ability EI on GCSE Performance for
girls.
interpretation, but are included in Table 3 under the measurement
model information.
The models in Figs. 1 and 2 show that for both males and females,
ability EI moderates the relationship between cognitive ability and
academic success. To facilitate the interpretation of these findings, in-
teraction plots were generated using the method recommended by
Aiken and West (1991). The resulting slopes are depicted in Figs. 3
and 4. For girls, the relation between ability EI and GCSE performance
was strongest when cognitive ability was high. For boys, the effects of
ability EI were different, such that relations between higher ability EI
and GCSE performance were strong for those low and high on cogni-
tive ability. Thus, girls and boys high on both cognitive ability and
ability EI in Year 7 scored higher than others on GCSE performance
in Year 11. Further, we find a positive effect of having high ability EI
for boys with low cognitive ability for GCSE performance. We do not
find this same effect for girls: for girls, ability EI seems to be an advan-
tage only for those high on cognitive ability.
4. Discussion
This prospective study examined the impact of both ability and
trait EI on future academic performance when cognitive ability and
personality are controlled. Results showed cognitive ability was by
far the biggest predictor of academic performance, which is in line
with previous studies (Deary et al., 2007; Furnham et al., 2009). In ad-
dition, we also find evidence that EI predicts academic performance,
which supports previous empirical work that measured EI concur-
rently or in one-year longitudinal studies (Austin et al., 2005;
Downey et al., 2008; Gil-Olarte Marquez et al., 2006; Lyons & Schnei-
der, 2005; Mestre et al., 2006; Parker, Creque, et al., 2004; Parker,
Summerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, 2004; Petrides et al., 2004; Vidal
Rodeiro et al., 2009). This study extends previous work in the follow-
ing ways: (1) it assesses these relationships over a five year period,
(2) it assesses both ability EI and trait EI and their moderating effects
Fig. 4. Interactive effects of cognitive ability and ability EI on GCSE Performance for
boys.
 P. Qualter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 83–91
on cognitive ability within one study, (3) it uses latent variables of
these indicators in Structural Equation Modelling to increase power,
and (4) examines these effects separately for males and females.
Our findings show associations between ability- and trait EI measured
at 11 years of age and academic performance five years later and il-
lustrate the importance of assessing these associations separately
for boys and girls.
As well as a direct effect of ability EI, our analyses show that ability
EI moderates the effect of cognitive ability on GCSE performance; it
does this differently for boys and girls. We find an advantage of hav-
ing high ability EI for boys high and low on cognitive ability as they
outperformed boys who were of similar cognitive ability, but had
low ability EI. We find this advantage for girls high on both cognitive
ability and EI as they outperformed their cognitively able, but lower
ability EI female peers; girls low on cognitive ability, but high on EI
did not outperform their low cognitive ability, low ability EI peers,
unlike for boys. It seems that having higher ability EI provides an ad-
vantage for both boys and girls who are cognitively able when taking
GCSE exams, but it helps only boys, and not girls, who are low on cog-
nitive ability.
The mechanism by which ability EI provides an advantage for
some cognitively able adolescents will need to be explored in future
research. We propose that being able to identify emotional stressors
and manage these during the period of revision and examination pe-
riod will be important in enabling cognitively able adolescents to
achieve their very best. We hypothesise that cognitively able adoles-
cents who are low on ability EI use more maladaptive coping when
dealing with emotional stressors surrounding revision, which then
impacts academic performance. Thus, low ability EI might explain ad-
justment problems experienced by some students high on cognitive
ability (see Plucker & Levy, 2001 for review).
As well as providing an advantage for cognitively able boys, abil-
ity EI also provides this advantage for boys low on cognitive ability,
such that they outperform boys low on both cognitive ability and
ability EI. Although we have not measured the processes through
which ability EI influences the academic performance of boys with
low IQ, we hypothesise that boys low on IQ, but high on ability EI
use adaptive coping and are less tempted to avoid difficulties in the
academic sphere by disengaging from academic activities. High abil-
ity EI enables these boys to manage emotions, which helps them
maintain a positive mood and keeps them focused on the academic
task in hand. It also means they are less likely to disengage from
learning, and so less likely to gravitate towards peers who favour de-
linquent pursuits (Dishion, 1990; Hinshaw, 1992; Patterson, Capaldi,
Bank, Pepler, & Rubin, 1991), and more likely to stay on a positive ac-
ademic trajectories (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli,
2001). So, having higher EI for a low cognitively able boy may help
him stay focused on learning as he handles his academic stressors
appropriately.
Trait EI was also found to predict academic performance, but this
was found only for boys. Gender differences in the role of trait EI in
predicting academic success support previous empirical study that
shows how gender differences in emotional self-efficacy are accom-
panied by differential patterns of adaptation, including academic per-
formance (Bandura, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Gerbino, & Pastorelli,
2003). In the current study, girls scored higher than boys on impor-
tant subscales of Trait EI in Year 7 and there was a differential pattern
of adaptation (academic performance) measured at the end of high
school. This gender difference in the role of trait EI in predicting aca-
demic performance may be an outcome of the tendency of boys to be
more “self-congratulatory” in their self-efficacy responses, whereas
girls tend to be more modest (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). So, boys are
more likely to express confidence in skills they may not possess and
to express overconfidence in skills they do possess (Pajares, 2002).
Our findings support the distinction between trait and ability EI as
the latent variables of these constructs correlated .45 for boys and .39
89
for girls. This level of association is in line with previous research with
adolescents (Zeidner, Shani-Zinovich, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004).
Also, ability- and trait EI differentially predict later academic success,
suggesting that they have distinct patterns of associations with later
performance, and should be treated as different constructs.
The results also confirm findings in the adult literature that trait EI is
related to personality, but this is the first study that includes an exami-
nation of the link between personality dimensions and EI in an early ad-
olescent sample. In their recent meta-analysis with data collected from
adult samples, Joseph and Newman (2010) reported the following rela-
tionships between trait EI and personality dimensions: .31 with Agree-
ableness, .38 with Conscientiousness, .40 with Emotional Stability, .32
with Extraversion and .29 with Openness. In the current study with
early adolescents, we found evidence that certain aspects of trait EI
measured by the EQ-i:Yv (interpersonal, stress management, and
adaptability) related to neuroticism and extraversion, but only for
girls. Future work will want to examine these relationships further by
using different personality measures appropriate for use with this age
group that cover different aspects of personality, such as conscientious-
ness (Temperament scale of Junior Temperament and Character Inven-
tory: Luby, Svrakic, McCallum, Przybeck, & Cloninger, 1999; The Big Five
Inventory: Soto & John, 2009a, 2009b). Such examinations will also
want to explore these relationships across gender.
The use of different personality measures will also be important in
further testing our model of academic success, where emotional func-
tioning interacts with cognitive ability. For the current sample, per-
sonality was not associated with academic performance and does
not appear in the final models. The absence of an effect could be
due to the personality measure we used and we advise that future
work uses different personality measures that cover the full spectrum
of individual personality differences.
The current study is not without its limitations. In particular, we
have not determined the mechanisms by which EI impacts on aca-
demic achievement. We have proposed possible pathways, but future
research will want to investigate the specific mechanisms at work.
Recent work by MacCann, Fogarty, Zeidner, and Roberts (2011)
shows problem-focused coping with stress and negative emotions is
critical in understanding why emotional intelligence is associated
with enhanced achievement. Future research should extend this
work, but it might (1) utilise qualitative methodologies in prospective
studies and (2) include work with specific groups of children, such as
students high on cognitive ability who demonstrate adjustment prob-
lems compared to those that do not.
We showed that ability and trait EI are predictive of later academic
performance, suggesting that the development of EI may improve ac-
ademic success. Support for the notion that EI can be developed
comes from studies where both types of EI have been improved and
have had positive effects on educational progression (Dacre-Pool &
Qualter, in press; Nelis, Quoidbach, Mikolajczak, & Hansenne, 2009;
Qualter et al., 2007). We have shown here that ability EI in particular
is important for academic achievement; from these findings, we pro-
pose that the teaching of emotional skills is likely to have the effect of
increasing academic performance. We conclude that initiatives that
can develop ability- and trait EI may offer educators significant op-
portunities to improve educational achievement. Given our findings,
we suggest that systematic evaluations of such interventions are
also important, and we recommend the use of both trait- and ability
EI measures and separate analyses for boys and girls.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Head teachers, staff, and pupils of the par-
ticipating schools for their support throughout the study. Thanks
also to MHS for the use of the MSCEIT-Yv and the research assistants
who helped with data collection.
90 P. Qualter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 83–91
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interac-
tions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Austin, E. J., Evans, P., Goldwater, R., & Potter, V. (2005). A preliminary study of emo-
tional intelligence, empathy and exam performance in first year medical students.
Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1395–1405.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundation of thought and action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In L. Pervin, & O. John
(Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 154–196). (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs
as shapers of children's aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72,
187–206.
Bandura, A., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M., & Pastorelli, C. (2003). Role of
affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning.
Child Development, 74, 769–782.
Barchard, K. A. (2003). Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction of academic
success? Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 840–858.
Barlow, A., Qualter, P., & Stylianou, M. S. (2010). Relationships between Machiavellian-
ism, emotional intelligence and theory of mind in children. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 48, 78–82.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The bar-on Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): a test of emotional in-
telligence. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R., & Parker, J. D. A. (2000). The handbook of emotional intelligence. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bastian, V. A., Burns, N. R., & Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Emotional intelligence predicts life
skills, but not as well as personality and cognitive abilities. Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 39, 1135–1145.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulle-
tin, 107, 238–246.
Bryne, B. M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with MPlus (1st edition). London:
Routledge.
Chamorro-Premuzic, C. T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic perfor-
mance: Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in
Personality, 37, 319–338.
Corulla, W. J. (1990). A revised version of the psychoticism scale for children. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences, 11, 65–76.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information
processing mechanisms in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 74–101.
Dacre-Pool, L., & Qualter, P. (in press). Improving Emotional Intelligence and Emotional
Self-Efficacy through a teaching intervention for university students. Learning and
Indidivual Differences.
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandes, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational
achievement. Intelligence, 35, 13–21.
Denham, S. A. (2007). Dealing with feelings: How children negotiate the worlds of
emotions and social relationships. Cognitions, Brain, Behavior, 11, 1–48.
Dishion, T. J. (1990). Peer context of child and adolescent troublesome behaviour. In P.
Leone (Ed.), Understanding troubled and troublesome youth (pp. 128–135). London:
Sage.
Downey, L. A., Mountstephen, J., Lloyd, K., Hansen, K., & Stough, C. (2008). Emotional
intelligence and scholastic achievement in Australian adolescents. Australian Jour-
nal of Psychology, 60, 10–17.
Fabes, R. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Regulatory control and adults' stress-related re-
sponses to daily life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
1107–1117.
Ferguson, D. M., & Horwood, J. L. (1997). Gender differences in educational achieve-
ment in a New Zealand birth cohort. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies,
32, 83–96.
Furnham, A., Monsen, J., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2009). Typical intellectual engagement, Big
Five personality traits, approaches to learning, and cognitive ability predictors of
academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 769–782.
Gagnon, C., Craig, W. M., Tremblay, R. E., Zhou, R. M., & Vitaro, F. A. (1995). Kindergar-
ten predictors of boys' stable behaviour problems at the end of elementary school.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 751–766.
Gil-Olarte Marquez, P. G., Martin, R. P., & Brackett, M. A. (2006). Relating emotional in-
telligence to social competence and academic achievement in high school stu-
dents. Psicothema, 18, 118–123.
Goh, D., & Moore, C. (1987). Personality and academic achievement in three education-
al levels. Psychological Report, 43, 71–79.
Goldenberg, I., Matheson, K., & Mantler, J. (2006). The assessment of emotional intelli-
gence: A comparison of performance-based and self-report methodologies. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 86, 33–45.
Haapasalo, J., & Tremblay, R. E. (1994). Physically aggressive boys from ages 6–12:
Family background, parenting behaviour, and prediction of delinquency. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 1044–1052.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalising behavior problems and academic underachieve-
ment in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and underlying mecha-
nisms. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 712–720.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,
1–55.
Izard, C. E. (2002). Translating emotion theory and research into preventive interven-
tions. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 796–824.
Izard, C. E., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B., & Youngstrom, E. (2001).
Emotions knowledge as a predictor of social behaviour and academic competence
in children at risk. Psychological Science, 12, 18–23.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-
analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78.
Kirk, B. A., Schutte, N. S., & Hine, D. W. (2008). Development and preliminary validation
of an emotional self-efficacy scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,
432–436.
Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1996). Peer victimisation: Cause or consequence of
school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305–1317.
Laidra, K., Pullman, H., & Allik, J. (2007). Personality and intelligence as predictors of ac-
ademic achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 441–451.
Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Widaman, K. F. (2006). On the merits of orthogonalizing
powered and product terms: Implications for modeling interactions among latent
variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 497–519.
Luby, J. L., Svrakic, D. M., McCallum, K., Przybeck, T. R., & Cloninger, C. R. (1999). The ju-
nior temperament and character inventory: Preliminary validation of a child self-
report measure. Psychological Reports, 84, 1127–1138.
Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2005). The influence of emotional intelligence on perfor-
mance. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 693–703.
MacCann, C., Fogarty, G. J., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2011). Coping mediates the re-
lationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and academic achievement. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 36, 60–70.
Maqsud, M. (1993). Relationships of some personality variables to academic attain-
ment of secondary school. Educational Psychology, 13, 11–18.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. L. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hy-
pothesis testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in
overgeneralising Hu & Bentler (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11,
320–341.
Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z. L., & Hau, K. T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent inter-
actions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction.
Psychological Methods, 9, 275–300.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., & Furnham, A. (2009). Relating trait emo-
tional intelligence to objective socio-emotional outcomes in childhood. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 259–272.
Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. Sluy-
ter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implica-
tions (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings,
and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197–215.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2005). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intel-
ligence Test — Youth Version (MSCEIT-YV), Research Version 1.0. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Mayer, J., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclec-
tic traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503–517.
McLaughlin, K., Moutray, M., & Muldoon, O. T. (2007). The role of personality and self-
efficacy in the selection and retention of successful nursing students: A longitudi-
nal study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 61, 211–221.
Mestre, J. M., Guil, R., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Gil-Olarte, P. (2006). Emotional intel-
ligence and social and academic adaptation to school. Psicothema, 18, 112–117.
Nelis, D., Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., & Hansenne, M. (2009). Increasing emotional
intelligence: (How) is it possible? Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 36–41.
Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of
emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1005–1016.
O'Boyle, E. H., Jr., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2010). The
relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 788–818.
Pajares, F. (2002). Gender and perceived self-efficacy in self-regulated learning. Theory
in Practice, 41, 116–125.
Parker, J. D. A., Creque, S., Barnhart, D. L., Harris, J. I., Majeski, S. A., Wood, L. M., et al.
(2004). Academic achievement in high school: Does emotional intelligence mat-
ter? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1321–1330.
Parker, J. D. A., Hogan, M. J., Easterbrook, J. M., Oke, A., & Wood, L. M. (2006). Emotional
intelligence and student retention: Predicting the successful transition from high
school to university. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1329–1336.
Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., & Majeski, S. A. (2004). Emotional intel-
ligence and academic success: Examining the transition from high school to uni-
versity. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 163–172.
Parsons, J. E., & Ruble, D. N. (1977). The development of achievement-related expecta-
tions. Child Development, 48, 1075–1079.
Patterson, G. R., Capaldi, D., Bank, L., Pepler, D., & Rubin, K. H. (1991). An early starter
model for predicting delinquency. The development and treatment of childhood ag-
gression (pp. 139–168). London: Erlbaum.
Pervin, L. (1993). Personality: Theory and research. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc..
Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intel-
ligence in academic performance and deviant behaviour at school. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36, 277–293.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural valida-
tion in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. Euro-
pean Journal of Personality, 17, 39–57.
Petrides, K. V., Furnham, A., & Mavroveli, S. (2007). Trait emotional intelligence: Mov-
ing forward in the field of EI. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner, & R. Roberts (Eds.), Emo-
tional intelligence: Knowns and unknowns (Series in Affective Science). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Petrides, K., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence
in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273–289.
 P. Qualter et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 83–91
Petrides, K. V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2005). Explain-
ing individual differences in scholastic behaviour and achievement. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 75, 239–255.
Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., Furnham, A., & Frederickson, N. (2006). Trait emotional intel-
ligence and children's peer relations at school. Social Development, 15, 537–547.
Plucker, J. A., & Levy, J. J. (2001). The downside of being talented. American Psychologist,
56, 75–76.
Qualter, P. (2008). Reducing exclusions: The role of emotional intelligence. Secondary
Education (pp. 12–13).
Qualter, P., Barlow, A., & Stylianou, M. S. (2011). Investigating the relationships be-
tween ability and trait emotional intelligence, and theory of mind. British Journal
of Developmental Psychology, 29, 437–454.
Qualter, P., Whiteley, H. E., Hutchinson, J. M., & Pope, D. J. (2007). Supporting the devel-
opment of emotional intelligence competencies to ease the transition from prima-
ry to high school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23, 79–95.
Qualter, P., Whiteley, H. E., Morley, A., & Dudiak, H. (2009). The role of emotional intel-
ligence in the decision to persist with academic studies in HE. Post Compulsory Ed-
ucation, 14, 219–231.
Rivers, S. E., Brackett, M. A., & Salovey, P. (2008). Measuring emotional intelligence as a
mental ability in adults and children. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment. Personality measure-
ment and testing, Vol. 2. (pp. 440–460) London: Sage.
Sanchez-Marin, M., Rejano-Infante, E., & Rodriguez-Troyano, Y. (2001). Personality and
academic productivity in the university student. Social Behaviour and Personality,
29, 299–305.
91
Schneider, T. R., Lyons, J. B., & Williams, M. (2005). Emotional intelligence and auto-
nomic self-perception: emotional abilities are related to visceral acuity. Personality
and Individual Differences, 39, 853–861.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence
with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 43, 84–90.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Using the California Psychological Inventory to assess
the Big Five personality domains: A hierarchical approach. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43, 25–38.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th Edition). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Van Der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, L. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelli-
gence with academic intelligence and the Big Five. European Journal of Personality,
16, 103–125.
Van Rooy, D. L., Viswesvaran, C., & Pluta, P. (2005). An evaluation of construct validity:
What is this thing called emotional intelligence? Human Relations, 18, 445–462.
Vidal Rodeiro, C. L., Bell, J. F., & Emery, J. L. (2009). Can emotional and social abilities
predict differences in attainment at secondary school? Research Matters, 7, 17–22.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theo-
retical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.
Wolf, M., & Ackerman, P. (2005). Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic inves-
tigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 531–542.
Zeidner, M., Shani-Zinovich, I., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2004). Assessing emo-
tional intelligence in gifted and non-gifted high school students: Outcomes depend
on the measure. Intelligence, 33, 369–391.
 Update
Learning and Individual Differences
Volume 58, Issue , August 2017, Page 97–99

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.06.005
 Learning and Individual Differences 58 (2017) 97–99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Corrigendum

Corrigendum to “Ability emotional intelligence, trait emotional intelligence, MARK

and academic success in British secondary schools: A 5 year longitudinal
study” [Learning and Individual Differences 22 (2012) 83–91]
Pamela Qualtera,⁎, Kathryn J. Gardnera, Debbie J. Popeb, Jane M. Hutchinsona,
Helen E. Whiteleyb
a
School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK
b
Department of Social and Psychological Science, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire, UK

In the article ‘Ability emotional intelligence, trait emotional in-
telligence, and academic success in British secondary schools: A 5-year
longitudinal study’ by Qualter, P., Gardner, K.J., Pope, D.J.,
Hutchinson, J.M., and Whiteley, H.E. (2012). Learning and Individual
Differences, 22, 83–91. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.
11.007, there were errors in the reporting of some statistical outcomes.
Those mistakes come from reporting numbers from SEM results related
to a different aspect of the larger project of which the current study was
one part rather than reporting numbers from SEM analyses that related
to the current study. A further error occurred when typing the Chi-
square statistics (from the wrong SEM analyses) into Table 3 of the
paper: these numbers were put into the wrong cells of that column.
These two mistakes mean that (1) the fit statistics and factor loadings
for the measurement models used in the study were incorrectly
reported, and (2) the reported RMSEA and CFI results did not match
the chi-square statistics for the given degrees of freedom. A corrected
version of Table 3 that includes numbers from the correct SEM analyses
is given here.
The reading of the wrong SEM results and the additional transposing
errors in relation to the chi-square statistics meant incorrect model fit
information for the initial and final models were also reported. Correct
details for the initial full models are as follows: boys (χ2 (df = 635)
= 1703.85, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.78, RMSEA = 0.09); girls (χ2
(df = 635) = 1979.445, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.76, RMSEA = 0.10).
Correct fit statistics for the final models are as follows: boys: χ2
(df = 288) = 629.163, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.08; girls:
χ2 (df = 194) = 542.487 p = 0.001, CFI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.09). A
significant difference was found between the initial and final models for
boys (Δχ2 = 1074.687, Δdf = 347, p < 0.001), and girls
(Δχ2 = 1436.968, Δdf = 441, p < 0.001), suggesting that the final
models fit the data better.
The reading of numbers from the wrong SEM analyses also meant
that the final model specification in Fig. 2 was incorrectly noted; Fig. 3
showing the interactive effects of cognitive ability and ability EI on
GCSE Performance for girls included mistakes because it was based on
findings reported in Fig. 2. The correct figures are noted below.
The changes to the paper do not affect the overall conclusion pre-
sented in the paper, that emotional intelligence predicts academic
performance. Four ways the results extend the literature are discussed
in the first paragraph of the discussion — those still stand. But, it is the
case that, rather than ability EI providing an advantage for girls high on
cognitive ability, it provided an advantage for girls low on cognitive
ability. This means that comments in the 4th paragraph of the discus-
sion that consider how ability emotional intelligence influences the
academic performance of boys with low IQ also apply to girls.
The authors requested this corrigendum, wanting to correct the
scientific record. They sincerely regret these mistakes.

DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.007

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: PQualter@uclan.ac.uk (P. Qualter).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.06.005

1041-6080/
P. Qualter et al. Learning and Individual Differences 58 (2017) 97–99

Table 3
Table 3 Measurement models (factor loadings and fit indices) for each latent variable to be used in the full SEM model for boys and girls separately.

Boys (N = 199) Girls (N = 214)

Factor loadings χ 2
df RMSEA CFI Factor loadings χ2 df RMSEA CFI

Cognitive ability (CAT)a CATv = 0.79 CATv = 0.83

CATq = 0.80 CATq = 0.77
CATnv = 0.88 CATnv = 0.58
Ability EI (MSCEIT-Yv) Section A = 0.38 1.139 2 0.00 1.00 Section A = 0.47 0.996 2 0.00 1.00
Section B = 0.53 Section B = 0.61
Section C = 0.98 Section C = 0.75
Section D = 0.70 Section D = 0.62
Trait EI (EQi-YV) Intrapersonal = 0.65 4.458 2 0.08 0.96 Intrapersonal = 0.55 4.105 2 0.07 0.97
Interpersonal = 0.58 Interpersonal = 0.54
Stress Manage = 0.58 Stress Manage = 0.61
Adaptability = 0.75 Adaptability = 0.40
GSCE Performance Maths = 0.92 0.609 2 0.00 1.00 Maths = 0.82 3.589 2 0.06 1.00
English Language = 0.69 English Language = 0.67
English Lit. = 0.70 English Lit. = 0.75
Science = 0.83 Science = 0.87

Notes: standardized estimates are used; CFA for each latent variable conducted in MPlus 5.1, and confirmed in AMOS 22.
a
Saturated model so goodness of fit tests are not applicable — the noted factor loadings come from the final model. Cut-off criteria indicative of good fit are RMSEA < 0.06, and
CFI > 0.95 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). More liberal criteria indicative of moderate levels of model fit are RMSEA < 0.08 and CFI > 0.90 (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004).

Fig. 2. Final model for EI predicting academic success for

girls.
Notes: *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001, †p = 0.051. Path coeffi-
cients are standardized; the factor loadings of manifest vari-
ables for the latent variables of GCSE, ability EI, and cognitive
ability can be found in Table 3. We used Little, Bovaird, and
Widaman's (2006) approach to create the interaction term
detailed above.

98
P. Qualter et al. Learning and Individual Differences 58 (2017) 97–99

10
9
8

GCSE Performance
7
6
5 Low Ability
EI
4
3 High Ability
2 EI

1
0
Low Cognitive Ability High Cognitive Ability

Fig. 3. Interactive effects of cognitive ability and ability EI on GCSE Performance for girls.

99