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