The relation between emotional intelligence and resilience in at-risk populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Resilience factors and their relation to emotional intelligence (EI) as a potential strength for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (HFASD) were investigated. Children with either ADHD or HFASD were hypothesized to demonstrate reduced EI and differential relations between EI and resilience as compared to typically developing (TD) children. METHODS: Fifty-four children aged 8-12 years (18 with ADHD, 18 with HFASD, and 18 TD controls) completed the Resilience Scales for Children and Adolescents and BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory. Differences between groups (analysis of variance) and unique relations among the variables (correlation) for each group were examined. RESULTS: No group differences; however, unique relations between the variables were found within each sample. CONCLUSIONS: EI may be a unique area of interest for clinical populations and an important consideration in the development and implementation of interventions to capitalize upon inherent strengths. Implications of these results for intervention are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".