Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Document 3 Feb 27 2009 B W Parker

325 views

Published on

Test Power Point Presentation

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Document 3 Feb 27 2009 B W Parker

  1. 1. Emotional Intelligence: Exploring the Education & Wellness Implications <ul><li>James D. A. Parker, </li></ul><ul><li>Canada Research Chair in Emotion & Health </li></ul><ul><li>Trent University, Ontario </li></ul>
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>pre-history of EI </li></ul><ul><li>overview of EI models </li></ul><ul><li>EI: the transition to adulthood perspective </li></ul><ul><li>EI: the child and adolescent perspective </li></ul>
  3. 3. Pre-History of EI: the Educational Psychology Perspective <ul><li>“ social intelligence” (Thorndike, 1920) </li></ul><ul><li>“ nonintellective intelligence ” ( Wechsler, 1940) </li></ul><ul><li>“ multiple intelligence” (Garner, 1983) </li></ul><ul><li>“ practical intelligence” (Sternberg, 1985 ) </li></ul>
  4. 4. Pre-History of EI: the Clinical Perspective <ul><li>“ psychological mindedness” ( McCallum & Piper, 1997) </li></ul><ul><li>“ need for cognition” (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) </li></ul><ul><li>“ levels of emotional awareness” ( Lane & Schwartz, 1987) </li></ul><ul><li>“ alexithymia” (Sifneos, 1973) </li></ul>
  5. 5. Emotional Intelligence: Historical Overview <ul><li>Salovey & Mayer (1989/1990) </li></ul><ul><li>Goleman (1995) </li></ul><ul><li>Bar-On (1997) </li></ul>
  6. 6. Bar-On Model of EI Interpersonal Abilities Intrapersonal Abilities Stress Management Abilities Adaptability Abilities
  7. 7. EI Models <ul><li>EI distinct from cognitive abilities </li></ul><ul><li>EI abilities develop over time </li></ul><ul><li>changes throughout life </li></ul><ul><li>can be improved through training and remedial programs </li></ul>
  8. 8.   EI across childhood/adolescence (EQ-i:YV) Age-group
  9. 9.   EI across adulthood (EQ-i) Decade of life
  10. 10. When does EI change? (the importance of transitions) <ul><li>from elementary school to high school </li></ul><ul><li>high school to the workplace </li></ul><ul><li>high school to university </li></ul><ul><li>from single to being married </li></ul><ul><li>transition to parenthood </li></ul><ul><li>losing a job (changing jobs) </li></ul><ul><li>from marriage to divorce </li></ul>
  11. 11. EI as Vulnerability for Internalizing and Externalizing Problems: Young Adults <ul><li>1st year Trent undergraduates (n = 1616; 472 men & 1144 women) </li></ul><ul><li>rated themselves on EI, social anxiety & ADHD symptoms at the start of term (Sept.) </li></ul>
  12. 12. EI: EQ-i:Short ADHD (CAARS) -.73 -.68 EI: EQ-i:Short Social Anxiety (SIAS) -.77 -.75 Note: results for men above the arrow; women below
  13. 13. Family Study: EI and Internalizing and Externalizing Problems <ul><li>sample consists of 192 families (children and both biological parents) </li></ul><ul><li>children (91 males and 101 females) ranged in age from 8 to 16 years </li></ul>
  14. 14. Measures <ul><li>Children </li></ul><ul><li>EQ-i:YV </li></ul><ul><li>Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; Kovacs, 1992) </li></ul><ul><li>Conners’ Rating Scale-Self Report (CRS; Conners, 1997) </li></ul><ul><li>Parents </li></ul><ul><li>EQ-i </li></ul><ul><li>CDI (Parent rating-form; Kovacs, 2005) </li></ul><ul><li>CRS (Parent rating-form ) </li></ul>
  15. 15. Father’s Ratings Mother’s Ratings Self Ratings Child’s Mood Child’s EI .68 .83 .52 -.66 EI and depression symptoms
  16. 16. Father’s Ratings Mother’s Ratings Self Ratings Child’s Conduct Child’s EI .70 .51 .46 -.47 EI and conduct problems
  17. 17. Father’s Ratings Mother’s Ratings Self Ratings Child’s Conduct Child’s EI .50 .51 .51 -.52 EI and ADHD symptoms
  18. 18. EI: the Post-Secondary Perspective
  19. 19. Why do students withdraw? <ul><li>is there a link between academic success and EI? </li></ul>
  20. 20. Reasons students withdraw
  21. 21. Common “personal problems” <ul><li>problems making new relationships </li></ul><ul><li>problems modifying existing relationships (e.g., living apart) </li></ul><ul><li>difficulties learning new study habits </li></ul><ul><li>problems learning to be independent </li></ul>
  22. 22. Trent Academic Success & Wellness Project (TASWP) <ul><li>phase 1 started in Sept. (1999) at Trent University </li></ul><ul><li>initial goal was to develop an assessment protocol to identify 1st-year students at risk for “failure” using the EQ-i:Short . </li></ul><ul><li>focus was on full-time students coming to Trent within 24 months of graduation from high-school </li></ul>
  23. 23. <ul><li>2 groups of particular interest: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;successful&quot; students (1st-year GPA of 80% or better) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;unsuccessful&quot; students (1st-year GPA of 59% or less) </li></ul></ul></ul>TASWP (predicting academic success; Parker et al., 2004)
  24. 24. <ul><li>Two groups not significantly different on: </li></ul><ul><li>high school GPA </li></ul><ul><li>age </li></ul><ul><li>course load at start of year </li></ul>
  25. 25. * * * p < .05 * Mean EQ-i scores for 1 st year students (GPA 80% or better vs. 59% or less)
  26. 26. Predicting “successful” and “unsuccessful” students using EI Successful Unsuccessful
  27. 27. TASWP (predicting retention; Parker et al., 2005) <ul><li>2 groups of interest: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>students who withdrew at some point before the start of 2 nd year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2nd-year students at Trent (randomly matched with the 1st group on age, gender, and year starting at Trent) </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. Predicting students who persist vs. students who withdraw using EI Persist Withdraw
  29. 29. Replication & Extension of TASW Project <ul><li>2000-2008: Trent U. (n = 7,000+); replication of results using 3 different EI-related measures </li></ul><ul><li>2002: US Pilot Project (n = 1,426) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>UNC Charlotte, U. Charleston, Georgia Southern U., U. Southern Mississippi, West Virginia U., Fairmont State College </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2005-2008: several Ontario Colleges (n = 2,500) </li></ul><ul><li>2003-2008: US/Europe Retention Projects (n = 11,000+ at 12 different institutions) </li></ul>
  30. 30. EI: Elementary and Secondary Perspectives
  31. 31. Trent Academic Success & Wellness Project (High School Performance; Parker, Creque et al., 2004 ) <ul><li>May 2002: students (grade 9 to 12) attending a high school in Huntsville, Alabama ( n = 742) completed the EQ-i:YV during a home-room period </li></ul>
  32. 32. <ul><li>2 groups identified: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>138 students scoring at the 80th percentile or better (for their grade) on end of year GPA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>131 students scoring at the 20th percentile or less (for their grade) on end of year GPA </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. * * * p < .05 * Mean EQ-i:YV scores for high school students (80 th percentile or better vs. 20 th or less)
  34. 34. Lindsay Elementary School Study (Parker, unpublished) <ul><li>sample consisted of 72 students (42 males, 30 females) attending an elementary school in Lindsay, Ontario </li></ul><ul><li>students ranged in age from 7-12 years (mean = 9.40 years; SD=1.16) </li></ul><ul><li>completed the EQ-i:YV in Sept. and June </li></ul>
  35. 35. Predicting Academic Success Above Average Below Average
  36. 36. Peterborough “Problem Child” Study <ul><li>Conduct Problems Sample </li></ul><ul><li>62 boys & 39 girls (7-17 yrs) recruited via Children’s Aid Societies (CAS) </li></ul><ul><li>all in care of the CAS for at least 6 months (due to previous or current emotional & behavioral problems) </li></ul><ul><li>83% were in a residential setting (group home); 17% were in foster care </li></ul>
  37. 37. Community Sample <ul><li>101 children & adolescents randomly selected from the large EQ-i:YV normative pool (n = 9,172) </li></ul><ul><li>matched with Group 1 on the basis of age and sex </li></ul>
  38. 38. Predicting “community sample” using EI
  39. 39. Predicting “conduct problems” sample using EI
  40. 40. Final thoughts: How can EI information be leveraged? <ul><li>supplemental information when working with special populations </li></ul><ul><li>identifying children at risk for developing internalizing and/or externalizing problems </li></ul><ul><li>useful information while monitoring treatment/intervention </li></ul><ul><li>useful information for program or curriculum evaluation </li></ul>
  41. 41. Contact Information <ul><ul><li>James D. A. Parker, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dept. of Psychology, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Trent University, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peterborough, ON </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>K9J 7B8 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tel: 705-748-1011 x1283 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fax: 705-748-1580 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul>

×