Emotional development among early school-age children: gender differences in the role of problem behaviours

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for all study variables.

Variable	M (SD)	Kurtosis	Skewness	Range
Whole sample
Emotional understanding
Emotional attribution accuracy (Accuracy)	5 (1.64)	2.5	−.27	0–8
Emotion recognition questionnaire (ERQ)	10.21 (2.63)	2.68	−.29	2–16
Inhibitory control
Emotional regulation (EReg)	87.49 (18.98)	8.34	−2.26	0–100
Competent emotional expression
Emotional competence (EComp)	36.28 (11.9)	2.55	−.11	1–60
Classroom behaviour
Emotional symptoms (EES)	1.13 (1.73)	5.89	1.78	0–9
Conduct problems (CPS)	.76 (1.42)	10.40	2.56	0–10
Hyperactivity (HS)	3.34 (2.98)	2.49	.76	0–10
Peer problems (PPS)	1.36 (1.65)	4.65	1.35	0–9
Prosocial behaviour (PS)	6.93 (2.35)	2.51	−.45	0–10

Table 2. Intercorrelations of the study variables.

	EReg	ERQ	Accuracy	ProSoc	EES	CPS	HS	PPS	EComp
Whole sample
EReg	–
ERQ	.32**	–
Accuracy	.23**	.25**	–
ProSoc	.34**	.28**	.14**	–
EES	−.08*	−.18**	−.05	−.13**	–
CPS	−.22**	−.09*	−.06	−.47**	.16**	–
HS	−.34**	−.21**	−.12**	−.55**	.11**	.57**	–
PPS	−.25**	−.23**	−.14**	−.48**	.32**	.37**	.38**	–
EComp	.34**	.28**	.15**	.74**	−.24**	−.54**	−.61**	−.54**	–
Boys
EReg	–
ERQ	.34**	–
Accuracy	.21**	.21**	–
ProSoc	.31**	.23**	.14**	–
EES	−.07	−.12*	−.03	−.18**	–
CPS	−.19**	−.02	−.02	−.51**	.23**	–
HS	−.25**	−.16**	−.07	−.51**	.10	.52**	–
PPS	−.24**	−.25**	−.13*	−.47**	.32**	.38**	.38**	–
EComp	.32**	.23**	.11*	.72**	−.27**	−.56**	−.57**	−.52**	–
Girls
EReg	–
ERQ	.30**	–
Accuracy	.25**	.29**	–
ProSoc	.34**	.24**	.15**	–
EES	−.10	−.25**	−.07	−.09	–
CPS	−.26**	−.14**	−.09	−.42**	.09	–
HS	−.44**	−.25**	−.19**	−.53**	.14**	.65**	–
PPS	−.26**	−.23**	−.16**	−.53**	.33**	.38**	.42**	–
EComp	.35**	.31**	.19**	.72**	−.18**	−.52**	−.62**	−.58**	–

^** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

^* Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).

Table 3. T-test and effect size estimates for gender differences in study variables.

Variable	M (SD)		Gender difference t-test			Effect size Cohen’s d
	Girls	Boys	t	df	p value
Emotional understanding
Emotional attribution accuracy (Accuracy)	5.01 (1.60)	4.98 (1.67)	.29	739	.77	.02
Emotion recognition questionnaire (ERQ)	10.44 (2.68)	9.99 (2.58)	2.30	734	.02	.17
Inhibitory control
Emotional regulation (EReg)	89.02 (17.16)	86.07 (20.45)	2.10	723	.04	.16
Competent emotional expression
Emotional competence (EComp)	38.17 (11.56)	34.54 (11.96)	3.93	651	<.001	.31
Classroom behaviour
Emotional symptoms (EES)	1.19 (1.74)	1.07 (1.71)	.93	740	.35	.07
Conduct problems (CPS)	.67 (1.44)	.84 (1.39)	−1.66	741	.10	−.12
Hyperactivity (HS)	2.65 (2.77)	3.96 (3.04)	−6.11	741	<.001	−.45
Peer problems (PPS)	1.44 (1.71)	1.28 (1.59)	1.38	741	.17	.10
Prosocial behaviour (PS)	7.42 (2.31)	6.49 (2.31)	5.51	741	<.001	.41

Figure 1. Structural equation model depicting associations between emotional processing and behavioural constructs for the full sample.

Note: Standardised coefficients presented. +p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 4. Fit statistics for the whole and gender models.

	Whole model	Gender model
Chi-square test of model fit
Value	46.07	87.68
Degrees of freedom	18	42
p-value	<.001	<.001
RMSEA
Estimate	.04	.05
90% C.I.	.03–.06	.04–.07
Prob ≤ .05	.65	.32
CFI	.97	.96
TLI	.94	.93

Figure 2. Structural equation model depicting associations between emotional processing and behavioural constructs for the male sample.

Note: Standardised coefficients. +p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 3. Structural equation model depicting associations between emotional processing and behavioural constructs for the female sample.

Note: Standardised coefficients. +p < .1; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.