| Literature DB >> 31100799 |
Joan Guerra-Bustamante1, Benito León-Del-Barco2, Rocío Yuste-Tosina3, Víctor M López-Ramos4, Santiago Mendo-Lázaro5.
Abstract
The present study aimed to analyze the association between of the dimensions of emotional intelligence (attention, clarity, and repair) and different levels of perceived happiness (low, medium, and high) in adolescents. The sample consists of 646 students in the first, second, third, and fourth years of Secondary Education, 47.5% females and 52.5% males, between 12 and 17 years of age. The instruments used were the Spanish version of the Trait Meta Mood Scale-24 Questionnaire to measure perceived emotional intelligence and the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire. Multinomial logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were performed. The results suggest that as the capacity of understanding and regulation of emotional intelligence increases, happiness also increases. Adolescence is seen as an ideal time in life to encourage the development of emotional capacities that contribute to the greater happiness of individuals. In this way, the present study stresses the need to carry out practices leading to improvements in the adolescents' emotional intelligence and therefore increase their happiness and emotional well-being.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent; emotional intelligence; happiness; well-being
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31100799 PMCID: PMC6572191 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16101720
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Categorization and frequencies of the study variables and descriptive statistics of the OHQ-SF questionnaire.
| Variables | Categories | Frequencies | Descriptives of the OHQ-SF | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % | M | SD | Min. | Max. | ||
| OHQ-SF | Low (P ≤ 20) | 125 | 19.9% | 3.51 | 0.33 | 2.14 | 3.83 |
| Medium (20 < P < 80) | 377 | 59.9% | 4.32 | 0.26 | 3.86 | 4.76 | |
| High (P ≥ 80) | 127 | 20.2% | 5.07 | 0.24 | 4.79 | 5.83 | |
| TMMS-24 Attention | Little | 258 | 41.0% | 4.29 | 0.55 | 2.14 | 5.59 |
| Adequate | 319 | 50.7% | 4.32 | 0.57 | 2.45 | 5.83 | |
| Excessive | 52 | 8.3% | 4.43 | 0.62 | 3.07 | 5.59 | |
| TMMS-24 Clarity | Should improve | 251 | 39.9% | 4.13 | 0.56 | 2.14 | 5.55 |
| Adequate | 327 | 52.0% | 4.39 | 0.51 | 2.21 | 5.76 | |
| Excellent | 51 | 8.1% | 4.73 | 0.58 | 3.62 | 5.83 | |
| TMMS-24 Repair | Should improve | 185 | 29.4% | 4.02 | 0.60 | 2.14 | 5.59 |
| Adequate | 337 | 53.6% | 4.37 | 0.47 | 3.10 | 5.76 | |
| Excellent | 107 | 17.0% | 4.64 | 0.53 | 3.34 | 5.83 | |
| Total | 629 | 629 | 100 | 4.31 | 0.56 | 2.14 | |
M = mean, SD = standard deviation. P = Percentile.
Multinomial logistic regression model examining the probability of perceiving low happiness according to the degree of emotional attention, clarity, and repair.
| Factors | Medium Happiness | High Happiness | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | OR | IC 95% | B | OR | IC 95% | |||
| Excessive attention 2 | 0.429 | 0.456 | 0.197 | 1.058 | −0.474 | 0.623 | 0.234 | 1.654 |
| Adequate attention 2 | 0.230 | 0.765 | 0.487 | 1.200 | −0.320 | 0.726 | 0.408 | 1.293 |
| Excellent clarity 3 | 0.560 | 1.607 | 0.537 | 4.811 | 1.730 * | 5.643 | 1.776 | 17.928 |
| Adequate clarity 3 | 0.238 * | 2.008 | 1.260 | 3.199 | 1.009 * | 2.743 | 1.485 | 5.069 |
| Excellent repair 4 | 0.422 * | 3.424 | 1.497 | 7.833 | 2.496 * | 12.133 | 4.590 | 32.074 |
| Adequate repair 4 | 0.238 * | 2.499 | 1.566 | 3.988 | 1.414 * | 4.112 | 2.057 | 8.221 |
Reference categories: 1 Low happiness. Groups compared: 2 little attention: 3 should improve clarity; 4 should improve repair. * p < 0.05. OR: odds ratio. CI: confidence interval.
Multinomial logistic regression model examining the probability of perceiving high happiness according to the degree of emotional attention, clarity, and repair.
| Factors | Low Happiness 1 | Medium Happiness 1 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | OR | IC 95% | B | OR | IC 95% | |||
| Adequate attention 2 | −0.474 | 0.623 | 0.234 | 1.654 | 0.311 | 1.364 | 0.626 | 2.972 |
| Little attention 2 | −0.154 | 0.858 | 0.337 | 2.180 | 0.362 | 1.437 | 0.681 | 3.031 |
| Clarity should be improved 3 | 1.730 * | 5.643 | 1.776 | 17.928 | 1.256 * | 3.513 | 1.598 | 7.723 |
| Adequate clarity 3 | 0.721 | 2.057 | 0.685 | 6.179 | 0.944 * | 2.571 | 1.283 | 5.154 |
| Repair should be improved 4 | 2.496 * | 12.133 | 4.590 | 32.074 | 1.265 * | 3.543 | 1.725 | 7.278 |
| Adequate repair 4 | 1.082 * | 2.951 | 1.266 | 6.878 | 0.767 * | 2.154 | 1.280 | 3.622 |
Reference categories: 1 High happiness. Groups compared: 2 Excessive attention; 3 Excellent clarity; 4 Excellent repair. * p < 0.05. OR odds ratio. CI confidence interval.
Figure 1ROC curve for the TMMS-24 dimensions predicting the presence of high happiness.
Sensitivity, specificity and Youden Index for the scores of the clarity and repair dimensions in the TMMS-24.
| TMMS-24 | Cut-off Point | Sensitivity | Specificity | Youden Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dimension Clarity | 25.5 * | 0.724 | 0.506 | 0.229 |
| 26.0 | 0.705 | 0.535 | 0.240 | |
| 26.5 | 0.685 | 0.566 | 0.251 | |
| 27.0 | 0.670 | 0.602 | 0.271 | |
| 27.5 | 0.654 | 0.637 | 0.291 | |
| 28.0 | 0.626 | 0.676 | 0.303 | |
| 28.5 *** | 0.598 | 0.715 | 0.314 | |
| 29.0 | 0.555 | 0.744 | 0.300 | |
| 29.5 ** | 0.512 | 0.773 | 0.285 | |
| Dimension Repair | 26.5 * | 0.787 | 0.502 | 0.289 |
| 27.0 | 0.784 | 0.528 | 0.311 | |
| 27.5 *** | 0.780 | 0.554 | 0.333 | |
| 28.0 | 0.752 | 0.577 | 0.329 | |
| 28.5 | 0.724 | 0.600 | 0.324 | |
| 29.0 | 0.701 | 0.623 | 0.324 | |
| 29.5 | 0.677 | 0.645 | 0.323 | |
| 30.0 | 0.634 | 0.673 | 0.308 | |
| 30.5 | 0.591 | 0.701 | 0.292 | |
| 31.0 | 0.567 | 0.721 | 0.288 | |
| 31.5 | 0.543 | 0.741 | 0.284 | |
| 32.0 ** | 0.516 | 0.762 | 0.278 |
*** Score that maximizes sensitivity and specificity at the same time. * Score that maximizes sensitivity. ** Score that maximizes specificity.