Developmental Neurorehabilitation

ISSN: 1751-8423 (Print) 1751-8431 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ipdr20

Resilience and emotional intelligence in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder Adam W. McCrimmon, Ryan L. Matchullis & Alyssa A. Altomare To cite this article: Adam W. McCrimmon, Ryan L. Matchullis & Alyssa A. Altomare (2014): Resilience and emotional intelligence in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder, Developmental Neurorehabilitation, DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2014.927017 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2014.927017

Published online: 24 Jun 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 69

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ipdr20 Download by: [University of Pennsylvania]

Date: 06 November 2015, At: 03:40

http://informahealthcare.com/pdr ISSN: 1751-8423 (print), 1751-8431 (electronic) Dev Neurorehabil, Early Online: 1–8 ! 2014 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2014.927017

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Resilience and emotional intelligence in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder Adam W. McCrimmon, Ryan L. Matchullis, & Alyssa A. Altomare

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 03:40 06 November 2015

Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Abstract

Keywords

Purpose: This article presents the results of an investigation of resilience factors and their relation to emotional intelligence (EI) as an area of potential strength for children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder (HFASD). Based upon previous research with young adults, it was hypothesized that children with HFASD would demonstrate reduced EI and differential relations between EI and resilience as compared to typically developing (TD) children. Methods: Forty children aged 8–12 years (20 with HFASD and 20 TD control children) completed measures of resilience and EI. Results: Children with HFASD did not significantly differ from TD children on either measure. However, several significant correlations between resilience and EI were found in the HFASD sample. Conclusions: The findings suggest that EI may be a unique area of interest for this population, particularly for interventions that propose to capitalize upon potentially inherent strengths. Implications of these results for intervention are discussed.

Autism spectrum disorder, emotional intelligence, intervention, resilience

Introduction The purpose of this article is to familiarize readers with the construct of resilience and its application to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a population that experiences adversity resulting from the presence of specific developmental impairments. This article will present an overview of the disorder with a focus on the commonly identified developmental and related impairments. Following this, the construct of resilience will be introduced, including a discussion of previous research on this topic involving adolescents and young adults with ASD who do not have cognitive impairment. Finally, results of a research investigation of resilience and its relation to emotional intelligence (EI) in children with ASD with intact cognitive abilities will be presented, including implications and avenues for future research. Autism spectrum disorder ASD refers to a neurodevelopmental disorder identified by qualitative impairment of social affect and the presence of restricted and/or repetitive patterns of behaviour [1]. Recent studies estimate the prevalence of ASD to be 50–100 per 10 000 [2–4], with the US Department of Education [5] estimating that ASD is increasing at a rate of 10–17% per year.

Correspondence: Dr Adam McCrimmon, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, Calgary, Alberta T2N-1N4, Canada. Tel: +1-403-220-7573. E-mail: awmccrim@ ucalgary.ca

History Received 12 May 2014 Revised 19 May 2014 Accepted 19 May 2014 Published online 20 June 2014

Clinical conceptualizations of the disorder have changed considerably since the introduction of the terms ‘‘autism’’ [6] and ‘‘Asperger syndrome’’ [7] to the empirical literature. Early clinical accounts identified odd and bizarre behaviours that were classified as schizophrenic reactions of childhood [8, 9]. These initial impressions were modified in the 1980s when specific behavioural criteria were introduced that provided guidance for clinicians when conducting an assessment [10, 11]. Current diagnostic criteria [1] specify that clinicians look for the presence of such behaviours as reduced social reciprocity and peer relationships, decreased sharing of attention and focus with social partners, a lack of orientation to socially important stimuli, diminished perception and expression of emotions, and delayed or atypical language acquisition and poor pragmatic language [12–18] in conjunction with restricted and/or repetitive patterns of behaviour in the form of repetitive motor movements, fixations on routines, or intense preoccupations with certain topics or objects [19]. Clinically, many professionals and researchers identify a subgroup of individuals with ASD who present with developmentally normative cognitive ability (i.e. IQ  85) [20, 21]. Such individuals are often referred to as having ‘‘high-functioning’’ autism spectrum disorder (HFASD) and continue to experience ongoing and persistent social challenges throughout their lives that are associated with the core impairments of ASD. Their average cognitive abilities afford an awareness of their social challenges [22], which has been associated with elevated risk for, and severity of, comorbid mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, poor self-esteem, loneliness, and distress regarding social interchanges [23–28].

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 03:40 06 November 2015

2

A. W. McCrimmon et al.

Much research and clinical effort has focused on the examination of the core impairments demonstrated by individuals with HFASD. Such work has not only provided a substantial body of literature on the clinical phenotype of the disorder (such as the core socio-communicative and behavioural challenges) but has also concentrated on identifying and understanding possible fundamental impairments that help explain the core impairments or symptoms. For example, ‘‘Theory of Mind’’ (ToM), the ability to conceive of another’s mental states such as their knowledge, wants, feelings, and beliefs, has been proposed to underlie the sociocommunicative impairments observed in individuals with HFASD [29]. ToM is important in the recognition of selfconscious emotions in others (e.g. embarrassment and shame), attribution of false beliefs to others, and understanding of personal mental states [30–33], all of which have been linked to failure with understanding complex social situations. Additionally, executive functions (EFs) are higher-order cognitive processes that are required to respond to novel or complex situations [34]. EF deficits in HFASD have been reported in planning, mental flexibility, inhibition, and selfmonitoring abilities [35] and have been implicated in the relatively common behavioural manifestations of insistence on sameness and perseverative thought demonstrated by individuals with HFASD. Frith [36] has proposed that a fundamental deficit in HFASD is the inability to integrate information at different levels. The term ‘‘central coherence’’ refers to the capacity to form a higher-level meaning in context by combining lowerlevel and diverse information. It has been hypothesized that individuals with ASD demonstrate weak central coherence (WCC) which underlies their tendency to focus on parts of objects, display sensitivities to small changes in one’s environment, and have circumscribed interests and perseverative behaviours [37]. As illustrated above, researchers have diligently explored the core and secondary impairments demonstrated by individuals with HFASD. The results of this research have yielded a significant body of literature identifying developmental atypicalities related to the HFASD phenotype. However, intuitive readers will note that the majority of the research briefly described above has a common thread. Specifically, these research efforts emphasize the impairments or deficiencies that individuals with ASD, including those with HFASD, demonstrate in comparison to typical development. Given that clinical disorders are commonly identified by their differentiation from typical development, such a focus is not surprising. However, this emphasis has narrowed the scope of researchers and clinicians to the deficiencies demonstrated by individuals with HFASD, with little attention being directed towards the positive attributes or qualities that these individuals possess. Moreover, this focus has also restricted intervention efforts to a concentration on the identified area(s) of weakness demonstrated by individuals with HFASD. Although an understanding of the area(s) of weakness that an individual may demonstrate is important, intervention efforts are likely to be more effective if they incorporate and capitalize upon an individual’s personal strengths [38, 39]. As an example, a novel line of investigation has focused on the construct of EI in the HFASD

Dev Neurorehabil, Early Online: 1–8

population as a potential mechanism that underlies their challenges with social interaction [40–42]. Currently conceptualized by two separate approaches (trait EI and ability EI), this construct denotes an individual’s ability to perceive, understand, and reason with emotional information as well as specific emotion-related competencies such as empathy [40, 41]. Specifically, trait EI is seen as a set of competencies related to emotions such as optimism, selfawareness, and self-esteem [43] whereas ability EI is conceptualized as an ‘‘intelligence that processes and benefits from emotions’’ [44]. In essence, trait EI is often considered emotional ‘‘knowledge’’ whereas ability EI is the active processing of and acting upon this emotional knowledge [41]. To date, research has indicated that although adolescents and young adults with HFASD struggle to utilize emotional information in social situations (ability EI); they demonstrate very strong emotion recognition abilities (i.e. trait EI) that could be capitalized upon through appropriately targeted interventions to enhance outcome in this population [40–42]. More importantly, resilience, a construct important to enhancing intervention efforts for individuals who experience adversity or challenges in life, has only recently been investigated in the HFASD population. As a result, little effort has been spent on the identification of possible strengths that this population demonstrates, particularly regarding children. In addition to investigating protective factors in a more general sense (i.e. that can be applied to all children facing adversity), it is also important to examine these protective factors within specific contexts, as factors that promote resilience in one specific context (e.g. children who have experienced maltreatment) may not necessarily be the same as factors that promote resiliency in a different context (e.g. children with HFASD) [45]. As a result, researchers have begun to explore resilience factors within specific childhood populations, such as HFASD, in an effort to better understand how to support positive development. To this end, the construct of resilience will be briefly presented, followed by recent work utilizing this construct with the HFASD population. Resilience Resilience describes the capacity of individuals to demonstrate positive outcome despite experiencing adversity or trauma [46]. At its most fundamental, the construct of resilience strives to explain the inherent and environmental protective and risk factors related to developmental outcome. Such work has identified low socioeconomic status, chronic exposure to violence or aggression, and traumatic life events such as a divorce as examples of common risk factors for poor outcome [47]. Alternatively, protective factors include higher cognitive abilities, the presence of close and supportive relationships with others, and access to effective supports and services to counteract the experience of adversity (amongst others) [41, 42]. Despite this focus on the identification of specific factors related to positive developmental outcome, the majority of research efforts have involved only typically developing (TD) individuals experiencing adversity with very little research conducted with children and youth with psychopathology, a

Resilience in HFASD

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 03:40 06 November 2015

DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2014.927017

circumstance that naturally introduces aspects of adversity and risk. Research across numerous clinical populations has demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity in outcome indicators such as symptom severity, duration or course of disorder, degree of impairment or associated challenges, achievement in core domains of functioning, and development of comorbid psychological disorders [48, 49]. This heterogeneity provides a strong indication that resilience factors may influence developmental trajectories of children and youth who experience adversity through their clinical symptomatology and associated functional impairment. Moreover, a resilience-oriented perspective would serve to shift the focus away from deficiencies associated with a clinical disorder and towards individual experiences and achievements, as well as personal and environmental strengths that can support children who experience psychopathology. Essentially, a resilience focus can facilitate a movement from a perspective of ‘‘what is wrong’’ to ‘‘what can make it right?’’ [50, p. 519]. Given the state of knowledge regarding the specific impairments experienced by children and youth with HFASD, the field of clinical psychology is now in a position to apply these understandings to the study of resilience within this population. Discerning the predictive nature of risk and protective factors for developmental outcome can not only expand knowledge of the risk processes and trajectories of children with HFASD, but can also have significant practical implications. For example, assessment of resilience factors may support identification of those children most at risk and can support the development of specific strengths-based interventions designed to enhance an individual’s positive qualities rather than attempting to eliminate deficits. Moreover, the positive nature of the resilience perspective can ‘‘carry a much more appealing message to parents, school staff, communities, and children themselves’’ [51, p. 80], one which may be particularly important given the frustrations and isolation often faced by the families and those working with children with HFASD [52]. To date, research on the topic of resilience in individuals with HFASD has focused on young adults and has indicated that some of these individuals present with personal strengths in ability EI (i.e. recognition of emotions) and that this particular skill is related to enhanced resilience [40]. This study was the first to examine resilience and EI in an effort to explore the relationship between these two constructs within the HFASD population. However, research has yet to explore these constructs in a developmentally younger population. As such, this past work does not inform our understanding of either construct in children with HFASD.

3

would demonstrate impairment in the areas of trait EI and resilience as evidenced by lower scores compared to a TD control group. However, it was of interest to investigate the relation between these two constructs to determine if EI may be worthy of further investigation as a possible construct associated with positive outcome for children with HFASD. Thus, it was hypothesized that ratings on the EI measure would be related to resilience for both children with HFASD and TD children; however, the pattern of these relations would differ as each sample is likely to present with EI skills that are unique to their population, with specific implications for resilience.

Methods Participants The sample consisted of 20 children aged 8–12 years diagnosed with ASD (M ¼ 10.05 years; SD ¼ 1.50; 95% male) and 20 age- and gender-matched TD children (M ¼ 10.11 years; SD ¼ 1.59; 95% male). The diagnosis of the ASD sample was made by a licensed professional not associated with the current study (e.g. psychologist, psychiatrist, or developmental pediatrician). This diagnosis was confirmed by the research team via the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) [53]. Specifically, all HFASD participants exceeded the diagnostic thresholds on the measure. All participants were also required to demonstrate intact cognitive functioning as indicated by verbal intelligence (VIQ) and performance intelligence (PIQ) 85 on a standardized measure of cognitive ability. Although the ASD and TD samples were not matched on IQ (so that the TD sample could more accurately represent the general TD population), the two did not significantly differ on VIQ: t(38) ¼ 0.076, p ¼ 0.940; PIQ: t(38) ¼ 1.48, p ¼ 0.148, or full-scale IQ (FSIQ): t(38) ¼ 1.04, p ¼ 0.303. Participant demographic information can be found in Table I. Measures Autism Diagnostic Interview – Revised The ADI-R [53] is a semi-structured, standardized measure of behaviour consistent with ASD. Conducted via an interview format with a parent or caregiver who is familiar with the individual’s early development, the ADI-R allows researchers and clinicians to reliably obtain detailed and specific information regarding an individual’s presentation of behaviours synonymous with ASD. The measure consists of 93 items, the majority of which entail the parent/caregiver providing a Table I. Demographics of participants.

The present study The present study is an investigation of resilience and traitbased EI in children with HFASD as compared to TD children. Ratings on child-based measures of these constructs were compared to determine differences between these two samples. Based upon previous research findings of lower scores on a trait-based measure of EI and resilience in adolescents and young adults with HFASD [39, 40], it was hypothesized that the present sample of children with HFASD

Demographics

ASD (n ¼ 20)

TD controls (n ¼ 20)

Age Gender (% male) VIQ PIQ FSIQ

10.05 ± 1.50 95 115.90 ± 12.04 120.40 ± 14.39 120.30 ± 12.73

10.11 ± 1.59 95 116.20 ± 12.97 114.25 ± 11.85 116.55 ± 9.77

Age is presented in decimalized format (i.e. 8 years 2 months ¼ 8.17). Scores for VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ are presented in standard score format (M ¼ 100, SD ¼ 15).

4

A. W. McCrimmon et al.

narrative response to specific questions about the child’s current and past behaviour. The responses to the posed questions are scored according to specific and defined criteria. Subsequently, certain scores are utilized via an algorithm to determine whether or not the child’s pattern of behaviour appears to meet the clinical requirements for a diagnosis of ASD. The first author is a Certified Independent Trainer on the ADI-R and trained the remaining authors to be research reliable on the measure, thus ensuring appropriate use and scoring of the measure for research purposes.

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 03:40 06 November 2015

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence VIQ, PIQ, and FSIQ were assessed using the Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence (WASI) [54], an individually administered abbreviated test of cognitive intelligence linked to both the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III) [55] and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) [56]. It is appropriate for assessing the general intellectual ability of adults or children (aged 8–89 years). The VIQ domain is comprised of the Similarities and Vocabulary subtests while the PIQ domain includes the Block Design and Matrix Reasoning subtests. Standard scores are generated. BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory – Youth Version The BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory-Youth Version (BarOn EQ-i:YV) [57] is a self-report measure of trait EI for individuals aged 7–18 years. The measure consists of 60 items and takes 25–30 min to complete. The EQ-i:YV employs a five-point Likert-type rating system and generates a total emotional quotient (EQ) composite score and seven EQ subscale scores: intrapersonal, interpersonal, stress management, adaptability, general mood, positive impression, and inconsistency index. As the positive impression and inconsistency index are used only to determine if the respondent is providing consistent and accurate responses, only the first five indexes (and the total EQ) were used in this study. Standard scores are generated. Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents The Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA) [58] is a 64-item self-report measure of resilience designed for individuals 9–18 years. The measure taps three primary resilience domains: (i) sense of mastery (i.e. optimism, selfefficacy, and adaptability); (ii) sense of relatedness (i.e. trust, support, comfort, and tolerance of others); and (iii) emotional reactivity (i.e. sensitivity, recovery, and impairment from emotional situations). The first two domains are indicative of protective factors that support or enhance resilience whereas the third is representative of a risk factor for reduced resilience. T-scores are generated. Procedure The participants were recruited through community-based agencies that provide supports and services to children with ASD and their families, educational organizations that serve both TD children and children with exceptional learning needs, and community-based medical offices.

Dev Neurorehabil, Early Online: 1–8

Initial recruitment efforts focused on children with ASD and their families, as they are the target population of interest for the study. Interested families contacted the research team who provided information to the parents about the nature of the study and engaged in a brief pre-screening task to determine if the child(ren) presented with any possible indicators of cognitive disability. Families who indicated that their child did have such a disability were thanked for their interest and informed that their child(ren) did not meet the criteria for the study. Parents who did not report any such cognitive challenges in their children were asked to provide informed consent for their child’s involvement in the study prior to their participation. Subsequent to the recruitment and participation of children with ASD, the research team sought involvement from TD children and their families. Interested families again contacted the research team who endeavoured to answer any questions about the study. In addition to the pre-screening process described above, the research team also asked the parents for the child’s gender and birthdate so that this information could be used in matching with a previous participant with ASD. Specifically, the matching process involved gender as well as chronological age (within 2 months). It should be noted that the measures, results, and conclusions reported in this article are part of a larger project that explored resilience and its relation to a variety of factors in children with ASD. The participants first completed task(s) to ensure that they met the inclusionary criteria for the project. These included the ADI-R (completed with the parent of child participants with ASD) and the WASI (completed by all child participants). All included participants met these two criteria, and were then invited to complete the remaining measures for the larger project (including those reported in this article) which were administered in a randomized order to account for order effects.

Results Mean performance by the participants is presented in Table II. Investigation of the positive impression and inconsistency indexes of the BarOn EQ-i:YV indicated that none of the participants responded in an overly positive (i.e. biased) or Table II. Mean performance of participant groups on the RSCA and BarOn EQ-i:YV.

Resilience Mastery Relatedness Reactivity EI Total EI Interpersonal Intrapersonal Stress management Adaptability General mood

ASD (n ¼ 20)

TD controls (n ¼ 20)

51.20 ± 14.60 46.40 ± 11.26 47.30 ± 11.26

52.85 ± 10.07 52.75 ± 8.55 44.90 ± 9.38

106.30 ± 19.16 106.15 ± 19.79 102.85 ± 15.24 100.75 ± 15.78 104.60 ± 15.82 96.40 ± 18.94

105.90 ± 10.67 104.75 ± 12.70 97.05 ± 11.18 107.10 ± 8.86 102.95 ± 10.41 102.55 ± 10.70

Scores for resilience factors are presented in T-score format (M ¼ 50, SD ¼ 10). Scores for EI factors are presented in standard score format (M ¼ 100, SD ¼ 15).

Resilience in HFASD

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 03:40 06 November 2015

DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2014.927017

inconsistent manner. Thus, all scores for the EI measure were included in the analysis. Independent samples t-tests indicated no significant difference between the ASD and TD samples on the three resilience factors [mastery: t(38) ¼ 0.466, p ¼ 0.644; relatedness: t(38) ¼ 1.68, p ¼ 0.101; and reactivity; t(38) ¼ 0.732, p ¼ 0.468)] or on the six primary EI factors [total EI: t(38) ¼ 0.082, p ¼ 0.935; interpersonal: t(38) ¼ 0.266, p ¼ 0.791; intrapersonal: t(38) ¼ 1.37, p ¼ 0.178; stress management: t(38) ¼ 1.59, p ¼ 0.120; adaptability: t(38) ¼ 0.390, p ¼ 0.699; and general mood: t(38) ¼ 1.26, p ¼ 0.214]. It was of greater interest to determine the nature of the relation between resilience and EI to determine if EI is differentially related to positive or negative outcomes for either population. Pearson product–moment correlations indicated that although there was some overlap in the pattern of relationship between the two samples, several unique significant relations exist for each sample. The results are given in Tables III and IV. Total EI was found to be significantly related to mastery: r(18) ¼ 0.703, p50.001; relatedness: r(18) ¼ 0.561, p50.001; and reactivity: r(18) ¼ 0.530, p ¼ 0.016 in the ASD sample. However, this relation was only significant for mastery: r(18) ¼ 0.789, p50.001 and relatedness: r(18) ¼ 0.496, p50.05 in the TD sample. Additional unique significant correlations were indicated. Specifically, interpersonal skills was found to be significantly related to both mastery: r(18) ¼ 0.739, p50.001 and relatedness: r(18) ¼ 0.597, p50.001 for the ASD sample only; this EI factor was not significantly related to any resilience factor in the TD sample. Similarly, intrapersonal skills was significantly related to both mastery: r(18) ¼ 0.480, p50.05 and relatedness: r(18) ¼ 0.547, p50.05 for the ASD sample only. Stress management was uniquely related to mastery: r(18) ¼ 0.835, p50.001 for the TD sample only, and negatively correlated with reactivity in both the ASD: r(18) ¼ 0.730, p50.001 and TD: r(18) ¼ 0.573, p50.001 samples. Adaptability was uniquely significantly related to relatedness for the ASD sample: r(18) ¼ 0.469, p50.05 and to reactivity in the TD sample: r(18) ¼ 0.501, p50.05. Adaptability was also significantly related to mastery in both the ASD: r(18) ¼ 0.604, p50.001 and

5

TD: r(18) ¼ 0.583, p50.001 samples. Finally, general mood was uniquely related to relatedness in the ASD sample only: r(18) ¼ 0.454, p50.05, and related to mastery in both the ASD: r(18) ¼ 0.625, p50.001 and TD: r(18) ¼ 0.564, p50.001 samples.

Discussion Contrary to expectations, children with HFASD did not differ significantly from TD children in either trait EI or resiliency factors. These results are encouraging and suggest areas of strength for children with HFASD in which previous research has observed weakness. Specifically, previous research with young adults with HFASD indicated specific deficits in trait EI and resilience [40–42]; however, it appears as though this deficiency may develop later in development than the age of the current sample. It may be that developmental trends exist within the HFASD population, such that trait EI is developmentally intact in childhood but may not continue to develop over time without direct support. This potentiality would be an important avenue for future investigation through longitudinal studies. Regarding resilience, the results of the current study indicate that children with HFASD do not experience reduced protective or increased risk factors for positive outcome. Specifically, they reported feelings of mastery and relatedness (protective factors) and reactivity (a risk factor) commensurate with their TD peers. This is another important finding as it potentially indicates a developmental trend in the HFASD population whereby their resilience diminishes during later childhood and/or early adolescence, resulting in increased challenges and poorer outcome in young adulthood. Again, longitudinal studies could investigate this possibility. The second and more primary aim of the study was to determine whether significant relations were present between resilience and EI factors, particularly for the HFASD sample, that would indicate trait EI as a possible strength. This is the first study to investigate these relations in children with HFASD. Interestingly, unique relations were observed in both samples. However, the degree and pattern of relations that were exclusive to the HFASD sample indicates that EI appears to be uniquely important for resilience in this population. Both interpersonal and intrapersonal skills were

Table III. Relation between the RSCA and BarOn EQ-i:YV for the ASD sample. Total EI Mastery Relatedness Reactivity

a

0.703 0.561a 0.530b

Interpersonal a

0.739 0.597a 0.349

Intrapersonal

Stress management

b

Adaptability

General mood

0.395 0.195 0.730a

0.604 0.469b 0.370

0.625a 0.454b 0.375

Stress management

Adaptability

General mood

0.480 0.547b 0.368

a

a

p50.05; bp50.01. Bold indicates a significant correlation unique to the sample.

Table IV. Relation between the RSCA and BarOn EQ-i:YV for the TD sample. Total EI Mastery Relatedness Reactivity a

a

0.789 0.496b 0.318

Interpersonal 0.344 0.267 0.171

Intrapersonal 0.440 0.413 0.186

p50.05; bp50.01. Bolded font indicates a significant correlation unique to the sample.

a

0.835 0.493 0.573a

a

0.583 0.173 0.501b

0.564a 0.289 0.179

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 03:40 06 November 2015

6

A. W. McCrimmon et al.

positively related to both mastery and sense of relatedness for HFASD individuals only. This means that as children with HFASD’s ability to understand and relate to others improves, the more likely they are to have greater self-efficacy, optimism, adaptability, greater trust in others, and greater comfort and tolerance of other individuals – all domains in which individuals with HFASD have been found to struggle with. Similarly, their ability to understand their own feelings and express them is strongly related to positive personal and social development. Furthermore, greater ratings of adaptability and general mood were positively related to relatedness, indicating that children with HFASD believe that their ability to solve their own problems and their capacity to be positive and optimistic is directly related to their comfort and trust in other individuals. Finally, overall EI as measured by the BarOn EQi:YV was negatively correlated to emotional reactivity, indicating that children with HFASD who have more well-developed emotional and social functioning also have greater emotional control and tolerance in response to adverse events. However, these relations were not significant for the TD sample. Thus, factors that promote resilience in children with HFASD are not necessarily the same as those involved for TD children. Indeed, strategies and interventions that may be beneficial for TD children may not necessarily produce similar results in children with HFASD. This finding highlights the need to better understand the specific strengths and weaknesses demonstrated by children with developmental disabilities within a developmental context so that targeted interventions can be utilized to promote positive outcome, such as EI interventions to improve resilience in children with HFASD.

Limitations This study has some methodological limitations that are important to note. First, the sample size limited both the strength and robustness of utilized statistical analyses. It was challenging to find families willing to commit to participation and the length of testing. In addition, the focus on matching HFASD and TD participants limited the number of families that could be included (i.e. there were additional HFASD and TD children in the overall sample, but none that were appropriately matched). Second, the gender distribution of the samples was not representative of the broader HFASD population. Current estimates place the overall ASD prevalence at 4.5 males to one female [59], and this study had a 19:1 male to female ratio. Although effort was made to recruit additional female participants, the sample simply reflects the families that opted to and were able to participate. Third, strict inclusion criteria may have also limited the number of participants. The use of inclusionary measures that included diagnostic confirmation as well as VIQ and PIQ  85 resulted in some interested participants not being included; however, these criteria were important in establishing the necessary requirements for the HFASD sample to improve generalizability of results to an identifiable subset of the ASD population. Moreover, criteria for minimum cognitive abilities helped to alleviate potential limitations that exist due to the use of self-report measures. Average to above average intelligence in the sample population ensured reading and

Dev Neurorehabil, Early Online: 1–8

comprehension abilities suited to answering self-report questionnaires. However, it should be noted that the mean VIQ and PIQ for both samples in this study were substantially greater than ‘‘average’’ (i.e. a standard score of 100), thus indicating that the participants in this study demonstrated above average cognitive abilities. Fourth, this study utilized self-report questionnaires as the only sources of information pertaining to EI and resilience. Despite the potential for criticism of reliance on self-report questionnaires, researchers have found agreement between parent ratings and the ratings of their children with HFASD on various constructs [60–62] suggesting that children with HFASD can be accurate reporters of their own cognitions and feelings. Additionally, there are no currently available empirically validated measures of EI or resilience that are completed by parents or other raters, so this study was forced to rely upon participant selfreport only. Finally, the current study did not include a measure of ability EI as no such measure existed at the time of data collection. Inclusion of such a measure may have led to unique results and differences when compared to trait EI.

Implications Limited research has investigated cognitive and social abilities that may lead to success and resilience for children with HFASD. Children with HFASD face numerous challenges throughout their development such as potential bullying and isolation, lack of peer relationships that persist into adolescence and adulthood that can negatively impact their pursuit of post-secondary education and employment. It is thus crucial to understand potential ways to improve resilience amongst this vulnerable population as this construct may lead to significant improvements in their life outcomes. The identification of predictive factors that promote resilience may be highly influential in informing service delivery agencies, funding initiatives, and governmental policies on how to best support children with HFASD and their families. It is hoped that intervention may focus on improving areas such as interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, adaptive skills, and general mood that could then improve the positive outcomes across domains and environments for children with HFASD.

Future directions In light of the current study, there are many possible avenues for future research. Study replication with a larger sample size and more females would allow for greater generalizability of results. It may also be interesting to investigate trait EI and resilience in children with ASD with lower measured IQ (i.e.585). Lower cognitive abilities may be a protective factor and result in additional unique relationships between EI and resilience. The inclusion of parent-reported measures would shed light on distinct similarities or differences in how children and parents view trait EI and resiliency factors. Despite research demonstrating general corroboration between parent and child ratings, there may be distinct intercorrelations in these domains. Moreover, this study and those before it were cross-sectional in nature. A thorough understanding of the developmental nature of trait EI and resilience may be gained from longitudinal studies of larger

Resilience in HFASD

DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2014.927017

cohorts of children as they age into adolescence and adulthood. Finally, researchers may extend the current study by adding measures of ability EI. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) [44] is a wellestablished measure of ability EI for individuals 17 and older which is currently being adapted and validated for children as young as 10 years. Understanding the differential relations between both ability and trait EI and resilience would allow for clarification of how results can be translated into interventions for positive outcomes for children and families.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 03:40 06 November 2015

Declaration of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article. This research was supported in part by a grant from the Alberta Center for Child, Family, and Community Research (ACCFCR) and from the University of Calgary’s University Research Grants Committee (URGC).

20.

References

23.

1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013. 2. Baird G, Charman T, Baron-Cohen S, Cox A, Swettenham J, Wheelwright S, Drew A, Kemal L. A screening instrument for autism at 18 months of age: A six year follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2000; 39:694–702. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders—Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, United States, 2008. MMWR Surveill Summ 2012;61:1–19. 4. Newschaffer CJ, Croen LA, Daniels J, Giarelli E, Grether JK, Levy SF, Windham GC. The epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders. Annual Review of Public Health 2007;28:235–258. 5. US Department of Education. Twenty-seventh annual report to congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Office of Special Education Programs; 2005. Available from: http://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/ 2005/parts-b-c/index.html. 6. Kanner L. Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child 1943;2:217–250. 7. Asperger H, Frith U. [Trans]. Autistic psychopathologies in childhood. Translated and annotated by Frith U. In: Frith U, editor. Autism and Asperger syndrome. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1991. 8. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 1952. 9. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 1968. 10. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 1980. 11. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd ed., revised. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 1987. 12. Baron-Cohen S, Cox A, Baird G, Swettenham J, Nightengale N, Morgan K, Drew A, Charman T. Psychological markers in the detection of autism in infancy in a large population. British Journal of Psychiatry 1996;168:158–163. 13. Dawson G, Meltzoff AN, Osterling J, Rinaldi J, Brown E. Children with autism fail to orient to naturally occurring social stimuli. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 1998;28:479–485. 14. Kasari C, Sigman M, Yirmiya N, Mundy P. Affective development and communication in children with autism. In: Kaiser AP, Gray DB, editors. Enhancing children’s communication: Research

21.

22.

24. 25.

26.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31.

32.

33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

39.

7

foundations for intervention. Baltimore: Brookes; 1993. pp 201–222. Osterling J, Dawson G. Early recognition of children with autism: A study of first birthday home videotapes. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 1994;24:247–257. Stephanos GA, Baron IS. The ontogenesis on language impairment in autism: A neuropsychological perspective. Neuropsychology Review 2011;21:252–270. Tager-Flusberg H. A psychological approach to understanding the social and language impairments in autism. International Review of Psychiatry 1999;11:325–334. Tager-Flusberg H. Understanding the language and communicative impairments in autism. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation 2001;23:185–205. Turner M. Annotation: Repetitive behavior in autism: A review of psychological research. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 1999;40:839–849. Khouzam HR, El-Gabalawi F, Piruani N, Priest F. Asperger’s disorder: A review of its diagnosis and treatment. Comprehensive Psychiatry 2004;45:184–191. Thede LL, Coolidge FL. Psychological and neurobehavioral comparisons of children with Asperger’s disorder versus highfunctioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorder 2007;37:847–854. Attwood T. Strategies for improving the social integration of children with Asperger syndrome. Autism 2000;4:85–100. Ghaziuddin M. Mental health aspects of autism and Asperger syndrome. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2005. Ghaziuddin M, Weidmer-Mikhail WK, Ghaziuddin N. Comorbidity of Asperger syndrome: A preliminary report. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 1998;42:279–283. Leyfer O, Folstein S, Bacalman S, Davis N, Dinh E, Morgan J, Tager-Flusberg H, Lainhart JE. Comorbid psychiatric disorders in children with autism: Interview development and rates of disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2006;36:849–861. Locke J, Ishijima EH, Kasari C, London N. Loneliness, friendship quality and the social networks of adolescents with high-functioning autism in an inclusive school setting. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 2010;10:74–81. Tantam D. Psychological disorder in adolescents and adults with Asperger syndrome. Autism 2000;4:47–62. Toth K, King BH. Asperger’s syndrome: Diagnosis and treatment. The American Journal of Psychiatry 2008;165:958–963. Baron-Cohen S, Leslie AM, Frith U. Does the autistic child have a ‘‘theory of mind’’? Cognition 1985;21:37–46. Baron-Cohen S. Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995. Baron-Cohen S, Jolliffe T, Mortimore C, Robertson M. Another advanced test of theory of mind: Evidence from very high functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 1997;38:813–822. Baron-Cohen S, O’Riordan M, Stone V, Jones R, Plaisted K. Recognition of faux pas by normally developing children and children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 1999;29:407–418. Mitchell P, O’Keefe K. Brief report: Do individuals with autism spectrum disorder think they know their own minds? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2008;38:1591–1597. Calhoun J. Executive functions: A discussion of the issues facing children with autism spectrum disorders and related disorders. Seminars in Speech & Language 2006;27:60–71. Hill EL. Executive dysfunction in autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004;8:26–32. Frith U. Autism: Explaining the enigma. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell; 1989. Hoy JA, Hatton C, Hare D. Weak central coherence: A crossdomain phenomenon specific to autism? Autism 2004;8:267–281. Climie EA, Mastoras SM, McCrimmon AW, Schwean VL. Resiliency-based approaches to children with vulnerabilities. In: Prince-Embury S, Saklofske DH, editors. Resilience in children, adolescents, and adults: Translating research into practice. New York: Springer; 2013. McCrimmon AW, Montgomery JM. Resilience perspectives for autism spectrum disorder. In: Price-Embury S, editor. Casebook of resilience enhancement. New York: Springer; in press.

Downloaded by [University of Pennsylvania] at 03:40 06 November 2015

8

A. W. McCrimmon et al.

40. Montgomery JM, Stoesz BM, McCrimmon AW. Emotional intelligence, theory of mind, and executive functions as predictors of social outcomes in young adults with Asperger syndrome. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 2013;28:4–13. 41. Montgomery JM, McCrimmon AW, Schwean VL, Saklofske DH. Emotional intelligence in Asperger syndrome: Implications of dissonance between cognition and affect. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 2010;45:566–582. 42. Montgomery JM, Schwean VL, Burt JG, Dyke DI, Thorne KJ, Hindes YL, McCrimmon AW, Kohut CS. Emotional intelligence and resiliency in young adults with Asperger’s disorder. Canadian Journal of School Psychology 2008;23:70–93. 43. Bar-On R. Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems; 1997. 44. Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR, editors. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), version 2.0. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems; 2002. 45. Freitas AL, Downey G. Resilience: A dynamic perspective. International Journal of Behavioural Development 1998;22: 263–285. 46. Luthar SS, Cicchetti D, Becker B. The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development 2000;71:543–562. 47. Luthar SS, Cicchetti D. The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology 2000;12:857–885. 48. Curry J, Silva S, Rohde P, Ginsburg G, Kratochvil C, Simons A, Kirchner J, May D, Kennard B, Mayes T, et al. Recovery and recurrence following treatment for adolescent major depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 2011;68:263–270. 49. Hinshaw SP, Lee SS. Conduct and oppositional defiant disorders. In: Mash EJ, Barkley RA, editors. Child psychopathology, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2003. 50. Modesto-Lowe V, Yelunina L, Hanjan K. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A shift towards resilience? Clinical Pediatrics 2011;50:518–524.

Dev Neurorehabil, Early Online: 1–8

51. Masten AS, Herbers JE, Cutuli JJ, Lafavor TL. Promoting competence and resilience in the school context. Professional School Counseling 2008;12:76–84. 52. Ditrano CJ, Silverstein LB. Listening to parents’ voices: Participatory action research in the schools. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 2006;37:359–366. 53. Lord C, Rutter M, Le Couteur A. Autism Diagnostic InterviewRevised: A revised version of a diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 1994;24:659–685. 54. Wechsler D. Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1999. 55. Wechsler D. Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1991. 56. Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd ed. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1997. 57. Bar-On R, Parker JD. BarOn Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth version. Technical manual. New York: Multi-Health Systems; 2000. 58. Prince-Embury S. Resiliency scales for adolescents: A profile of personal strengths. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt; 2006. 59. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2010. MMWR Surveill Summ 2014;63:1–21. 60. Blakely-Smith A, Reaven J, Ridge K, Hepburn S. Parent-child agreement of anxiety symptoms in youth with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 2012;6: 707–716. 61. Farrugia S, Hudson J. Asperger syndrome: Negative thoughts, behavioural problems, and life interference. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 2006;21:25–35. 62. Ozsivadjian A, Hibbard C, Hollocks MJ. Brief report: The use of self-report measures in young people with autism spectrum disorder to access symptoms of anxiety, depression, and negative thoughts. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2014;44: 969–974.