Table 3.
Meta-Analysis of Associations Between Emotion Knowledge and Internalizing Problems
| k | N | r | 95% CI | Q | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 19 | 1243 | −.17** | −.24 to −.10 | 25.62 |
| Sample | .02 | ||||
| Community | 11 | 955 | −.17** | −.25 to −.09 | |
| Clinical | 8 | 288 | −.16* | −.28 to −.03 | |
| Age | 4.19 | ||||
| 3-5 | 11 | 924 | −.17** | −.24 to −.10 | |
| 6-11 | 3 | 151 | −.02 | −.20 to .15 | |
| 9-15 | 5 | 168 | −.27** | −.41 to −.11 | |
| Ethnicity | 1.18 | ||||
| Primarily majority | 6 | 369 | −.10 | −.21 to .01 | |
| Primarily minority | 5 | 420 | −.14* | −.24 to −.03 | |
| Heterogeneous | 1 | 162 | −.22* | −.38 to −.04 | |
| SES | .89 | ||||
| Low | 5 | 472 | −.12* | −.23 to −.01 | |
| Mixed | 4 | 289 | −.20** | −.33 to −.07 | |
| Middle | 3 | 221 | −.12 | −.28 to .04 | |
| Emotion Knowledge Measure | 7.66 | ||||
| Denham | 2 | 205 | −.06 | −.20 to .08 | |
| Nowicki & Duke | 4 | 166 | −.13 | −.28 to .03 | |
| Izard | 1 | 30 | −.36 | −.64 to .00 | |
| Ekman & Friesen | 2 | 58 | −.39** | −.59 to −.13 | |
| Borke | 1 | 78 | −.27* | −.47 to −.05 | |
| Other | 3 | 195 | −.14 | −.28 to .01 | |
| Combination | 6 | 511 | −.17** | −.26 to −.08 | |
| Internalizing Problems Source | 3.23 | ||||
| Teacher | 6 | 540 | −.19** | −.28 to −.09 | |
| Parent | 3 | 174 | −.11 | −.27 to .06 | |
| Self | 1 | 62 | −.14 | −.40 to .13 | |
| DSM | 5 | 141 | −.28** | −.44 to −.11 | |
| Combination | 4 | 326 | −.11 | −.23 to .02 | |
| Length | .20 | ||||
| Concurrent | 16 | 919 | −.18** | −.25 to −.10 | |
| Longitudinal | 3 | 324 | −.14* | −.27 to −.00 | |
Note. CI = Confidence Interval; SES = Socioeconomic Status; Denham = Denham (1986) Puppet Interview; Ekman & Friesen = Ekman & Friesen (1975) facial stimuli; Izard = measures based on Izard and colleagues’ stimuli; Nowicki & Duke = DANVA or DANVA-2 measures; Borke = Borke’s (1971) vignettes.