Emotional Intelligence Measurement Tools and Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People—Scoping Review

Abstract

Background: Emotions—including joy, sadness, fear, and anger—are fundamental expressions of human experience. For children and adults who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, emotional experiences and communication can differ due to linguistic and communication-related factors. Methods: This scoping review identifies instruments that are suitable for assessing emotional intelligence in the context of the lived and cultural experiences of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. A comprehensive search was conducted in April 2024 following the JBI methodology. Results: Out of 3091 articles, 21 studies were included. Two adapted methods were identified: the Meadow/Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment Inventory and ISEAR-D. Assessments supported by sign language revealed no significant differences in age or gender. Conclusions: The authors recommend further development of screening instruments that reflect the specific experiences of the population who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.

1. Introduction

Emotions are the basic building blocks of human experience. They are internal reactions to external stimuli that allow us to express joy, sadness, fear, anger, and many other feelings [1,2,3]. These emotional manifestations are commonly associated with verbal expression in particular. Emotions experienced by individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing have long been the subject of interest in professional research [4,5,6]. Examining the emotional lives of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing not only improves understanding of their unique experiences but also challenges societal misconceptions about their abilities to feel and express emotions [6,7].

1.1. The Nature and Function of Emotions

Emotions—including fundamental states such as joy, sadness, fear, and anger—are complex psychological and physiological phenomena explored here through their core definition, adaptive functions, and essential tripartite components of expression.

Emotions are universally recognized as brief, intense, and transient psychological states, distinct from longer-lasting, more generalized moods [8]. Rooted in evolutionary theory, the primary function of emotions is adaptive, serving as rapid, internal mechanisms that help individuals prioritize environmental stimuli and prepare for appropriate actions that promote survival or affiliation [9]. For instance, the experience of fear is an automatic signal that mobilizes the body for defense, while joy is essential for driving social connection and reinforcing rewarding behaviors [10]. These internal states are fundamental to human experience, forming the immediate basis for social interaction, learning, and cognitive decision-making [11].

Every emotional experience is fundamentally composed of three integrated components: the subjective, internal experience (the individual’s feeling); the accompanying physiological activation (e.g., changes in heart rate or hormonal release); and the observable behavioral or expressive response [12]. Crucially, the expressive component enables emotions to be communicated to others, primarily through nonverbal channels. These channels include facial expressions (e.g., universal expressions of surprise, anger, or disgust), vocal tone (prosody and paralanguage), and body language (posture and gestures) [13,14]. The ability to accurately decode and encode these expressive signals across all channels is crucial for social competence and is the fundamental element that enables successful interpersonal interaction [15].

1.2. Emotional Intelligence in Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Individuals

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a foundational concept in psychology, broadly defined as the ability to recognize and understand one’s own and others’ emotions, to distinguish among them, and to use this information to guide one’s thoughts and actions [16]. To provide a necessary broad overview, EI is conceptualized through several models. The dominant Ability Model, pioneered by Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, defines EI as a form of pure intelligence comprising four distinct, interrelated branches: Perceiving emotions (identifying them in oneself and others), Using emotions to facilitate thought, Understanding emotions (recognizing their transitions and blends), and Managing emotions (regulating them in oneself and others) [17,18]. Alternatively, Mixed/Trait Models, such as the influential model by Goleman, treat EI as a cluster of skills and competencies, encompassing components like self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and social skills that contribute to personal and professional success [18,19].

To accurately interpret findings related to the social–emotional development of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, it is essential first to contextualize their linguistic environment. The observed lower language competence among individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing is a complex disparity, not an inevitable consequence of hearing loss, but rather a result of significant environmental and access factors [13,20]. The primary proximal cause is language deprivation, defined as a lack of accessible linguistic input during the critical early years of development [20]. This leads directly to the core challenge of limited incidental learning—the process of acquiring language, vocabulary, and world knowledge by overhearing or overseeing conversations [21,22]. Because students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing often do not have full access to a fluent language (signed or spoken) in their environment, they miss a large portion of the language and knowledge (estimated at 80–90% of academic language) that hearing children acquire incidentally [23,24]. This inequality is further complicated by high variability within the population which is deaf or hard-of-hearing, including varying levels of proficiency in the majority language, such as English (in its written form), and different levels of proficiency in sign language, all of which contribute to this language competency gap [25,26]. This context highlights how environmental and access challenges contribute to social and developmental disparities [13].

Background literature specific to populations who are deaf or hard-of-hearing suggests a connection between this linguistic context and emotional functioning. Studies have reported that students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, particularly those with less accessible linguistic environments, often demonstrate medium to low levels of emotional intelligence compared to their typically hearing peers [27,28,29]. The challenges are related to the difficulties associated with accessing and interpreting both verbal and non-verbal emotional cues, which are mediated by the communication method and environment, rather than hearing status [6]. However, the research confirms the importance of EI in this population, revealing a positive and significant correlation between emotional intelligence and key outcomes, including psychological well-being, self-adjustment, and academic achievement [30,31,32]. These findings underscore the need for further, focused investigation into the relationship between linguistic access, socio-emotional development, and EI in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.

1.3. Testing Emotional Intelligence

The authors obtained significant information about instruments for assessing emotional intelligence from the published work of [33]. The article summarizes commonly used instruments and highlights their usefulness and limitations when applied to individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. These instruments are primarily verbal and rely on written or spoken instructions [33], which may disadvantage individuals with reduced language access.

Standardized emotional intelligence (EI) assessments, such as the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) and other self-reported measures, frequently require high levels of reading comprehension. As a result, individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, particularly those with delayed language development, may not fully understand test content, thereby reducing construct validity. Previous studies have noted that interpretation support, visual adaptation, or the inclusion of sign language may improve accessibility; however, such modifications are not consistently implemented, and evidence supporting their validity remains limited [34].

Existing research on EI in populations who are deaf or hard-of-hearing indicates that current instruments are often insufficiently adapted to reflect diverse linguistic backgrounds. Some studies have reported that emotional perception and understanding tasks may underestimate abilities when presented verbally rather than via accessible multimodal formats [4,35,36]. Therefore, although these assessment instruments provide a framework for EI measurement in the general population, they may fall short in accurately capturing EI in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Additional research is required to validate adapted forms of EI instruments and to determine if new measurement strategies are needed.

The present scoping review, therefore, seeks to address these issues and provide an overview of available assessments used to evaluate EI in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing while identifying adaptations, limitations, and research gaps.

1.4. Study Aims

This scoping review synthesizes the literature on methods used to screen for emotional intelligence in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. These methods should respect the principles of fair testing, which include supporting the respondent’s preferred communication strategy (e.g., the presence of an interpreter, provision of signed or visual items) and acknowledging the characteristics of hearing loss when interpreting results [34].

At the time of writing this paper, no systematic review has comprehensively evaluated EI testing in children, students, or adults who are deaf or hard-of-hearing [37]. While several studies have explored EI in these populations [4,35,36], they typically did not use direct testing methodologies. This review, therefore, fills a critical gap by summarizing assessment practices and offering a basis for future research development.

The present review aims to identify and describe instruments used to evaluate EI in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The following research questions were explored:

• Which instruments or approaches are used to evaluate emotional intelligence in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing?
• What assessment instrument is most commonly used?
• What modifications have been implemented to accommodate limited language competencies?
• Are there any age or gender differences among respondents?

For reporting the methods and results, the scoping review methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Synthesis Reporting Guide for Protocols and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [38] was employed.

2. Materials and Methods (Criteria for Considering Studies for This Review)

2.1. Inclusive Criteria

This scoping review included all empirical study designs (both qualitative and quantitative), encompassing primary research, trials (randomized and non-randomized), longitudinal studies, case studies, systematic reviews, and gray literature (dissertations and non-indexed documents). The target population for inclusion was individuals with congenital hearing loss of any age or individuals who acquired hearing loss before the critical age of seven, which aligns with established developmental milestones related to emotional intelligence. We did not restrict the publication date. While the search was not limited by language (provided an English abstract was available), all retrieved full-text documents were in English.

To comprehensively capture gray literature and non-indexed documents, a supplementary search was performed using Google Scholar. The main search terms (e.g., “clients who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and emotional intelligence”) were applied, and the first 100 results for each key search combination were screened for relevance. This focused on identifying dissertations, theses, conference abstracts, and non-peer-reviewed reports. Furthermore, the reference lists and bibliographies of all included full-text articles and relevant systematic reviews were manually screened to identify any further non-indexed literature.

Studies included those that targeted individuals with congenital hearing loss of any age or those who acquired hearing loss before the age of seven. This age threshold was selected because seven years is regarded as an important developmental milestone in cognitive, language, and socio-emotional development, and therefore relevant to emotional intelligence research.

Cognitive development:

• By the age of seven, children typically reach a certain level of cognitive development that enables them to understand more complex concepts, including emotions, more effectively.
• According to Jean Piaget’s theory [39] of cognitive development, this age is often associated with transitioning from the pre-operational stage of cognitive development to the stage of concrete operations.
• Conversely, alternative theoretical frameworks contend that rather than delineating individual stages, emphasis should be placed on the interaction with the social environment [40,41].
• Children tend to understand cause and effect more effectively and can better process emotional information.

Language development:

• By age seven, children with access to effective means of communication have sufficiently developed language skills to express their emotions better and understand the emotions of others.
• For deaf children who use sign language or other forms of communication, this age is essential for solidifying these skills.

Social and emotional learning:

• Around seven, children become more involved in more complex social interactions and relationships, such as those at school and in other social settings.

These experiences allow them to develop empathy, self-concept, and other components of emotional intelligence. Studies where another diagnosis played a role in addition to hearing loss were excluded. In the protocol [42], individuals with cochlear implants (CI) were excluded. However, one study involving participants who were CI users was included. We retained this study because its objective was not to compare CI users with individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, but rather to describe an emotion recognition instrument.

All studies that researched emotional intelligence in people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing were included in the review. The test used to assess emotional intelligence in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing had to be precisely stated in the study.

In the studies searched, relevant information about the instrument used was required, including its name, target group, method of use, validity, reliability, and potential modifications for use with populations who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.

2.2. Search Methods for Identification of Studies

The literature searches were conducted in databases and gray literature. The search was performed in April 2024. In December 2021, we used pilot search strategies in two databases (Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 and PsycINFO). A search strategy was developed by staff from the Library and Information Center of the Palacký University to search scientific platforms and databases, including CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest Central, OpenDissertations, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and Clinical Trials. Each database was searched using the terms “clients who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and emotional intelligence,” combining and refining keywords. The design of the search strategy was based on the recommendations of the anonymous Library staff. The results were processed according to the JBI methodology. Each database’s keyword search strategy is outlined in Supplementary File S1 (Tables S1–S9). The final search was carried out by two staff members from the Library and Information Centre of Palacký University.

The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and the PRISMA guidelines, utilizing PRISMA flow diagrams and checklists (Supplementary File S2). Due to the exploratory nature of a scoping review, articles were not excluded based on methodological quality. However, to provide a descriptive overview of the evidence base, the methodological quality of the included quantitative studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Two independent reviewers (P.P. and M.P.) screened 100% of the included full-text articles for quality and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion until 100% agreement was reached. The data extraction specifically focused on the study design, participant characteristics (age, type of hearing loss, communication modality), the emotional intelligence instrument used, and key findings related to EI assessment.

See Supplementary File S1 (Tables S1–S9) for the complete search strategy, including keywords for each database.

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Following the search strategy, all identified citations were collated and uploaded into EndNote (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) as of 20/2021.

A three-stage screening process was conducted. Initially, duplicate records were automatically flagged in EndNote 20/2021 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and subsequently reviewed and removed by two researchers (P.P. and M.P.). The remaining citations underwent title, keyword, and abstract screening by the same researchers to exclude studies that did not meet the objectives of the scoping review, specifically, those not addressing instruments for assessing emotional intelligence in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, lacking an appropriate target population, or representing duplicate entries. Eligible full-text articles were then retrieved, and citation details were imported into the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment, and Review of Information [43]. Full texts were screened independently by two reviewers (P.P. and M.P.) based on predefined inclusion criteria. Studies with incomplete data or objectives inconsistent with the review focus were excluded. A third researcher (L.G.) was designated to resolve any disagreements; however, no discrepancies were identified during the screening process. This researcher also conducted a final quality check of the extracted data.

Data was extracted by two reviewers (P.P. and M.P.). L.G. confirmed extraction. Corresponding data were divided into the following categories: General information: Authors and publication date; Country; Sample (Number of respondents, gender, age, characteristics of deaf or hard-of-hearing). Research information and outputs: Research Design; Methods used; The Aim; Instruments; Outputs.

The researcher, V.R., designed the data extraction form. The G.S. researcher participated in the final version of the text. The P.P., M.P., and J.K. researchers performed the final review. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics and narrative summarization.

2.4. Data Synthesis and Presentation

The extracted data were synthesized using an approach consistent with narrative synthesis [44]. This involved grouping the charted results based on descriptive analysis, leading to a structured presentation organized around two main domains:

• Characteristics of the Evidence Base: Summarizing study characteristics, including design, population, and EI assessment instrument usage.
• Key Findings: Thematic analysis was conducted to identify and describe recurring themes related to the measurement of emotional intelligence in the population which is deaf or hard-of-hearing.

The findings are presented in both tabular (see Table 1 and Table 2) and textual formats to provide a comprehensive overview of the research scope.

3. Results

3.1. Results of the Search

A total of 3091 studies were identified. The exclusion procedure and its justification are illustrated in Figure 1 below. The retrieved texts were compared with the items in the previously published protocol. After duplicates had been removed, articles and studies that did not align with the scoping review’s objective were excluded. The selection was based on the title, abstract, and keywords. After this culling, 306 articles remained and were assessed as full texts. The reduction to 21 articles was based on whether the articles clearly stated and adhered to the aim of the scoping review, and whether all the necessary information included in the article review protocol was provided, such as the target population, the instrument used, and the approaches to assessing emotional intelligence. Thus, 21 articles were included in the scoping review.

3.2. Excluded Studies

A total of 306 full texts were assessed. Of these, 285 studies were excluded. The reasons for exclusion were three: an inappropriate research objective or target group (n = 250), Incomplete data on the research instrument (n = 15), and ineligibility (n = 20). All studies could be traced.

3.3. Included Studies

Following the protocol, all the articles and studies included in the review were characterized in three main areas (general source characteristics, research information, and outputs) in terms of ‘research information,’ and the articles were further divided into three groups based on their aims and research objectives.

A cochlear implant (CI) has a significant impact on the development of emotional comprehension skills in individuals with severe to profound hearing loss [46].

Exploring the emotional intelligence of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing involves using instruments and methods that consider their unique communication needs. A review of existing research and case studies focusing on emotional intelligence in the population that is deaf or hard-of-hearing will provide an opportunity to identify best practices and practical instruments for this assessment. These instruments should be used to gain a comprehensive understanding of the emotional intelligence of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.

3.4. General Characteristics of Sources

This study examines emotional intelligence within the population that is deaf or hard-of-hearing, emphasizing individual experience and diversity. The research described here spans the years 1982 to 2023 and encompasses nearly the entire world. The most significant number of studies (three) is from the United States of America. There are two articles from each of the following countries: the Netherlands, Germany, India, Norway, and Pakistan. In other cases, there was always one article (see Table 1). The data presented in Table 1 show that in 17 cases, the respondents were a sample in which the results of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing were compared. Only in four cases [46,47,48,49] was there purely research on the emotional intelligence of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. In ten cases, it was not possible to trace information on the gender of the respondents. In the other cases, an attempt at a gender-balanced sample of respondents is evident. The age range of the respondents was from 18 months to 35 years. In [31], no information is given regarding the age of the respondents. The data in the table shows that in 14 cases, there is no detailed information on the type or degree of hearing loss. A specific hearing loss threshold is established in only three cases [50,51,52]. One case [46] involved respondents who were cochlear implant (CI) users. In the remaining three [47,53], only general information about hearing science is provided.

Table 1. General information.

Authors and Publication Date	Country	Sample
		Number N (n)	Gender	Age	Characteristics of Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing
Laughen, Jacobsen, Rieffe, and Wichstrøm (2017) [53]	Norway	165 (35)	NS	4–5 y	using hearing aids in one or both ears, partially using speech, no cochlear implant
Martins, Faísca, Vieira, and Gonçalves (2019) [54]	Portugal	30 (15)	7 M 8 F	average age 32.4 y	congenitally hearing-impaired
Rieffe (2011) [50]	The Netherlands	52 (26)	NS	average age 11 years	deaf or hard-of-hearing minimum 90 dB, hearing parents in mainstream schools, use SSD (Sign-Supported Dutch)
Rieffe, Broekhof, Eichengreen, Kouwenberg, Veiga, da Silva, van der Laan, and Frijns (2018) [55]	The Netherlands	350 (75 mainstream education + 48 special education)	NS	9–15 y	NS
Sidera, Amadó, and Martínez (2017) [56]	Spain	166 (75)	41 M 34 F	3–8 y	NS
Eichengreen, Broekhof, Tsou, and Rieffe (2023) [52]	The Netherlands	307 (80)	37 M 43 F	9–15 y	at least 40 dB in the better ear
Hintermair, Sarimski, and Lang (2017) [51]	Germany	182 (182)	NS	18–36 m	have hearing loss < 70 dB
Mancini, Giallini, Prosperini, D’alessandro, Guerzoni, Murri, Cuda, Ruoppolo, De Vincentiis, and Nicastri (2016) [46]	Italy	72 (72)	32 M 40 F	8–12 y	CI users for at least 36 months
Briccetti (1994) [47]	USA	39 (39)	NS	9–12 y	prelingual deaf
Dyck, Farrugia, Shochet, and Holmes-Brown (2004) [7]	Australia	121 (49)	NS	6–11 and 12–18 y	NS
Akram and Hameed (2014) [57]	Pakistan	1519 (469)	272 M 197 F	adolescents	NS
Annalakshmi and Ragitha (2012) [58]	India	171 (81)	NS	14–19 y	NS
Pei (2013) [59]	PRC	209 (105)	NS	middle schools	NS
Satapathy and Singhal (2001) [60]	India	159 (80)	NS	13–21 y	NS
Simon (2011) [61]	USA	176 (88)	47 M 41 F	18–35 y	NS
Delveschio (1999) [62]	USA	129 (79)	NS	5.1–10.7 y	NS
Ellala and Ellala (2020) [63]	United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia	115 (56)	28 M 28 F	undergraduate students	NS
Peňacoba, Garvi, Gómez, and Álvarez (2020) [31]	Spain	192 (146)	NS	NS	NS
Hintermair, Sarimski, and Lang (2017) [48]	Germany	128 (128)	NS	2–36 m	NS
de Gracia, de Rosnay, and Hawes (2021) [64]	Philippines	205 (102)	62 M 40 F	8–22 y	NS
Potter (1982) [49]	UK	93 (93)	53 M 40 F	7–16 y	NS

Note: N = whole sample; n = number of people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing; NS = not specified—the authors do not mention in the article.

Table 1. General information.

Authors and Publication Date	Country	Sample
		Number N (n)	Gender	Age	Characteristics of Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing
Laughen, Jacobsen, Rieffe, and Wichstrøm (2017) [53]	Norway	165 (35)	NS	4–5 y	using hearing aids in one or both ears, partially using speech, no cochlear implant
Martins, Faísca, Vieira, and Gonçalves (2019) [54]	Portugal	30 (15)	7 M 8 F	average age 32.4 y	congenitally hearing-impaired
Rieffe (2011) [50]	The Netherlands	52 (26)	NS	average age 11 years	deaf or hard-of-hearing minimum 90 dB, hearing parents in mainstream schools, use SSD (Sign-Supported Dutch)
Rieffe, Broekhof, Eichengreen, Kouwenberg, Veiga, da Silva, van der Laan, and Frijns (2018) [55]	The Netherlands	350 (75 mainstream education + 48 special education)	NS	9–15 y	NS
Sidera, Amadó, and Martínez (2017) [56]	Spain	166 (75)	41 M 34 F	3–8 y	NS
Eichengreen, Broekhof, Tsou, and Rieffe (2023) [52]	The Netherlands	307 (80)	37 M 43 F	9–15 y	at least 40 dB in the better ear
Hintermair, Sarimski, and Lang (2017) [51]	Germany	182 (182)	NS	18–36 m	have hearing loss < 70 dB
Mancini, Giallini, Prosperini, D’alessandro, Guerzoni, Murri, Cuda, Ruoppolo, De Vincentiis, and Nicastri (2016) [46]	Italy	72 (72)	32 M 40 F	8–12 y	CI users for at least 36 months
Briccetti (1994) [47]	USA	39 (39)	NS	9–12 y	prelingual deaf
Dyck, Farrugia, Shochet, and Holmes-Brown (2004) [7]	Australia	121 (49)	NS	6–11 and 12–18 y	NS
Akram and Hameed (2014) [57]	Pakistan	1519 (469)	272 M 197 F	adolescents	NS
Annalakshmi and Ragitha (2012) [58]	India	171 (81)	NS	14–19 y	NS
Pei (2013) [59]	PRC	209 (105)	NS	middle schools	NS
Satapathy and Singhal (2001) [60]	India	159 (80)	NS	13–21 y	NS
Simon (2011) [61]	USA	176 (88)	47 M 41 F	18–35 y	NS
Delveschio (1999) [62]	USA	129 (79)	NS	5.1–10.7 y	NS
Ellala and Ellala (2020) [63]	United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia	115 (56)	28 M 28 F	undergraduate students	NS
Peňacoba, Garvi, Gómez, and Álvarez (2020) [31]	Spain	192 (146)	NS	NS	NS
Hintermair, Sarimski, and Lang (2017) [48]	Germany	128 (128)	NS	2–36 m	NS
de Gracia, de Rosnay, and Hawes (2021) [64]	Philippines	205 (102)	62 M 40 F	8–22 y	NS
Potter (1982) [49]	UK	93 (93)	53 M 40 F	7–16 y	NS

Note: N = whole sample; n = number of people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing; NS = not specified—the authors do not mention in the article.

3.5. Research Information of Sources

Another area that needed to be explored was the objectives of each research study (see Table 2 for details). As the objective of the scoping review, all 21 articles could be divided into three main areas. The first group consists of one article [46], in which the authors investigated the influence of CI on describing emotion comprehension skills, ranging from simple identification of facial expressions to awareness of morality. The second group consists of three studies investigating possible instruments for examining emotional intelligence in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing [49,51]. These included the validation of an appropriate instrument, the selection of an appropriate instrument, and the feasibility of applying it in practice. Typically Hearing In two cases, the relationship between emotional intelligence and being an individual who is deaf or hard-of-hearing was then investigated regarding the possible influence of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing on verbal competence [56] and potential delays in emotion recognition [7]. The second subgroup consisted of nine articles, in which the authors addressed the influence of emotional intelligence on social adaptation, well-being, or coping strategies [31,52,54,55,58,59,60,61,63].

Following the research objectives, the review focused on the individual research instruments. The Meadow/Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf Students was used in three cases [49,60,62]. The Test of Emotion Comprehension was used in two cases [46,64], and the Emotion Awareness Questionnaire-Revised was also used in two [52,55]. In one case [50], the test was self-generated (individual responses to pictures and a story). Sidera et al. [56] used the Emotion Recognition Task, which the authors adapted for their research. In the other cases, researchers selected different emotional intelligence tests, tailored to the research focus and target group (see Table 2 for details). Additional tests were then selected based on the research objective (see Table 2).

All the studies included in the review were quantitative research. Various standard statistical tests were used to process the data (Chi-square, Student’s t-test, F-test, Pearson correlation, Analysis of variance, or Multivariate analysis of variance); see Table 2 for details. As noted above, in 17 cases, the research compared the emotional intelligence of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing with that of individuals with typical hearing. The research design was quasi-experimental in all cases, and in the remaining four cases, it was descriptive (see Table 2).

Table 2. Research information.

Authors and Publication Date	Research Design	Methods Used	The Aim	Instruments	Outputs
Laughen, Jacobsen, Rieffe, and Wichstrøm (2017) [53]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Student’s t-test	The difference in emotional intelligence between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and those with typical hearing.	The Test of Emotional Comprehension (TEC) Complementary: the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test (PPVT-III)	There are no statistically significant differences between individuals with typical hearing and individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. However, differences in scores exist between children and parents. Children score three, parents of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing score 5, and those of children with typical hearing score 6.
Martins, Faísca, Vieira, and Gonçalves (2019) [54]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Chi-Square	Long-term effect of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing on recognition of emotions compared to individuals with typical hearing.	The Florida Affect Battery (FAB), The Empathy Quotient scale (EQ)	Individuals with typical hearing scores better than individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, but the difference is not significant. EQ—again, there is no significant difference, except for cognitive empathy, which is significantly lower for individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
Rieffe (2011) [50]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Student’s t-test	Understanding one’s own emotions—a comparison of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing.	The Emotion Identification Task (three questions) The Multiple Emotions task (reactions to a story: 1. using four pictures, 2. a scale of the strength of emotions) The emotion regulation task (personal reactions to pictures)	Test 1: No differences Test 2: Individuals with typical hearing identified more sadness than individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing; Individual with typical hearing identified more emotions in one story, especially negative emotions—not significant Test 3: Individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing reacts more strongly to peer provocation or cannot respond. However, nothing is significant—more research is needed.
Rieffe, Broekhof, Eichengreen, Kouwenberg, Veiga, da Silva, van der Laan, and Frijns (2018) [55]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Chi-Square, Student’s t-test, F-test	The relationship between emotion control and friendship quality in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing	The Emotion Awareness Questionnaire-Revised (EAQ-R 30)—two scales out of six; complementary: The Best Friend Index (BFI) The Coping Scale	pre-adolescents who are deaf or hard-of-hearing in special education showed lower levels of emotional control and lower friendship quality than both their individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and peers with typical hearing in mainstream education. They benefited less from the same emotion regulation strategies that were helpful for the people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and participants with typical hearing. However, pre-adolescents who are deaf or hard-of-hearing in mainstream education faced challenges, too, as this study found that their friendships had fewer positive features.
Sidera, Amadó, and Martínez (2017) [56]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Chi-Square	The relationship of verbal competence to emotion recognition—a comparison of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing.	The Emotion Recognition Task (created to assess the capacity to link emotion words with facial emotional expressions) The Naming Vocabulary subtest of the second edition of the British Ability Scales; complementary: Test of non-verbal reasoning	The results show a delay in deaf children’s capacity to recognize some emotions (scared, surprised, and disgusted) but not others (happy, sad, and angry). Notably, they recognized emotions in a similar order to hearing children. Moreover, linguistic skills were found to be related to emotion recognition skills, even when controlling for age.
Eichengreen, Broekhof, Tsou, and Rieffe (2023) [52]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Cronbach’s Alpha, Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)	Emotion awareness (EA) and regulation (ER) comparison of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing	The Emotion Awareness Questionnaire-Revised (EAQ-R) complementary: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III) The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Fourth edition (CELF) Coping Scale (Dutch version)	No developmental trends were observed to differentiate emotions, and there was a notable lack of bodily awareness and effective communication of emotions. No differences were found between the participants who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and hearing participants in baseline levels or in the developmental trends of EA and ER skills.
Hintermair, Sarimski, and Lang (2017) [51]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Cronbach’s Alpha, Student’s t-test, F-test	Social–emotional skills—comparison of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing	Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA) Social Emotional Assessment—Evaluation Measure (SEAM)	Potential difficulties specific to children with hearing loss occur in areas related to language and socio-cognitive domains (such as emotion regulation and empathy).
Mancini, Giallini, Prosperini, D’alessandro, Guerzoni, Murri, Cuda, Ruoppolo, De Vincentiis, and Nicastri (2016) [46]	Descriptive research design	Analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson correlation	To describe the emotion comprehension skills of CI users.	The Test of Emotion Comprehension (TEC); complementary: Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CMP); The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)	In their TEC score, 57 children showed everyday range performances (79.17% of recipients), and 15 fell below average (20.83%). 16.63% of the older subjects aged eight to 12 did not master Stage 3 (reflective), which is typically acquired by the age of eight, and failed two or all three items of this component. Subjects who received a cochlear implant in the research study within 18 months of age had better emotion comprehension skills. The TEC results also correlated positively with early diagnosis, extended implant use, and improved auditory skills.
Briccetti (1994) [47]	Descriptive research Design	Student’s t-test, F-test	Validation of the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance.	The Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP: SPED)	More than half of the subjects from each group were misclassified using the DAP: SPED system. The results indicate that DAP: SPED is not a valid screening instrument for use with deaf children, and there is a need for separate normative data for this group.
Dyck, Farrugia, Shochet, and Holmes-Brown (2004) [7]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Chi-Square, F-test, Student’s t-test	This study assesses whether children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing have consistent delays in acquiring the ability to recognize and understand emotions	The Emotion Recognition Scales (ERS) complementary: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III)	The results indicate that when compared with their age peers, HI children and adolescents have significant delays or deficits in all Emotion Recognition Scales (ERS). Compared with a group of children matched for verbal ability (Wechsler verbal scales), the achievement of children with HI on ERS equals or exceeds that of the controls. Conclusions: HI children’s performance on emotion recognition and emotion understanding tasks reflects delayed acquisition of a broad range of language-mediated abilities.
Akram and Hameed (2014) [57]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Pearson correlation, Student’s t-test, factorial analyses	The study was conducted to explore the levels of adaptive emotional abilities of those who are deaf or hard-of-hearing as well as to find the roles of sociodemographic factors. Variables in the development of their emotional abilities.	The Adaptive Emotional Abilities Scale (AEAS)	The study results showed that the HI adolescents scored significantly lower than the hearing adolescents. The study indicates poor social–emotional adjustment and low social–emotional abilities in deaf children. On the other hand, it was found that sociodemographic variables such as access to hearing assessment and speech services, the time of the intervention, the presence of an HI family member, the preferred language of the family, and the preferred language of the participants themselves, regardless of their hearing loss, play important roles in developing the adaptive emotional abilities of the HI adolescents. The results indicated that hearing loss is not the only reason for the poor performance of adolescents with hearing loss.
Annalakshmi and Ragitha (2012) [58]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	F-test, Pearson correlation	To describe the psychological distress and psychological well-being of the subjects.	The Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire (BEQ) complementary: General Well-Being	The HI subjects had higher psychological distress and lower psychological well-being compared to the TH subjects.
Pei (2013) [59]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Student’s t-test, F-test	Relationship between regulatory emotional self-efficacy and coping style	Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) Complementary: Coping Style Scale for Middle School Students (CSSMSS)	Individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing scored lower in three dimensions of RESE: problem-solving, support-seeking, rationalized explanation, and CSM patience.
Satapathy and Singhal (2001) [60]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	F-test, Pearson correlation	This study examines the relationship between psychosocial and contextual conditions as correlates of social adaptation of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing.	The Meadow/Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf Students complementary: Self-Confidence Questionnaire (SCQ)	Behavioral problems, stress, and academic performance as predictors influenced both groups’ social–emotional adjustment levels.
Simon (2011) [61]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Chi-Square, Analysis of variance (ANOVA)	Differences between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing in expressive reactions and acculturation	The International Survey of Emotional Antecedents and Reactions—deaf version (ISEAR-D). Complementary: The Deaf Acculturation Scale with 58 items (DAS-58).	There are differences between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing. Deaf people seemed to expect negative emotions to happen more often. Deaf people would report higher non-verbal expression, ergotropic, and trophotropic arousal. Higher levels of deaf acculturation are associated with a greater impact of negative emotions in relationships and lower self-esteem.
Delveschio (1999) [62]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Student’s t-test	Compared the ages at which three groups of children, individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing, achieved four increasingly complex levels of emotional understanding	The Meadow/Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf Students complementary: Attitudes Towards Deafness Scale	Age has no significant effect. Boys who are deaf or hard-of-hearing are generally more delayed than their peers. For girls, it varies—those with parents who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and parents with typical hearing are almost at the same level. Girls who are deaf or hard-of-hearing with parents with typical hearing are slightly more delayed.
Ellala and Ellala (2020) [63]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	F-test	The study aims to determine differences in emotional intelligence between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing.	Chapman’s Scale of Emotional Intelligence	This reveals that there are differences in statistical function (α ≥ 0.05) in students’ performance on Chapman’s five-dimensional emotional intelligence scale, attributed to the student variable (deaf vs. standard), in favor of the standard students. The two researchers consider this result normal due to the impact of hearing loss on various aspects of personality, including self-efficacy, emotions, and control. A individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing cannot compare themself to others as they have only one option: self-control. They cannot communicate socially with others except through signs, a language that few can communicate through. Individuals with typical hearing also excels in linguistic intelligence, which individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing lacks. The two researchers could not compare their study with another one as no such study had been conducted before.
Peňacoba, Garvi, Gómez, and Álvarez (2020) [31]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Cronbach’s Alpha, Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), Pearson correlation, Analysis of variance (ANOVA)	The study explored the possible relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological well-being.	Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS-24) complementary: Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) Hospitality Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Psychological Well-Scale (PWBS)	Significant differences were found between deaf and hearing participants regarding anxiety, depression, alexithymia, and psychological well-being. No differences were found between deaf and typically hearing participants in terms of emotional functioning. The differences observed between deaf and participants with typical hearing regarding psychological well-being are discussed in terms of higher rates of depression among the former.
Hintermair, Sarimski, and Lang (2017) [48]	Descriptive research design	Chi-Square, Student’s t-test	Explore the usefulness of an instrument that was developed for very young children.	The Social–Emotional Assessment Measure (SEAM)	The SEAM child competencies scale’s reliability (internal consistency) was comparable to that reported in the manual. The reliability of the ITSEA scales was satisfactory, except for the “Peer relations” scale in the younger age group. This applies to both the mothers’ ratings and the early intervention providers’ ratings. In both age groups, the total competence score had perfect internal consistency when completed by mothers and early intervention providers. This indicates that parents evaluated their toddler’s social–emotional competence more favorably than the intervention provider working with the family.
de Gracia, de Rosnay, and Hawes (2021) [64]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Linear regressions	The study examined associations between deafness, understanding emotions, and affective recognition between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing.	The Test of Emotion Comprehension (TEC) complementary: Diagnostic Assessment of Nonverbal Accuracy-2 (DANVA-2) The Expressive Vocabulary Test, 2nd edition	Results from hierarchical linear regressions indicate that, after controlling for age and verbal ability, both groups performed similarly in terms of total ARL skills. In contrast, the deaf cohort performed worse on total EU than the hearing controls, even after accounting for age and verbal ability. In the final model, age, verbal ability, and hearing status were all statistically significant predictors of EU. Thus, the hearing participants had a significantly better understanding of emotions than the deaf group, but not more extraordinary ARL ability. Through this study, we demonstrated that for Filipino deaf persons, the delays in social cognitive skills first observed in ToM extend to understanding emotions, signaling a general impairment of mental abilities.
Potter (1982) [49]	Descriptive research design	The Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient, Pearson correlation	The applicability of using an assessment scale designed to assess social–emotional functioning in hearing children with a deaf population, and the functioning of the assessment scale as a diagnostic instrument for deaf children.	The Meadow/Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf Students complementary: The Rutter Children’s Behavior Questionnaire	Comparing the two scales (the Rutter Children’s Behavior Questionnaire, a screening instrument designed for hearing children, and the Meadow/Kendall Social Emotional Assessment Inventory) to test the applicability of the Rutter Children’s Behavior Questionnaire test for deaf and hard–of–hearing children. All three scales identified nearly one-third of the population as having social–emotional problems, while the Rutter scale, designed to “over-identify,” identified just over one-third. These results raise questions about using the SEAI as anything other than a screening instrument. Finally, additional analyses were conducted to examine the reliability of the two rating scales and teacher judgment. All three measures had high reliability. However, the results do not support a recommendation of validity for the mentioned instruments.

Table 2. Research information.

Authors and Publication Date	Research Design	Methods Used	The Aim	Instruments	Outputs
Laughen, Jacobsen, Rieffe, and Wichstrøm (2017) [53]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Student’s t-test	The difference in emotional intelligence between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and those with typical hearing.	The Test of Emotional Comprehension (TEC) Complementary: the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test (PPVT-III)	There are no statistically significant differences between individuals with typical hearing and individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. However, differences in scores exist between children and parents. Children score three, parents of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing score 5, and those of children with typical hearing score 6.
Martins, Faísca, Vieira, and Gonçalves (2019) [54]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Chi-Square	Long-term effect of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing on recognition of emotions compared to individuals with typical hearing.	The Florida Affect Battery (FAB), The Empathy Quotient scale (EQ)	Individuals with typical hearing scores better than individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, but the difference is not significant. EQ—again, there is no significant difference, except for cognitive empathy, which is significantly lower for individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
Rieffe (2011) [50]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Student’s t-test	Understanding one’s own emotions—a comparison of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing.	The Emotion Identification Task (three questions) The Multiple Emotions task (reactions to a story: 1. using four pictures, 2. a scale of the strength of emotions) The emotion regulation task (personal reactions to pictures)	Test 1: No differences Test 2: Individuals with typical hearing identified more sadness than individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing; Individual with typical hearing identified more emotions in one story, especially negative emotions—not significant Test 3: Individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing reacts more strongly to peer provocation or cannot respond. However, nothing is significant—more research is needed.
Rieffe, Broekhof, Eichengreen, Kouwenberg, Veiga, da Silva, van der Laan, and Frijns (2018) [55]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Chi-Square, Student’s t-test, F-test	The relationship between emotion control and friendship quality in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing	The Emotion Awareness Questionnaire-Revised (EAQ-R 30)—two scales out of six; complementary: The Best Friend Index (BFI) The Coping Scale	pre-adolescents who are deaf or hard-of-hearing in special education showed lower levels of emotional control and lower friendship quality than both their individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and peers with typical hearing in mainstream education. They benefited less from the same emotion regulation strategies that were helpful for the people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and participants with typical hearing. However, pre-adolescents who are deaf or hard-of-hearing in mainstream education faced challenges, too, as this study found that their friendships had fewer positive features.
Sidera, Amadó, and Martínez (2017) [56]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Chi-Square	The relationship of verbal competence to emotion recognition—a comparison of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing.	The Emotion Recognition Task (created to assess the capacity to link emotion words with facial emotional expressions) The Naming Vocabulary subtest of the second edition of the British Ability Scales; complementary: Test of non-verbal reasoning	The results show a delay in deaf children’s capacity to recognize some emotions (scared, surprised, and disgusted) but not others (happy, sad, and angry). Notably, they recognized emotions in a similar order to hearing children. Moreover, linguistic skills were found to be related to emotion recognition skills, even when controlling for age.
Eichengreen, Broekhof, Tsou, and Rieffe (2023) [52]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Cronbach’s Alpha, Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)	Emotion awareness (EA) and regulation (ER) comparison of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing	The Emotion Awareness Questionnaire-Revised (EAQ-R) complementary: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III) The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Fourth edition (CELF) Coping Scale (Dutch version)	No developmental trends were observed to differentiate emotions, and there was a notable lack of bodily awareness and effective communication of emotions. No differences were found between the participants who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and hearing participants in baseline levels or in the developmental trends of EA and ER skills.
Hintermair, Sarimski, and Lang (2017) [51]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Cronbach’s Alpha, Student’s t-test, F-test	Social–emotional skills—comparison of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing	Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment (ITSEA) Social Emotional Assessment—Evaluation Measure (SEAM)	Potential difficulties specific to children with hearing loss occur in areas related to language and socio-cognitive domains (such as emotion regulation and empathy).
Mancini, Giallini, Prosperini, D’alessandro, Guerzoni, Murri, Cuda, Ruoppolo, De Vincentiis, and Nicastri (2016) [46]	Descriptive research design	Analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson correlation	To describe the emotion comprehension skills of CI users.	The Test of Emotion Comprehension (TEC); complementary: Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CMP); The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)	In their TEC score, 57 children showed everyday range performances (79.17% of recipients), and 15 fell below average (20.83%). 16.63% of the older subjects aged eight to 12 did not master Stage 3 (reflective), which is typically acquired by the age of eight, and failed two or all three items of this component. Subjects who received a cochlear implant in the research study within 18 months of age had better emotion comprehension skills. The TEC results also correlated positively with early diagnosis, extended implant use, and improved auditory skills.
Briccetti (1994) [47]	Descriptive research Design	Student’s t-test, F-test	Validation of the Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance.	The Draw-A-Person: Screening Procedure for Emotional Disturbance (DAP: SPED)	More than half of the subjects from each group were misclassified using the DAP: SPED system. The results indicate that DAP: SPED is not a valid screening instrument for use with deaf children, and there is a need for separate normative data for this group.
Dyck, Farrugia, Shochet, and Holmes-Brown (2004) [7]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Chi-Square, F-test, Student’s t-test	This study assesses whether children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing have consistent delays in acquiring the ability to recognize and understand emotions	The Emotion Recognition Scales (ERS) complementary: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III)	The results indicate that when compared with their age peers, HI children and adolescents have significant delays or deficits in all Emotion Recognition Scales (ERS). Compared with a group of children matched for verbal ability (Wechsler verbal scales), the achievement of children with HI on ERS equals or exceeds that of the controls. Conclusions: HI children’s performance on emotion recognition and emotion understanding tasks reflects delayed acquisition of a broad range of language-mediated abilities.
Akram and Hameed (2014) [57]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Pearson correlation, Student’s t-test, factorial analyses	The study was conducted to explore the levels of adaptive emotional abilities of those who are deaf or hard-of-hearing as well as to find the roles of sociodemographic factors. Variables in the development of their emotional abilities.	The Adaptive Emotional Abilities Scale (AEAS)	The study results showed that the HI adolescents scored significantly lower than the hearing adolescents. The study indicates poor social–emotional adjustment and low social–emotional abilities in deaf children. On the other hand, it was found that sociodemographic variables such as access to hearing assessment and speech services, the time of the intervention, the presence of an HI family member, the preferred language of the family, and the preferred language of the participants themselves, regardless of their hearing loss, play important roles in developing the adaptive emotional abilities of the HI adolescents. The results indicated that hearing loss is not the only reason for the poor performance of adolescents with hearing loss.
Annalakshmi and Ragitha (2012) [58]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	F-test, Pearson correlation	To describe the psychological distress and psychological well-being of the subjects.	The Berkeley Expressivity Questionnaire (BEQ) complementary: General Well-Being	The HI subjects had higher psychological distress and lower psychological well-being compared to the TH subjects.
Pei (2013) [59]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Student’s t-test, F-test	Relationship between regulatory emotional self-efficacy and coping style	Regulatory Emotional Self-Efficacy (RESE) Complementary: Coping Style Scale for Middle School Students (CSSMSS)	Individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing scored lower in three dimensions of RESE: problem-solving, support-seeking, rationalized explanation, and CSM patience.
Satapathy and Singhal (2001) [60]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	F-test, Pearson correlation	This study examines the relationship between psychosocial and contextual conditions as correlates of social adaptation of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing.	The Meadow/Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf Students complementary: Self-Confidence Questionnaire (SCQ)	Behavioral problems, stress, and academic performance as predictors influenced both groups’ social–emotional adjustment levels.
Simon (2011) [61]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Chi-Square, Analysis of variance (ANOVA)	Differences between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing in expressive reactions and acculturation	The International Survey of Emotional Antecedents and Reactions—deaf version (ISEAR-D). Complementary: The Deaf Acculturation Scale with 58 items (DAS-58).	There are differences between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing. Deaf people seemed to expect negative emotions to happen more often. Deaf people would report higher non-verbal expression, ergotropic, and trophotropic arousal. Higher levels of deaf acculturation are associated with a greater impact of negative emotions in relationships and lower self-esteem.
Delveschio (1999) [62]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Student’s t-test	Compared the ages at which three groups of children, individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing, achieved four increasingly complex levels of emotional understanding	The Meadow/Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf Students complementary: Attitudes Towards Deafness Scale	Age has no significant effect. Boys who are deaf or hard-of-hearing are generally more delayed than their peers. For girls, it varies—those with parents who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and parents with typical hearing are almost at the same level. Girls who are deaf or hard-of-hearing with parents with typical hearing are slightly more delayed.
Ellala and Ellala (2020) [63]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	F-test	The study aims to determine differences in emotional intelligence between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing.	Chapman’s Scale of Emotional Intelligence	This reveals that there are differences in statistical function (α ≥ 0.05) in students’ performance on Chapman’s five-dimensional emotional intelligence scale, attributed to the student variable (deaf vs. standard), in favor of the standard students. The two researchers consider this result normal due to the impact of hearing loss on various aspects of personality, including self-efficacy, emotions, and control. A individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing cannot compare themself to others as they have only one option: self-control. They cannot communicate socially with others except through signs, a language that few can communicate through. Individuals with typical hearing also excels in linguistic intelligence, which individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing lacks. The two researchers could not compare their study with another one as no such study had been conducted before.
Peňacoba, Garvi, Gómez, and Álvarez (2020) [31]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Cronbach’s Alpha, Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), Pearson correlation, Analysis of variance (ANOVA)	The study explored the possible relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological well-being.	Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS-24) complementary: Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) Hospitality Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Psychological Well-Scale (PWBS)	Significant differences were found between deaf and hearing participants regarding anxiety, depression, alexithymia, and psychological well-being. No differences were found between deaf and typically hearing participants in terms of emotional functioning. The differences observed between deaf and participants with typical hearing regarding psychological well-being are discussed in terms of higher rates of depression among the former.
Hintermair, Sarimski, and Lang (2017) [48]	Descriptive research design	Chi-Square, Student’s t-test	Explore the usefulness of an instrument that was developed for very young children.	The Social–Emotional Assessment Measure (SEAM)	The SEAM child competencies scale’s reliability (internal consistency) was comparable to that reported in the manual. The reliability of the ITSEA scales was satisfactory, except for the “Peer relations” scale in the younger age group. This applies to both the mothers’ ratings and the early intervention providers’ ratings. In both age groups, the total competence score had perfect internal consistency when completed by mothers and early intervention providers. This indicates that parents evaluated their toddler’s social–emotional competence more favorably than the intervention provider working with the family.
de Gracia, de Rosnay, and Hawes (2021) [64]	Quasi-experimental Research Design	Linear regressions	The study examined associations between deafness, understanding emotions, and affective recognition between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing.	The Test of Emotion Comprehension (TEC) complementary: Diagnostic Assessment of Nonverbal Accuracy-2 (DANVA-2) The Expressive Vocabulary Test, 2nd edition	Results from hierarchical linear regressions indicate that, after controlling for age and verbal ability, both groups performed similarly in terms of total ARL skills. In contrast, the deaf cohort performed worse on total EU than the hearing controls, even after accounting for age and verbal ability. In the final model, age, verbal ability, and hearing status were all statistically significant predictors of EU. Thus, the hearing participants had a significantly better understanding of emotions than the deaf group, but not more extraordinary ARL ability. Through this study, we demonstrated that for Filipino deaf persons, the delays in social cognitive skills first observed in ToM extend to understanding emotions, signaling a general impairment of mental abilities.
Potter (1982) [49]	Descriptive research design	The Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient, Pearson correlation	The applicability of using an assessment scale designed to assess social–emotional functioning in hearing children with a deaf population, and the functioning of the assessment scale as a diagnostic instrument for deaf children.	The Meadow/Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf Students complementary: The Rutter Children’s Behavior Questionnaire	Comparing the two scales (the Rutter Children’s Behavior Questionnaire, a screening instrument designed for hearing children, and the Meadow/Kendall Social Emotional Assessment Inventory) to test the applicability of the Rutter Children’s Behavior Questionnaire test for deaf and hard–of–hearing children. All three scales identified nearly one-third of the population as having social–emotional problems, while the Rutter scale, designed to “over-identify,” identified just over one-third. These results raise questions about using the SEAI as anything other than a screening instrument. Finally, additional analyses were conducted to examine the reliability of the two rating scales and teacher judgment. All three measures had high reliability. However, the results do not support a recommendation of validity for the mentioned instruments.

3.6. Outputs

The last area to be examined was the results of the individual surveys (see Table 2 for details). In three cases [52,60,65], the authors consistently reported no differences in emotional intelligence between individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing. Emotional understanding and regulation are fundamental to psychological therapy [65], and these processes may present unique challenges for individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing due to differences in language access and emotional socialization. Mancini et al. [46] reported a positive effect of CI on the development of emotional intelligence. They then reported that early implantation can have a positive effect on the natural development of emotional intelligence. In 14 cases, the researchers reported that individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing scored lower than those with TH for emotional intelligence. However, Martins et al. [54] reported that this difference is insignificant. While Rieffe [50] pointed out that the differences are nonsignificant, he described them specifically. He stated that individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing distinguish fewer shades of emotions, have lower emotional control, and react less well to negative emotions. Hintermair et al. [51] only mentioned potential difficulties in emotional intelligence in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.

Delvecchio [62] reported that emotional intelligence is delayed only in boys who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Rieffe et al. [55] and Potter [49] noted that delays in emotional intelligence are observed in individuals with Down syndrome who are educated in special schools. Annalakshmi et al. [58] and Pei et al. [59] pointed out that individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing have lower emotional control compared to people with individuals with typical hearing. Individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing often report experiencing higher levels of emotional distress, such as anxiety and depression—emotions that can be characterized as negative in valence [7,31,56,61] and Akram et al. [57] mentioned that individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing show a delay in emotional intelligence. However, all authors agreed that the delay in emotional intelligence is not a direct result of hearing loss, but rather its impact on verbal communication and social relationships.

In contrast to most studies, Martins et al. [54] and Ellala et al. [63] examined differences in specific emotional domains rather than overall EI levels. Both studies found that participants with typical hearing tended to score slightly higher than participants who are deaf or hard-of-hearing on measures of emotional understanding and empathy. However, these differences were minor or statistically nonsignificant. Importantly, higher scores on these scales represented better emotional comprehension or empathy, not increased negative effects. Martins et al. [54] and Ellala et al. [63] reported that individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing scored higher than participants with typical hearing on measures assessing emotional dysregulation, suggesting greater difficulty in managing emotions. Therefore, higher scores reflect a negative outcome, not an enhanced level of emotional intelligence. It should be noted, however, that in this case, higher scores on emotional-symptom measures (e.g., anxiety, depression) do not indicate a positive outcome; instead, they reflect greater emotional distress. The authors of [31] focused instead on validating an instrument to assess emotional intelligence in the subsequent analyses.

Based on the research results, Briccetti [47] stated that DAPrSED cannot be considered a suitable instrument in its current form because it misclassified half of the cases and recommends creating new standards for its use instead. Hintermeier et al. [48,51] looked at the reliability [validity] of two tests, the Social–Emotional Assessment Measure (SEAM) and the Infant Toddler Social–Emotional Assessment (ITSEA). The reliability of the first test was excellent, and that of the second test was satisfactory. Overall, however, the authors reported good reliability. In addition to reliability, they also reported that parents rated their children more accurately than early childhood workers. In the last research study reviewed [49], the author employed two tests. Both mentioned tests have the potential to identify EI, but should only be used as screening instruments, not as tests that provide accurate information.

4. Discussion

4.1. Main Findings

Our findings underscore the importance of assessing emotional intelligence in alignment with the cultural and linguistically affirmative framework introduced in the Introduction. This approach is essential for selecting instruments that adequately consider the communication models and experiences of the population who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, rather than merely using translations of instruments designed for individuals with typical hearing.

Two key areas were identified in studies on emotional integration in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing: appropriate tests and adaptations of tests for individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Three tests were used repeatedly: (1) Meadow–Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment Inventories [49,60,62], (2) Test of Emotion Comprehension [46,64], and (3) Emotion Awareness Questionnaire-Revised [52,55]. Modifications in test items or the use of sign language were common. Studies often compared emotional intelligence in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and individuals with typical hearing, while the current study focused on differences by age and gender. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the age and gender of the respondents.

4.2. Assessment Instruments

The Meadow–Kendall test, designed for individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, has been updated and adapted cross-culturally [66]. The Test of Emotion Comprehension and the Emotion Awareness Questionnaire-Revised are widely used for measuring emotional intelligence and awareness, with applications for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and with typical hearing [67].

4.3. Modifications

Two major modifications were reported: (1) adaptation for individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing in the Meadow–Kendall test and International Survey of Emotional Antecedents and Reactions [61], and (2) the use of sign language or sign-supported spoken language [49,53,55,60].

4.4. Effect of Age and Gender

No statistically significant differences were found regarding the age and gender of the respondents. Some studies suggest that overall delays in emotional intelligence are present in children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, with early implantation improving outcomes [46].

4.5. Limitations and Potential Biases in the Review Process

All studies that met the predefined criteria were included in the review. There was no language-related limit for the studies (however, at least an abstract in English was a prerequisite). Regarding the period, studies between 1982 and 2023 were included. Studies were excluded if they only described emotional intelligence in individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, which may have contained interesting and important information, but did not address the stated research question.

Bias may have been introduced when the research team interpreted the inclusion criteria differently. Therefore, all full-text review decisions were made by two researchers, and a third researcher resolved conflicts.

4.6. Agreements and Disagreements with Other Studies or Reviews

4.6.1. Evaluation of Emotional Intelligence (EI) in Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing

Most studies (15 cases) used diverse instruments for assessing EI, with only three tests being applied more than once. Commonly used assessments include the Meadow–Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment, Test of Emotion Comprehension, and Emotion Awareness Questionnaire-Revised. These tests, tailored for the population which is deaf or hard-of-hearing, address unique social–emotional challenges, such as self-concept, social competence, and emotional adjustment. Many tests incorporate visual aids to minimize communication barriers, reflecting the cultural and contextual needs of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing [39].

4.6.2. Adaptation of Psychological Tests

Modifications in psychological testing for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, as recommended by the American Psychological Association (APA), underline the importance of early intervention and the need for accurate screening instruments. Effective communication, particularly proficiency in sign language, is crucial for conducting psychological assessments. The APA emphasizes cultural sensitivity when working with the Deaf community, ensuring that interventions respect their diverse backgrounds. Collaboration among stakeholders (parents, educators, professionals) is crucial for tailoring interventions to the individual needs of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing [68].

4.6.3. Communication Considerations

Sign language use is increasingly recognized as vital for enhancing the validity of psychological assessments. Methods like text messages or email are used for communicating with individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, though they carry privacy risks. The involvement of sign language interpreters can enhance assessment accuracy, but the psychologist must maintain direct communication with the client. Additionally, some clients may benefit from compensatory aids to improve hearing, though reading comprehension and limited vocabulary remain significant barriers [69,70,71].

4.6.4. Challenges in Standard Psychological Tests

Standardized assessments heavily utilize verbal and auditory modalities; for individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, this can result in task comprehension difficulties and subsequent systematic bias in results [72]. Because these instruments are often not tailored to diverse communication needs, measurement error may arise even in tasks with low auditory demands [73]. Consequently, research and practice should focus on enhancing accessibility, specifically through the integration of sign language into testing protocols and the formal adaptation of standardized measures for the population who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Using sign language interpreters during assessments is effective, but interpreters must be experienced in psychological testing and familiar with relevant terminology [74,75,76]. The British Psychological Society [77]. examines the complexities of adapting standardized tests.

4.6.5. Modifications to Emotional Intelligence Assessments

Standard EI assessments are adapted for individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing by simplifying language or providing sign language versions. For sign language users, trained evaluators may conduct assessments directly in sign language, though interpreters are sometimes needed, which can introduce translation challenges. The practice of simplifying language in standardized Emotional Intelligence (EI) assessments for individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing is methodologically flawed and should be critically evaluated, as it directly threatens the construct validity of the measurement. By reducing complex emotional concepts and social nuances—often embedded in the language of EI—to overly basic vocabulary, the assessment risks measuring mere comprehension of simple English rather than sophisticated emotional skills. Furthermore, this approach fails to account for the linguistic and cultural equivalence necessary for valid adaptation, thereby ignoring the distinct structure and rich emotional expression inherent in visual–gestural languages, such as American Sign Language (ASL). Such a superficial simplification may lead to inaccurate, potentially inflated scores that do not reflect the individual’s actual capacity to manage and process the complex social information encountered in real-world contexts, thus compromising the utility of the assessment for clinical or developmental purposes.

Non-verbal cues and social interaction observations are valuable for assessing EI, especially in social settings involving hearing and individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Additionally, third-party evaluations from teachers or family members provide external perspectives on emotional management [34,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82].

In some cases, the term’ emotional functioning,’ which can be understood as a state or process of emotional regulation, is used in the evaluated articles. In contrast, emotional intelligence refers to the set of skills that enable optimal emotional functioning. Key recommendations include using certified sign language interpreters with knowledge of psychological terminology, pre-test familiarization sessions, and incorporating non-verbal assessment techniques for clients who are deaf or hard-of-hearing with limited language skills [83,84].

4.6.6. Gender and Age Differences

Some studies suggest that overall delays in emotional intelligence are present in children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, with early implantation improving outcomes [46]. No significant differences were found based on age [85,86].

4.6.7. Authors’ Conclusions

The above review showed that two tests have been adapted to meet the needs of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing: the Meadow/Kendall Social–Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf Students and the International Survey of Emotional Antecedents and Reactions—Deaf version (ISEAR-D). In the first case, raters are parents or educators who have close, regular, and sustained contact with children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. In the second, respondents provide their answers. However, Potter [49] noted issues with the Meadow/Kendall test regarding its ability to discriminate and identify individual traits accurately. Although the test was tailored for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, Potter [49] emphasized that it should be used only for screening purposes and not for diagnosis.

Across all reviewed studies, researchers agree that instructions must be delivered in sign language or with support systems such as sign-to-speech and that these instructions must be adapted to the linguistic and cultural competence of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. However, there is no unified position among experts on testing practices for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. For example, Anderson et al. [87] recommended using a range of instruments, given the increasing inclusion of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing in mainstream educational settings. For parents and educators, understanding a child’s performance in such settings is essential, but instruments must be used critically and in context. Day et al. [88] further note that both auditory and visual distractions must be minimized during testing, as many children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing rely on residual hearing or hearing devices, which can introduce inconsistencies.

Some studies report what appears to be a delay in emotional intelligence among children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, with early cochlear implantation cited as a factor improving outcomes [46]. However, other studies report no significant differences based on age [85,86]. Importantly, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of inherent deficits. Rather, such outcomes likely reflect disparities in early access to natural language, communication environments, and educational equity—systemic and social factors that disproportionately affect individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. To frame children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing as inherently delayed or lacking misrepresents the diverse strengths and capacities within this community.

5. Conclusions

This scoping review identified instruments suitable for assessing emotional intelligence about the specific experiences of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. A synthesis of the included literature shows that the current understanding of EI in deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals is critically fragmented and methodologically compromised. The primary finding is not a clear consensus on differences in EI, but rather a pattern of inconsistent and contradictory results that can be attributed, in principle, to a lack of linguistic and cultural validity in the assessment instruments. Standardized EI methods, designed for hearing populations and often dependent on complex written language, fail to capture the nuanced expression and understanding of emotions within the visual–gestural modality of languages such as American Sign Language (ASL), and thus potentially measure reading proficiency rather than the intended construct of emotional competence. As a result, the field must move away from comparative studies that risk pathologizing the experiences of individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing toward the urgent development of culturally sensitive, universally accessible, and multimodal assessments that reflect the unique socioemotional developmental pathways shaped by individuals’ who are deaf or hard-of-hearing access to communication, social environments, and cultural norms. The analysis revealed that, despite growing interest in this area, a lack of standardized instruments that fully integrate sign language and Deaf culture persists. The findings highlight the need to develop and validate measurement instruments that rely on visual and contextual cues and have been developed in collaboration with the Deaf community.

6. Implications for Further Research and Practice

The literature on hearing participants primarily uses self-reported measures. In contrast, there is material of a more methodological nature that leans towards specific tests modified to examine clients who are deaf or hard-of-hearing [20,89]. The literature sources analyzed showed that the authors’ attention tended to focus primarily on differences between populations who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and typical hearing. We recommend that future research focus on critically analyzing the methodological rigor of existing instruments and developing new, culturally and linguistically sensitive assessment methods.

For clinical practice, alternatives to standardized testing are available, such as observation within various social situations—whether naturalistic or simulated—as well as the use of visual aids (e.g., emotion cards) and elements of expressive therapies.