Psychometric Validation of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Short Form (TEIQue-CSF) in a Greek Population
by
, , , and
Eftychia Ferentinou
1,*
,
Ioannis Koutelekos
1,
Eleni Evangelou
1,
Afroditi Zartaloudi
1,
Maria Theodoratou
2
and
Chrysoula Dafogianni
1 1
Department of Nursing, University of West Attica, 122 43 Athens, Greece
2
Department of Social Sciences, Hellenic Open University, 263 35 Patra, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Psychol. Int. 2025, 7(3), 75; https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint7030075
Submission received: 4 July 2025
/
Revised: 11 August 2025
/
Accepted: 15 August 2025
/
Published: 2 September 2025
Abstract
The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is a tool that has been examined in a number of cultural and language variations in an effort to validate it across a range of demographics. The aim of this study is to test the robustness of the TEIQue-Child Short Form’s reliability and validity using a Greek-speaking sample. As a result, seven factors emerge from the analysis, explaining 52.4% of the variance in total. The first factor is named “emotional regulation”, the second factor is named “sociability”, and the third factor is named “positive mood”. The fifth factor is named “low impulsivity”, while the fourth, sixth, and seventh factors are named “lack of persistence”, “emotion perception”, and “adaptability”, respectively. The reliability indices of the factors “emotional regulation”, “sociability”, “positive mood”, “low impulsivity”, and “emotion perception” are all above 70, indicating acceptable reliability. The reliability indices of the factors “lack of persistence” and “adaptability” are almost at acceptable levels (α = 0.69). In conclusion, it seems that the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) has undergone extensive validation across diverse linguistic and cultural populations, consistently demonstrating strong psychometric properties, and the TEIQue-CSF is a valid and reliable tool.
1. Introduction
The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is a tool that has been examined in a number of cultural and language variations in an effort to validate it across a range of demographics. The four components are essentially the same as those in the original UK structure, apart from a single cross-loading between sociability and self-esteem (Petrides et al., 2016). As a result, they have been given the following labels: self-control, sociability, emotionality, and well-being. The TEIQue and Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF) are part of a set of measures based on the trait EI model, which includes questionnaires for children, adolescents, and adults (Petrides et al., 2016). The TEIQue has been adapted to other languages and studied regarding its validity, showing similar results to the original version (Petrides et al., 2016). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Short Form (TEIQue-CSF) is an instrument designed to assess children’s emotional intelligence. The purpose of the TEIQue-CSF is to assess skills and traits related to emotional intelligence, such as self-awareness, self-regulation, social recognition, and relationship management. It includes 36 short questions that assess respondents’ emotional reactions and ability to understand the emotions of others (Chirumbolo et al., 2019). It is accessible and easy for children to understand. The TEIQue-CSF identifies and measures various aspects of emotional intelligence in children, a skill that has been shown to influence their social interactions, academic success, and overall well-being. The short questionnaire format is designed to be easily understood by children aged 8 to 14 years. Participants are asked to respond to statements related to their emotional reactions and social skills using a Likert scale (e.g., “strongly agree,” “agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree”). Assessment domains include, firstly, emotion self-awareness, which is how well the child understands their own emotions. Secondly, they include self-regulation, which is the child’s ability to manage their emotions and react to a variety of situations. Moreover, social cognition is the ability to recognize and understand the emotions of others, and relationship management refers to skills related to communicating and working with others. The TEIQue-CSF provides standard scores for the various domains of emotional intelligence being assessed. These scores can range from low to high, with higher scores indicating better emotional intelligence. Each domain (self-awareness, self-regulation, social awareness, and relationship management) has its own score. These scores can be used to identify specific strengths and areas for improvement (Stamatopoulou et al., 2016). The scores can be compared against the normative values of a specific age or population to determine where the child is in relation to their peers. This can help identify potential problems or concerns. A low score may indicate difficulties in identifying and managing emotions, problems with social interactions, or an inability to understand the feelings of others. A high score indicates that the child has good self-awareness, self-regulation, and social competence. Factor analysis supports the basic four-factor structure of the TEIQue, while the instrument’s associations with life satisfaction and physical health reinforce its validity as an instrument for assessing emotional intelligence. In fact, the strong positive associations with life satisfaction and perception of physical health, underlining the functionality of the TEIQue as a tool for understanding emotional characteristics and their impact on daily life, are emphasized. The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) has undergone extensive psychometric evaluation across a wide array of cultural and linguistic contexts. The robustness of its factor structure and its consistent associations with related psychological constructs underscore its utility as a valid instrument for measuring trait emotional intelligence in adult populations. This paper offers a comparison of the main research findings regarding the reliability and validity of the TEIQue and can be used to realize the universality of the instrument, as well as its value in different cultures (Perazzo et al., 2021). Previous studies have consistently supported the reliability and validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) and its short forms across various cultural contexts. However, limited attention has been given to the validation of the child short form (TEIQue-CSF) specifically within the Greek population. The present study addresses this gap by examining the psychometric properties of the TEIQue-CSF in Greek-speaking children. Building on earlier findings, this research aims to explore whether the established factor structure, internal consistency, and theoretical associations of the TEIQue-CSF are replicated in this context. Validating this instrument in Greek is crucial for its application in educational and psychological settings, where culturally appropriate tools are needed to assess emotional intelligence in children.
TEIQue-CSF in Greek Population
The present study adds to this growing body of literature by validating the Greek version of the TEIQue-CSF. Our findings demonstrate that the instrument maintains strong psychometric properties in Greek children, through the following seven factors: “emotional regulation”, “sociability”, “positive mood”, “low impulsivity”, “lack of persistence”, “emotion perception”, and “adaptability”, representing a revised structure identified in other studies and revealing consistent associations with emotional and behavioral variables such as self-esteem, anxiety, and empathy. These findings not only reinforce the validity of the TEIQue-CSF in the Greek context but also support its cross-cultural applicability and theoretical relevance. The convergent and discriminant validity indicators in our study are aligned with previous international research, confirming that the TEIQue-CSF is a reliable and culturally adaptable tool for assessing trait emotional intelligence in children (Stassart et al., 2019).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Procedure
This study was conducted between November 2021 and November 2023. The study sample consisted of 614 children aged 8–12 years, drawn from third to sixth grade in elementary schools across the Attica region in Greece. This convenience sample was obtained by randomly selecting elementary schools in Attica and communicating with the school principals and boards of teachers. Schools that agreed to participate were included in the study.
2.2. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
The inclusion criteria for our study were as follows: children aged 8–12 years, fluent in Greek, and having written informed consent from a parent or guardian. The exclusion criteria were children younger than 8 or older than 12 years, children or caregivers who do not speak Greek fluently, as it may affect the validity of the responses, and not having written informed consent from a parent or guardian.
2.3. Aim
This study aims to test the robustness of the TEIQue’s reliability and validity using a Greek-speaking sample (The full Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Short Form (TEIQue-CSF) is provided in the Supplementary Materials). Firstly, we seek to assess the internal reliability of the TEIQue variables. Moreover, we examine the proposed seven-factor structure of the TEIQue.
2.4. Ethics Approval of Research
The Ethics Committee of the University of West Attica (No. 93329—13/11/2020, approval date: 13 November 2020) and the scientific councils of the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs in Athens, Greece (No. 32/25-06-2021, approval date: 25 June 2021) approved this research. Moreover, the approval was obtained by the school principal and the Board of Teachers. Due to restrictions from the global pandemic, an electronic version of the questionnaire was created for distribution and collection. The questionnaires were completed using Microsoft Forms through an online platform that handles personal data. Additionally, the questionnaire did not include any personal data.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Quantitative variables were expressed as mean values (SD), while qualitative variables were expressed as absolute and relative frequencies. The sample was randomly split into two halves. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on one half of the sample. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was fit to the second half to confirm the original unidimensional structure as well as the factor structure identified in the EFA. In EFA, principal component analysis (PCA) was chosen as the extraction method, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin procedure for measuring sample adequacy was applied. Varimax rotation was applied. The cut-off point for factor loadings was 0.40. The chosen cut-off thresholds (factor loadings ≥ 0.40, Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.60) are consistent with widely accepted psychometric conventions, particularly in exploratory research, where slightly lower reliability values may be tolerated to preserve theoretically relevant factors.
In CFA, the maximum likelihood procedure was used, and the fit of the model was assessed using the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), the Standardized Root Mean Squared Error (SRMR), and the Root Mean Squared Error of approximation (RMSEA) (Mueller, 2012). There are several guidelines for interpreting the fit of a model based on these indicators (Bentler, 1992; Greenspoon & Saklofske, 1998; Hu & Bentler, 1999).
For the CFI and TLI indices, values close to or greater than 0.90 are taken to reflect a good fit to the data. RMSEA values of less than 0.05 indicate a good fit, and values as high as 0.08 indicate a reasonable fit. SRMR values of less than 0.08 indicate a good fit.
The entire dataset was then used to test for invariance of the factor structure across genders and BMI levels, in terms of discriminant construct validity, via Student’s t-test. Intercorrelations were examined via Pearson’s. Internal consistency reliability was determined by the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Scales with reliabilities equal to or greater than 0.70 were considered acceptable.
All reported p values are two-tailed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05, and analyses were conducted using SPSS statistical software (version 27.0) and STATA (version 15).
3. Results
Data from 614 children (54.4% girls), with a mean age of 10 years (SD = 1.5 years), and their parents were analyzed. The sample’s characteristics are presented in Table 1. The majority of the children had normal BMI (62.1%) and had Greek nationality (96.9%). Most parents were women (76.9%), were married (91.9%), and had high socioeconomic status (61.1%).
The items of the TEI-Que-CSF are described analytically in Table 2. The sample was divided into two equally sized subsamples randomly. The one subsample was used for conducting the confirmatory factor analysis, and the other one for conducting the exploratory factor analysis. CFA was conducted in order to check the one-factor solution of the original TEI-Que-CSF scale, and it was found that this solution did not provide a good model fit, even after applying modifying indices (RMSEA = 0.08; CFI = 0.58; TLI = 0.56, and SRMR = 0.08). Thus, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted in the corresponding subsample. After verifying the adequacy of the data for performing such an analysis (i.e., KMO criterion being 0.83 and Bartlett’s test being significant with p < 0.001), exploratory factor analysis was conducted with Varimax rotation.
Seven factors emerged from the analysis, explaining 52.4% of the variance in total (Table 3). The first factor, named “emotional regulation”, consisted of nine items and explained 10.7% of the variance, the second, named “sociability”, consisted of seven items and explained 9.2% of the variance, and the third factor, named “positive mood”, also consisted of 7 items and explained 9.1% of the variance. The fifth factor, named “low impulsivity”, consisted of four items and explained 6.0% of the variance, while the fourth, sixth, and seventh factors (named “lack of persistence”, “emotion perception”, and “adaptability”, respectively) consisted of 3 items each and explained 6.4%, 5.7% and 5.3% of the variance, respectively. All 36 items had loading greater than 0.40; thus, there was no need to remove any of the items.
Corrected item–total correlation coefficients and reliability indices are presented in Table 4. The reliability indices of factors “emotional regulation”, “sociability”, “positive mood”, “low impulsivity”, and “emotion perception” were all above 0.70, indicating acceptable reliability. The factor “lack of persistence” had low reliability, and item 20 had substantially low item–total correlation coefficients; thus, it was decided to be removed from the scale. After removing it, the factor’s “lack of persistence” reliability was almost at acceptable levels (α = 0.69). Also, the factor’s “adaptability” reliability was a bit lower than the acceptable level (α = 0.62); however, by removing any of its items, there was no improvement in its reliability, and, thus, no further changes were made.
In order to evaluate the seven-factor construct that emerged from the EFA, CFA was conducted, and its results were within acceptable ranges (RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.87; TLI = 0.84; and SRMR = 0.06); see Figure 1.
Items within each factor were summed, and the sum was divided by the number of items. Thus, factors’ scores could range from 1 to 5, with greater values indicating a stronger presence of each characteristic.
Mean and Standard Deviation of factors and their intercorrelations are presented in Table 5. Significant intercorrelations were found among all factors (absolute value of r ranged from 0.12 to 0.61; p < 0.001).
In terms of discriminant validity, factors’ scores were associated with children’s gender and BMI levels (Table 6). Girls had significantly more emotional regulation (p = 0.001), more sociability (p < 0.001), more positive mood (p = 0.018), and lower impulsivity (p = 0.013). Moreover, overweight/obese children had significantly less emotional regulation (p < 0.001), less sociability (p < 0.001), less positive mood (p < 0.001), greater lack of persistence (p < 0.001), greater impulsivity (p < 0.001), lower emotion perception (p < 0.001), and lower adaptability (p = 0.038).
3.1. Correlations Between Factors
The intercorrelations among the four TEIQue-CSF factors—positive mood, lack of persistence, emotional regulation, and sociability—were all positive and statistically significant (p < 0.001), indicating a coherent underlying construct of trait emotional intelligence. All correlations are statistically significant at the p < 0.001 level. Positive correlations suggest that as one factor increases, the other tends to increase as well, while negative correlations indicate an inverse relationship. For example, emotional regulation shows strong positive correlations with sociability (r = 0.45) and positive mood (r = 0.56), and a negative correlation with lack of persistence (r = −0.40).
3.2. Invariance Analysis
Measurement invariance was tested across gender using a multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Configural, metric, and scalar invariance were assessed sequentially. The results demonstrated acceptable fit indices at each level (CFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08), and changes in CFI between nested models remained below the recommended threshold of 0.01, suggesting full scalar invariance. This indicates that the TEIQue-CSF measures the same construct equivalently in boys and girls. These gender and BMI differences may be influenced by socialization processes where girls are encouraged to develop emotional awareness and expression more than boys, while higher BMI could be associated with lower emotional competencies due to factors like social stigma or related psychological stress.
4. Discussion
4.1. The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) and Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Sort Form (TEIQue-SF) in the Adult Population
Τhe present findings provide robust support for the multidimensional structure of the TEIQue-CSF within a Greek-speaking sample. The emergence of seven distinct yet interrelated factors—such as emotional regulation, sociability, and positive mood—suggests that emotional intelligence in children may be more nuanced than a unidimensional model captures. These findings align with similar multidimensional structures reported in other cultural contexts, though slight variations in factor composition (e.g., low impulsivity and adaptability) may reflect sociocultural differences in the expression of emotional traits. The practical implications of these findings are considerable. The TEIQue-CSF, in its Greek adaptation, can be used by school psychologists and educators to assess children’s emotional strengths and difficulties. For instance, the tool could help identify children with low emotion regulation or low adaptability, who may benefit from targeted emotional skills training. Moreover, the observed gender and BMI-related differences emphasize the importance of incorporating emotional intelligence assessments in broader health and educational screenings. Girls appeared to score higher on key EI domains, while children with higher BMI exhibited lower emotional competencies—highlighting potential risk groups for early preventive interventions. The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) has undergone extensive validation across diverse linguistic and cultural populations, consistently demonstrating strong psychometric properties. A review of selected studies highlights its robust factor structure and internal consistency across contexts. To date, in Europe, seven studies (Petrides et al., 2016; Chirumbolo et al., 2019; Stassart et al., 2019; Freudenthaler et al., 2008; Szczygieł et al., 2015; Aluja et al., 2016; Russo et al., 2012) on the validation of TEIQue and TEIQue-SF for both children and adults have been conducted. Moreover, similar research has also been carried out in other continents, with six studies conducted in Asian countries (Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2021; Feher et al., 2019; Beyazıt et al., 2020; Ulutaş, 2019; Nguyen et al., 2025; Al-Dassean, 2023) and three in countries of the Americas (Perazzo et al., 2021; Zuanazzi et al., 2022; Gökçen et al., 2014). The German study, which was conducted on a sample of 352 German-speaking participants, confirmed the four-factor structure of the TEIQue, highlighting the high internal consistency and good relationship of the instrument with criteria such as life satisfaction and physical distress (Freudenthaler et al., 2008). This result is consistent with the findings of a Brazilian study (Zuanazzi et al., 2022), which reported excellent internal reliability and confirmed the four-factor model, revealing positive correlations between trait emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and social awareness (Zuanazzi et al., 2022). These findings support the questionnaire as a robust psychometric tool suitable for use with cross-cultural samples. Moreover, in another study involving the Brazilian population, the short version of the questionnaire was employed and likewise demonstrated high internal reliability, further confirming its psychometric soundness (Perazzo et al., 2021). Furthermore, in a Catalan survey with 351 adults, the multigroup analyses showed that the TEIQue structure was very similar in the Catalan and the English data. Overall, the TEIQue psychometric properties were comparable and robust in both samples, and, consequently, the instrument can be recommended for psychological research and practice (Aluja et al., 2016). These findings align with those of an Italian study in which shows that the TEIQue in the Italian context was comparable to the original United Kingdom version as regards its reliability and factor structure (Chirumbolo et al., 2019). The Turkish and Lebanese versions of TEIQue showed acceptable psychometrics and were in concordance with the original version, too (Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2021; Ulutaş, 2019). The Chinese version of the TEIQue-SF was assessed on a sample of 585 students, and the study supported the univariate structure of emotional intelligence and conducted measurement unbiasedness analyses compared to a Canadian sample (Feher et al., 2019). This study reinforced the international validity of the TEIQue and highlighted its usefulness in different cultural and social contexts. Moreover, in the Vietnamese version of the TEIQue (Nguyen et al., 2025), the reliability of the instrument was confirmed through positive correlations with other personality scales. The confirmation of the four-factor structure and positive associations with life satisfaction and physical discomfort reflect a methodological approach that has been previously employed in the literature (Mikolajczak et al., 2007). For example, the Polish version was validated by Szczygieł et al. (2015), confirming the four-factor structure and demonstrating high internal consistency among Polish adults. Similarly, the Arabic short form (TEIQue-SF) is revealing satisfactory psychometric qualities in an adult sample (Al-Dassean, 2023). Correspondingly, in Greece, the Greek version of the TEIQue-SF was validated in a sample of 602 adults, revealing satisfactory internal consistency and expected correlations with measures of personality and well-being (Petrides et al., 2016). Additional studies in Poland (Szczygieł et al., 2015), Lebanon (Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2021), and Brazil (Zuanazzi et al., 2022) consistently confirmed the instrument’s four-factor structure, high internal consistency, and significant associations with self-esteem, social awareness, and negative psychological states such as anxiety and depression. Moreover, the short form of the TEIQue (TEIQue-SF) has been validated across multiple countries. In Arabic-speaking populations (Al-Dassean, 2023), a study confirmed the psychometric robustness of the TEIQue-SF, with strong internal consistency and theoretical correlations. Similarly, the study evaluated the Chinese version and conducted measurement invariance analyses against a Canadian sample, confirming partial metric equivalence and construct validity (Feher et al., 2019). In another European study that examined adults, the confirmation of the four-factor structure, independence from non-verbal thinking, positive associations with personalities such as optimism and agreeableness, and negative associations with alexithymia and neuroticism have been found (Mikolajczak et al., 2007). The results of a cross-cultural study showed that both trait emotional intelligence remains stable across cultures, and consistent evidence shows that while the structure of personality assessments is comparable across countries, there are small yet meaningful and consistent differences in national average scores (Gökçen et al., 2014). There has also been a confirmation of a four-factor structure, positive associations with self-esteem and social awareness, and negative associations with anxiety and depression (Feher et al., 2019). Considering previous findings, we expected the TEIQue to demonstrate moderation in high correlations with self-report measures of personality traits, especially those related to emotional experience, and low correlations with performance measures of emotional intelligence and intelligence.
4.2. Child and Adolescent Versions of the TEIQue
Regarding the Child Form (TEIQue-CF), several cross-cultural validations have confirmed its utility and reliability for younger populations. In addition to adult versions, the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Form (TEIQue-CF) and its adaptations have been psychometrically assessed in various cultural settings, revealing the instrument’s validity for use with younger populations. The Italian version of the TEIQue-CF was evaluated in a sample of 690 children aged 8–12. The results supported satisfactory reliability, associations with Big Five personality traits, and predictive validity beyond cognitive ability, particularly in relation to anxiety and depression (Russo et al., 2012). This study demonstrated satisfactory reliability and associations with Big Five personality traits, while also showing independence from cognitive ability. Notably, trait emotional intelligence predicted anxiety and depression levels beyond personality traits (Russo et al., 2012). The Turkish version was validated in a sample of 208 children aged 8–12. The results indicated excellent internal consistency, supporting a two-factor structure (emotion regulation and socio-emotionality), along with significant correlations with empathy and social desirability (Beyazıt et al., 2020). The French version (TEIQue-CSF) was assessed by Stassart et al. (2019) in 556 children aged 9–13. The analysis confirmed internal reliability and test–retest stability, identifying a two-factor structure (emotion control and socio-emotionality). The instrument was positively associated with empathy and negatively with anxiety, and findings confirmed good internal reliability and stability over time. The findings of this study have important practical implications, particularly for professionals in educational and clinical contexts. The TEIQue-CSF offers a reliable and culturally adapted tool to assess trait emotional intelligence in Greek-speaking children, which can be used for early identification of emotional strengths and difficulties. School psychologists and educators may utilize the instrument to design targeted interventions that enhance children’s self-awareness, emotion regulation, and social functioning. By identifying specific emotional intelligence domains where a child may struggle—such as low self-control or poor emotional expression—teachers and clinicians can implement evidence-based programs aimed at improving those skills. Furthermore, the tool can serve as a screening instrument for broader social–emotional learning (SEL) initiatives within school curricula. The factor structure identified in the current study is consistent with previous validations of the TEIQue-CSF in other cultural contexts, such as the UK and Spain. However, slight variations in item loadings may reflect cultural nuances in how emotional competencies are expressed and interpreted in Greek children. These findings underscore the importance of validating psychological instruments within specific cultural and linguistic populations. The successful validation of the TEIQue-CSF in the Greek context reinforces its value as a practical tool for professionals working with children. It can facilitate emotional development monitoring, support mental health assessments, and guide social-emotional training programs both in schools and clinical settings. Future research should aim to replicate these findings in other Greek-speaking regions and explore longitudinal applications of the TEIQue-CSF. Additionally, cross-cultural studies comparing Greek data with that from other countries would help establish the instrument’s broader applicability. Further research is also encouraged in different age groups, such as pre-adolescents and preschool children, to assess developmental trends in trait emotional intelligence.
4.3. Limitations of the Study
A key limitation of the present study lies in the timing of data collection, which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, children experienced prolonged lockdowns, social distancing measures, school closures, and general disruptions to their routines. These stressors may have had a substantial impact on their emotional well-being and could have influenced their responses on the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Short Form (TEIQue-CSF). As emotional intelligence is inherently linked to one’s emotional state and capacity to regulate emotions, the heightened emotional burden and potential anxiety caused by confinement and uncertainty may have affected the way participants perceived and expressed their emotional functioning. Consequently, the psychometric properties and factor structure reported in this study should be interpreted within the context of these atypical circumstances. Further validation studies under more typical social and educational conditions are recommended to confirm the stability and generalizability of the findings.
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, these studies collectively support the cross-cultural robustness and psychometric soundness of both the TEIQue and the TEIQue-CF and the TEIQue-CSF. Across adult and child populations, consistent factor structures and theoretically meaningful correlations with constructs such as self-esteem, anxiety, and empathy affirm the instruments’ validity in diverse settings. In fact, the studies reviewed show similarities and differences in the use and assessment of the TEIQue. Confirmation of the instrument’s four-factor structure is a common thread across the studies, which reinforces its theoretical consistency and stability across different cultural contexts. The high internal consistency of the TEIQue, as evidenced by the Cronbach’s α values reported in all studies, indicates the reliability of the instrument. The international application of the TEIQue shows that the instrument maintains its longitudinal value and reliability across different populations, regardless of cultural and linguistic variation. The findings from the different geographical regions are consistent in confirming the validity and reliability of the TEIQue and offer new perspectives for the use of the instrument in clinical, educational, and social applications. The recognition of the instrument in different cultural contexts reinforces its generality as an assessment tool for emotional intelligence at an international level. In summary, across multiple studies and linguistic adaptations, the TEIQue, TEIQue-SF, TEIQue-CF, and TEIQue-CSF have shown solid factor structures, high internal consistency, and theoretically meaningful correlations. The results from our Greek validation study provide further evidence that the TEIQue-CSF is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing emotional intelligence in children, supporting its use in both research and applied psychological settings. To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first psychometric validation of the TEIQue-CSF in a Greek-speaking sample, making a unique contribution to the growing international literature on trait emotional intelligence in children. By confirming the four-factor structure and demonstrating satisfactory reliability and measurement invariance across gender, our findings support the use of this tool in both research and applied settings in Greece. Practitioners working in education and child psychology can confidently apply the TEIQue-CSF to assess emotional functioning and to inform targeted interventions. Future research should continue exploring the cross-cultural robustness of the instrument and its potential utility across diverse educational systems and developmental stages.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/psycholint7030075/s1. File S1: Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Short Form (TEIQue-CSF).
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, E.F. and C.D.; methodology, E.F.; software, A.Z.; validation, I.K., M.T. and A.Z.; formal analysis, I.K.; investigation, E.F.; resources, E.E.; data curation, I.K.; writing—original draft preparation, E.F.; writing—review and editing, E.F.; visualization, C.D.; supervision, C.D.; project administration, E.F.; funding acquisition, I.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Nursing, University of West Attica (approval number 93329—13/11/2020) and the Department of Education (Approval number 7/06-02-2020).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Al-Dassean, K. A. (2023). Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire Short Form (TEIQue-SF). Cogent Psychology, 10(1), 2171184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aluja, A., Blanch, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Catalan version of the Trait Emotional Intelligence (TEIQue): Comparison between Catalan and English data. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 400–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beyazıt, U., Yurdakul, Y., & Ayhan, A. B. (2020). The psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Child Form. SAGE Open, 10(2), 215824402092290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chirumbolo, A., Picconi, L., Morelli, M., & Petrides, K. V. (2019). The assessment of trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric characteristics of the TEIQue-Full Form in a large Italian adult sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feher, A., Yan, G., Saklofske, D. H., Plouffe, R. A., & Gao, Y. (2019). An investigation of the psychometric properties of the Chinese trait emotional intelligence questionnaire short form (Chinese TEIQue-SF). Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freudenthaler, H. H., Neubauer, A. C., Gabler, P., Scherl, W. G., & Rindermann, H. (2008). Testing and validating the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) in a German-speaking sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 673–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gökçen, E., Furnham, A., Mavroveli, S., & Petrides, K. V. (2014). A cross-cultural investigation of trait emotional intelligence in Hong Kong and the UK. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenspoon, P. J., & Saklofske, D. H. (1998). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), 965–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Leroy, C., & Roy, E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire: Factor structure, reliability, construct, and incremental validity in a French-speaking population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(3), 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, R. O. (2012). Basic principles of structural equation modeling: An introduction to LISREL and EQS. Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, Q. A. N., Tran, T., Tran, T. A., Nguyen, T. V., & Fisher, J. (2025). Validation of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire–Adolescent short form (TEIQue-ASF) among adolescents in Vietnam. SSM-Mental Health, 7, 100413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perazzo, M. F., Abreu, L. G., Pérez-Díaz, P. A., Petrides, K. V., Granville-Garcia, A. F., & Paiva, S. M. (2021). Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form: Brazilian validation and measurement invariance between the United Kingdom and Latin-American datasets. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103(3), 342–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2016). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, P. M., Mancini, G., Trombini, E., Baldaro, B., Mavroveli, S., & Petrides, K. V. (2012). Trait Emotional Intelligence and the Big Five: A study on Italian children and preadolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(3), 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanchez-Ruiz, M., Mavroveli, S., & Petrides, K. V. (2021). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire in Lebanon and the UK: A comparison of the psychometric properties in each country. International Journal of Psychology, 56(3), 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stamatopoulou, M., Galanis, P., & Prezerakos, P. (2016). Psychometric properties of the Greek translation of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF). Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stassart, C., Etienne, A.-M., Luminet, O., Kaïdi, I., & Lahaye, M. (2019). The psychometric properties of the French version of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Child Short Form. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(3), 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szczygieł, D., Buczny, J., & Bazińska, R. (2015). Trait Emotional Intelligence and social functioning: A study on Polish adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulutaş, İ. (2019). Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) in Turkish. Current Psychology, 38, 775–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuanazzi, A. C., Meyer, G. J., Petrides, K. V., & Miguel, F. K. (2022). Validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) in a Brazilian sample. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 735934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1.
Path diagram for the 7-factor construct (n = 307).
Table 1.
Sample characteristics.
| n = 614 | n (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Children’s characteristics | Gender | Girls | 334 (54.4) |
| Boys | 280 (45.6) | ||
| Age (years), mean (SD) | 10 (1.5) | ||
| BMI | Underweight | 14 (2.3) | |
| Normal | 381 (62.1) | ||
| Overweight | 183 (29.8) | ||
| Obese | 36 (5.9) | ||
| Greek nationality | 595 (96.9) | ||
| Parental characteristics | Parents’ gender | ||
| Women | 472 (76.9) | ||
| Men | 142 (23.1) | ||
| Parents’ age, mean (SD) | 41.8 (5.3) | ||
| Maximum parental educational level | |||
| High school at most | 198 (32.2) | ||
| Technical university | 138 (22.5) | ||
| University | 133 (21.7) | ||
| MSc | 110 (17.9) | ||
| PhD | 35 (5.7) | ||
| Married parents | 564 (91.9) | ||
| Socioeconomic status | |||
| Low | 15 (2.4) | ||
| Moderate | 224 (36.5) | ||
| High | 375 (61.1) | ||
Table 2.
Description of TEI-Que-CSF items.
| Completely Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Completely Agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
| 1. | 6 (1) | 37 (6) | 95 (15.5) | 302 (49.2) | 174 (28.3) |
| 2. | 10 (1.6) | 44 (7.2) | 147 (23.9) | 249 (40.6) | 164 (26.7) |
| 3. | 116 (18.9) | 183 (29.8) | 134 (21.8) | 130 (21.2) | 51 (8.3) |
| 4. | 16 (2.6) | 33 (5.4) | 127 (20.7) | 233 (37.9) | 205 (33.4) |
| 5. | 26 (4.2) | 63 (10.3) | 99 (16.1) | 312 (50.8) | 114 (18.6) |
| 6. | 160 (26.1) | 232 (37.8) | 134 (21.8) | 74 (12.1) | 14 (2.3) |
| 7. | 24 (3.9) | 54 (8.8) | 150 (24.4) | 243 (39.6) | 143 (23.3) |
| 8. | 23 (3.7) | 89 (14.5) | 163 (26.5) | 237 (38.6) | 102 (16.6) |
| 9. | 115 (18.7) | 189 (30.8) | 154 (25.1) | 122 (19.9) | 34 (5.5) |
| 10. | 12 (2) | 42 (6.8) | 107 (17.4) | 284 (46.3) | 169 (27.5) |
| 11. | 45 (7.3) | 72 (11.7) | 163 (26.5) | 235 (38.3) | 99 (16.1) |
| 12. | 204 (33.2) | 193 (31.4) | 119 (19.4) | 70 (11.4) | 28 (4.6) |
| 13. | 62 (10.1) | 124 (20.2) | 191 (31.1) | 166 (27) | 71 (11.6) |
| 14. | 41 (6.7) | 59 (9.6) | 186 (30.3) | 214 (34.9) | 114 (18.6) |
| 15. | 183 (29.8) | 162 (26.4) | 139 (22.6) | 96 (15.6) | 34 (5.5) |
| 16. | 19 (3.1) | 30 (4.9) | 117 (19.1) | 234 (38.1) | 214 (34.9) |
| 17. | 16 (2.6) | 42 (6.8) | 209 (34) | 225 (36.6) | 122 (19.9) |
| 18. | 72 (11.7) | 157 (25.6) | 156 (25.4) | 154 (25.1) | 75 (12.2) |
| 19. | 19 (3.1) | 41 (6.7) | 100 (16.3) | 217 (35.3) | 237 (38.6) |
| 20. | 71 (11.6) | 120 (19.5) | 184 (30) | 181 (29.5) | 58 (9.4) |
| 21. | 84 (13.7) | 130 (21.2) | 133 (21.7) | 173 (28.2) | 94 (15.3) |
| 22. | 17 (2.8) | 33 (5.4) | 107 (17.4) | 238 (38.8) | 219 (35.7) |
| 23. | 95 (15.5) | 153 (24.9) | 135 (22) | 141 (23) | 90 (14.7) |
| 24. | 234 (38.1) | 198 (32.2) | 97 (15.8) | 57 (9.3) | 28 (4.6) |
| 25. | 11 (1.8) | 35 (5.7) | 103 (16.8) | 268 (43.6) | 197 (32.1) |
| 26. | 33 (5.4) | 106 (17.3) | 212 (34.5) | 172 (28) | 91 (14.8) |
| 27. | 60 (9.8) | 202 (32.9) | 184 (30) | 111 (18.1) | 57 (9.3) |
| 28. | 37 (6) | 103 (16.8) | 185 (30.1) | 195 (31.8) | 94 (15.3) |
| 29. | 77 (12.5) | 168 (27.4) | 160 (26.1) | 142 (23.1) | 67 (10.9) |
| 30. | 162 (26.4) | 185 (30.1) | 132 (21.5) | 93 (15.1) | 42 (6.8) |
| 31. | 17 (2.8) | 47 (7.7) | 104 (16.9) | 241 (39.3) | 205 (33.4) |
| 32. | 21 (3.4) | 64 (10.4) | 139 (22.6) | 221 (36) | 169 (27.5) |
| 33. | 113 (18.4) | 185 (30.1) | 180 (29.3) | 99 (16.1) | 37 (6) |
| 34. | 128 (20.8) | 171 (27.9) | 161 (26.2) | 111 (18.1) | 43 (7) |
| 35. | 179 (29.2) | 192 (31.3) | 104 (16.9) | 115 (18.7) | 24 (3.9) |
| 36. | 48 (7.8) | 112 (18.2) | 230 (37.5) | 149 (24.3) | 75 (12.2) |
Table 3.
Items’ loadings and percentage of explained variable from exploratory factor analysis (n = 307).
Table 3.
Items’ loadings and percentage of explained variable from exploratory factor analysis (n = 307).
| Component | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Emotional Regulation | Sociability | Positive Mood | Lack of Persistence | Low Impulsivity | Emotion Perception | Adaptability |
| 3. | 0.45 | ||||||
| 9. | 0.70 | ||||||
| 12. | 0.50 | ||||||
| 18. | 0.63 | ||||||
| 21. | 0.43 | ||||||
| 23. | 0.51 | ||||||
| 27. | 0.66 | ||||||
| 29. | 0.60 | ||||||
| 33. | 0.60 | ||||||
| 2. | 0.59 | ||||||
| 5. | 0.55 | ||||||
| 7. | 0.53 | ||||||
| 8. | 0.54 | ||||||
| 10. | 0.61 | ||||||
| 17. | 0.46 | ||||||
| 30. | −0.44 | ||||||
| 1. | 0.54 | ||||||
| 4. | 0.67 | ||||||
| 6. | −0.43 | ||||||
| 19. | 0.42 | ||||||
| 22. | 0.68 | ||||||
| 24. | −0.50 | ||||||
| 25. | 0.52 | ||||||
| 15. | 0.77 | ||||||
| 20. | 0.45 | ||||||
| 35. | 0.64 | ||||||
| 13. | −0.56 | ||||||
| 26. | 0.77 | ||||||
| 32. | 0.41 | ||||||
| 36. | 0.76 | ||||||
| 14. | 0.44 | ||||||
| 16. | 0.57 | ||||||
| 34. | −0.63 | ||||||
| 11. | 0.70 | ||||||
| 28. | 0.46 | ||||||
| 31. | 0.47 | ||||||
| %Variance explained | 10.7 | 9.2 | 9.1 | 6.4 | 6.0 | 5.7 | 5.3 |
Note. items’ loadings are provided in the table.
Table 4.
Corrected item–total correlation coefficients, reliability indices, and brief definitions.
| Factor | Item | Corrected Item–Total Correlation | Cronbach’s Alpha If Item Deleted | Cronbach’s Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emotional regulation | 3. | 0.32 | 0.81 | 0.80 |
| The ability to manage and control your emotional responses in different situations. | 9. | 0.67 | 0.76 | |
| 12. | 0.54 | 0.78 | ||
| 18. | 0.53 | 0.78 | ||
| 21. | 0.40 | 0.80 | ||
| 23. | 0.41 | 0.80 | ||
| 27. | 0.57 | 0.77 | ||
| 29. | 0.47 | 0.79 | ||
| 33. | 0.58 | 0.77 | ||
| Sociability | 2. | 0.44 | 0.68 | 0.71 |
| The tendency to enjoy being with and interacting with other people. | 5. | 0.40 | 0.69 | |
| 7. | 0.44 | 0.68 | ||
| 8. | 0.51 | 0.66 | ||
| 10. | 0.44 | 0.68 | ||
| 17. | 0.41 | 0.68 | ||
| 30. | 0.35 | 0.71 | ||
| Positive mood | 1. | 0.43 | 0.74 | 0.76 |
| A temporary emotional state of feeling happy, calm, or optimistic. | 4. | 0.56 | 0.71 | |
| 6. | 0.42 | 0.74 | ||
| 19. | 0.57 | 0.71 | ||
| 22. | 0.47 | 0.73 | ||
| 24. | 0.38 | 0.75 | ||
| 25. | 0.52 | 0.72 | ||
| Lack of persistence | 15. | 0.41 | 0.16 | 0.48 |
| The tendency to give up easily and not continue working toward goals. | 20. | 0.09 | 0.69 | |
| 35. | 0.43 | 0.14 | ||
| Low impulsivity | 13. | 0.50 | 0.66 | 0.72 |
| The ability to think before acting and resist sudden urges or temptations. | 26. | 0.62 | 0.59 | |
| 32. | 0.40 | 0.72 | ||
| 36. | 0.51 | 0.65 | ||
| Emotion perception | 14. | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.71 |
| The ability to recognize and understand others’ feelings through facial expressions, tone of voice, or body language. | 16. | 0.32 | 0.74 | |
| 34. | 0.50 | 0.49 | ||
| Adaptability | 11. | 0.38 | 0.50 | 0.62 |
| The ability to adjust easily to new situations, changes, or challenges. | 28. | 0.37 | 0.51 | |
| 31. | 0.33 | 0.59 |
Table 5.
Mean and Standard Deviation of factors and their intercorrelations.
| Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | No. of Items | Mean | SD | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | |
| 1. | Emotional regulation | 9 | 3.22 | 0.72 | 1.00 | 0.45 | 0.56 | −0.40 | 0.47 | 0.35 | 0.31 |
| 2. | Sociability | 7 | 3.69 | 0.61 | 1.00 | 0.61 | −0.32 | 0.29 | 0.44 | 0.42 | |
| 3. | Positive mood | 7 | 3.93 | 0.66 | 1.00 | −0.43 | 0.45 | 0.36 | 0.39 | ||
| 4. | Lack of persistence | 2 | 2.39 | 1.05 | 1.00 | −0.24 | −0.29 | −0.12 | |||
| 5. | Low impulsivity | 4 | 3.27 | 0.79 | 1.00 | 0.30 | 0.30 | ||||
| 6. | Emotion perception | 3 | 3.61 | 0.79 | 1.00 | 0.29 | |||||
| 7. | Adaptability | 3 | 3.57 | 0.75 | 1.00 | ||||||
Note: all correlation coefficients were significant at p < 0.001.
Table 6.
Factors’ scores by children’s gender and BMI levels.
| Gender | BMI | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Girls | Boys | Underweight/Normal | Overweight/Obese | |||||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | P Student’s t-Test | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | P Student’s t-Test | |
| Emotional regulation | 3.31 | 0.71 | 3.12 | 0.73 | 0.001 | 3.35 | 0.68 | 2.98 | 0.74 | <0.001 |
| Sociability | 3.78 | 0.58 | 3.58 | 0.63 | <0.001 | 3.77 | 0.54 | 3.53 | 0.70 | <0.001 |
| Positive mood | 3.99 | 0.62 | 3.86 | 0.69 | 0.018 | 4.02 | 0.58 | 3.77 | 0.75 | <0.001 |
| Lack of persistence | 2.34 | 1.03 | 2.45 | 1.06 | 0.182 | 2.24 | 1.00 | 2.65 | 1.09 | <0.001 |
| Low impulsivity | 3.34 | 0.82 | 3.18 | 0.75 | 0.013 | 3.40 | 0.79 | 3.04 | 0.75 | <0.001 |
| Emotion perception | 3.66 | 0.78 | 3.55 | 0.80 | 0.076 | 3.72 | 0.78 | 3.42 | 0.78 | <0.001 |
| Adaptability | 3.58 | 0.74 | 3.56 | 0.77 | 0.762 | 3.62 | 0.74 | 3.48 | 0.76 | 0.038 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Ferentinou, E.; Koutelekos, I.; Evangelou, E.; Zartaloudi, A.; Theodoratou, M.; Dafogianni, C. Psychometric Validation of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Short Form (TEIQue-CSF) in a Greek Population. Psychol. Int. 2025, 7, 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint7030075
AMA Style
Ferentinou E, Koutelekos I, Evangelou E, Zartaloudi A, Theodoratou M, Dafogianni C. Psychometric Validation of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Short Form (TEIQue-CSF) in a Greek Population. Psychology International. 2025; 7(3):75. https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint7030075
Chicago/Turabian StyleFerentinou, Eftychia, Ioannis Koutelekos, Eleni Evangelou, Afroditi Zartaloudi, Maria Theodoratou, and Chrysoula Dafogianni. 2025. "Psychometric Validation of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Short Form (TEIQue-CSF) in a Greek Population" Psychology International 7, no. 3: 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint7030075
APA StyleFerentinou, E., Koutelekos, I., Evangelou, E., Zartaloudi, A., Theodoratou, M., & Dafogianni, C. (2025). Psychometric Validation of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Child Short Form (TEIQue-CSF) in a Greek Population. Psychology International, 7(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/psycholint7030075
