4.3 Article

Empathy Quotient and Systemizing Quotient in Elementary School Children with and without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Comparative Study

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18179231

关键词

empathy quotient; systemizing quotient; children; ADHD; EQ; SQ; Indonesia

资金

  1. PUTI Grant Universitas Indonesia [NKB-4152/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study revealed that children with ADHD have lower empathy levels compared to those without ADHD, and girls with ADHD also exhibited significantly lower systemizing abilities than girls without ADHD. Therefore, an intervention program focusing on empathy and systemizing ability improvement is needed in the community.
This study compares the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ) scores of elementary school children with and without ADHD. The study also examined their brain types and, because sex plays a big role in empathy and systemizing ability, compared the results of the boys and girls. This cross-sectional study involved 122 participants, including 61 parents of children with ADHD and 61 parents of children without ADHD. The EQ, SQ and brain types were obtained using the Empathy and Systemizing Quotient in children (EQ-/SQ-C), validated in the Indonesian language. Data was analyzed using the SPSS program version 20 for Windows, with a p-value < 0.05 for statistical significance. There was a significant difference in EQ between children with and without ADHD, the score being lower in children with ADHD. There was also a significant difference in SQ among girls with and without ADHD, but not in boys. The brain types in both groups were not significantly different. The results indicate that children with ADHD have a lower ability to empathize compared to children without ADHD. Systemizing abilities were significantly lower in girls with ADHD than in girls without. Therefore, an intervention program focusing on improving empathy and systemizing ability needs to be developed in the community.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据