School of Psychology

This article describes the development and validation of 2 measures of emotional intelligence (EI): the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU) and the Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM). Study 1 (N = 207 psychology students) examines multiple sources of validity evidence: relationships with EI, vocabulary, personality, and emotion-related criteria. Study 2 (N = 149 white-collar volunteers) relates STEU and STEM scores to clinical symptoms, finding relationships to anxiety and stress for both tests, and to depression for the STEM. It is concluded that new performance-based approaches to test development, such as the present ones, might be useful in distinguishing between test and construct effects. Implications for expanding theory and for developing EI interventions are discussed.

Conscientiousness is often found to predict academic outcomes, but is defined differently by different models of personality. High school students (N = 291) completed a large number of Conscientiousness items from different models and the Big Five Inventory (BFI). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the items uncovered eight facets: Industriousness, Perfectionism, Tidiness, Procrastination Refrainment, Control, Cautiousness, Task Planning, and Perseverance. Correlations between these facets and the BFI revealed that all facets related strongly to Conscientiousness. Criterion-related validity was demonstrated by relationships between facets and academic outcomes such as grade-point-average, disciplinary infractions, and attainment of academic honors. Compared to BFI Conscientiousness, Industriousness and Perfectionism showed significantly stronger prediction of absenteeism and cognitive test scores, respectively. Results are discussed in terms of the usefulness of facet scores, the interpretation of personality scores for selection, and the development of intervention programs.

A self-assessment of time management is developed for middle-school students. A sample of entering seventh-graders (N = 814) from five states across the USA completed this instrument, with 340 students retested 6 months later. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis suggested two factors (i.e., Meeting Deadlines and Planning) that adequately explain the variance in time management for this age group. Scales show evidence of reliability and validity; with high internal consistency, reasonable consistency of factor structure over time, moderate to high correlations with Conscientiousness, low correlations with the remaining four personality dimensions of the Big Five, and reasonable prediction of students’ grades. Females score significantly higher on both factors of time management, with gender differences in Meeting Deadlines (but not Planning) mediated by Conscientiousness. Potential applications of the instrument for evaluation, diagnosis, and remediation in educational settings are discussed.

Various policy papers assert that teamwork is an essential skill for the 21st century workforce. However, outside of organizational psychology research with adult populations, there are few reliable assessments of this construct with suitable validity evidence for test scores. To redress this issue, self-report, situational judgment, and teacher-report assessments of teamwork were developed for high school students. Various multivariate techniques were used to determine the structure of the scales, including factor and latent class analysis. Measures showed reasonable reliability and satisfactory validity evidence: Self-report, situational judgment, and teacher-report measures intercorrelated, and these measures also related to academic achievement. The advantages and disadvantages of each methodology are discussed, as are possible uses of this assessment system (e.g., evaluation of school-based programs that infuse curricula with modules on teamwork).

This article provides a review and conceptual comparison between self-report and performance-based measures of emotional intelligence. Analyses of reliability, psychometric properties, and various forms of validity lead to the conclusion that self-report techniques measure a dispositional construct, that may have some predictive validity, but which is highly correlated with personality and independent of intelligence. Although seemingly more valid, performance-based measures have certain limitations, especially when scored with reference to consensual norms, which leads to problems of skew and restriction of range. Scaling procedures may partially ameliorate these scoring weaknesses. Alternative approaches to scoring, such as expert judgement, also suffer problems since the nature of the requisite expertise is unclear. Use of experimental paradigms for studying individual differences in information-processing may, however, inform expertise. Other difficulties for performance-based measures include limited predictive and operational validity, restricting practical utility in organizational settings. Further research appears necessary before tests of E1 are suitable for making real-life decisions about individuals.

(from the chapter) Our aim in the current chapter is to evaluate the existing approaches for measuring EI and suggest some new ones, perhaps providing a clearer path for our apocryphal test developer. Currently, there are two basic varieties of measurement tools used to assess emotional intelligence: (1) the typical performance, self-report, scales; and (2) the maximum performance, ability, scales. In this chapter, we first outline the logic for evaluating validity evidence for EI tests, arguing that the self-report scales should not be labeled as if they could be used to validly assess emotional intelligence. We also evaluate the Multi-Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MSCEIT) subtests using the same criteria, pointing out some strengths and weaknesses of this instrument. Finally, we suggest that alternative test development procedures (many from older traditions within emotions or social intelligence fields) may lead to promising new directions for the emerging sub-discipline of emotional intelligence.

(from the chapter) Our primary goal in this chapter is to offer a state-of-the-art overview for the reader, evaluating different approaches to EI according to the principles of psychological science. In this chapter, we set out the case for developing a rigorous science of EI. A central part of such a science is accurate, fair, and valid measurement, and we will survey some of the techniques used for measuring EI. We argue that three approaches to EI can be distinguished: (1) a popular-science approach that first drew both public and scientific attention to the importance of emotions for intelligent functioning but never fully attained the status of a science, (2) a misled science approach where the study of emotional aspects of personality was mislabeled as the study of Emotional Intelligence, and (3) a sound scientific approach to the study of Emotional Intelligence. In evaluating the various accounts of EI, we outline why we believe these three phases are distinct, and how the third approach may be useful for applied psychology. We conclude the chapter with some concerns and possible future directions that theoreticians, scientists, and practitioners alike might collectively explore.

(from the chapter) The past decade has seen interest in emotional Intelligence (EI) increase. Empirical studies examining EI, and its application in education, business, and clinical fields, depend crucially on the accurate and meaningful measurement of EI. This measurement, in turn, depends crucially on an accurate and meaningful definition of the construct; that is, a logically and empirically justifiable theoretical model. The current chapter outlines the major theoretical models of EI, evaluating whether these different models actually describe the same entity, suggesting that ability-based models are the only appropriate ones to delineate, and hence investigate, emotional intelligence. The second challenge to EI measurement is the greater operational difficulty in interpreting, judging, or manipulating emotion-based stimuli as compared to the stimuli from conventional cognitive tests. This problem has resulted in scoring rubrics more often based on group judgment (i.e. expert- or consensus-based scoring) than on theory or bodies of knowledge (i.e. standards-based scoring). This difficulty has also resulted in very few ability-based instruments. After describing these challenges, some future directions and potential mechanisms for advancing the assessment of EI are suggested. Among these is the design of new instruments for the assessment of EI, to be used both in isolation and for collecting validity evidence on existing instruments.

(from the chapter) The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the growing number of EI theories and assessments in order to ascertain how different models converge and/or diverge. Because there are problems endemic to this emerging field, we also speculate about research issues that progressive paradigms devoted to understanding EI might address in the not-too-distant future.

Newly developed assessments of nutrition and exercise knowledge, attitudes, and behavior were administered to 383 eighth-graders. Evidence for the validity of assessment scores was evaluated with five findings. First, parent- and self-reported behaviors were similar and congruent for healthy eating and exercising but not for sedentary behaviors or unhealthy eating. Second, the theory of planned behavior structural model was confirmed for exercise and nutrition attitudes: Attitudes predicted exercising (R2 = .34), healthy eating (R2 = .21), sedentary behaviors (R2 = .11), and unhealthy eating (R2 = .09). Third, gender differences replicated previous research: Girls have better diets and nutrition attitudes whereas boys exercise more frequently. The assessments distinguished normal-weight from obese individuals and showed incremental validity in predicting school grades. The paper concludes with a discussion of the assessments’ potential for informing interventions.

This study tests whether emotional intelligence (EI) is distinct from existing factors of intelligence after controlling for method factors in EI measurement. The relationship between EI, fluid intelligence (Gf), and crystallized intelligence (Gc) latent factors is examined in a sample of Australian undergraduates (N = 207). EI measures are all multiple-choice so as to control for response format, and the study also examines the effect of consensus scoring on the distinction of EI from Gf and Gc. Results show that EI forms a latent factor distinct from Gf and Gc, though strongly related to Gc, and that consensus scoring has only minor effects on the factor structure. EI and Gc factors show similar relationships with big five personality, relating only to Openness. Females tend to score higher on EI, whereas males tend to score higher on Gf and Gc. It is suggested that EI might be considered a different content domain for acquired knowledge than is typically examined by Gc tests, and may have different motivational pathways to development.

In this commentary, we focus particularly on two key concepts we believe are necessary to understand the relationship between EI and job performance: emotion regulation and emotional labor. First, we emphasize the value of distinguishing between the different facets of EI (i.e., emotion perception, emotion facilitation, emotion understanding, and emotion regulation, as in Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso’s [2000], four-branch EI model). Doing so reveals the critical importance of the emotion regulation facet as a mediator of other EI facet effects on job performance. Second, we demonstrate the vital role of context in the EI–job performance relationship, illustrated by stronger EI criterion validity findings for high emotional labor jobs.

This paper examines the development of emotional intelligence (EI) in childhood. It is proposed that ambiguities in conceptualizing EI may be resolved by distinguishing multiple levels of emotion-regulation processes. Temperament, rule-based skill acquisition, and self-aware emotion regulation are differentiated as potential sources of individual differences. We review empirical studies that demonstrate multiple mechanisms linked to these levels. Temperament is shaped by genes, interacting with environmental influences such as patterns of infant-caregiver interaction. Early, language-dependent skill learning is governed by reinforcement and modeling processes. Subsequent, insightful learning is influenced by emotional discourse with parents and others, and cultural factors. Cognitive abilities may also influence individual differences in emotional function. At the same time, the biological and sociocultural factors that influence EI interact in complex and interrelated ways. We conclude this article by proposing a tentative ‘investment model’ for emotional competencies in children that accommodates the multifaceted nature of EI. Lower-level competencies may provide a platform for developing more sophisticated emotion-regulation skills, with competencies becoming increasingly differentiated over time.

Faces and Designs (N=102) from the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) were scored using five different consensual-scoring methods: proportion, mode, lenient mode, distance, and adjusted distance.The aim was to determine which scoring methods were superior in terms of reliability, discriminability (distribution shape), and validity.W here possible, the Method of Reciprocal Averages (MRA)—used previously on dichotomously scored aptitude tests (to improve reliability)—was applied to consensus scores.Psyc hometric analyses suggested that the most promising techniques were proportion and mode scoring, with MRA scaling ameliorating some potential weaknesses apparent with these forms of consensual-scoring. Faces and Designs showed weak correlations with pro-social personality dimensions, with crystallized intelligence, and with visualization abilities.The study concludes with suggested
remedies for addressing measurement problems endemic to EI research.

Emotions measures represent an important means of obtaining construct validity evidence for emotional intelligence (EI) tests because they have the same theoretical underpinnings. Additionally, the extent to which both emotions and EI measures relate to intelligence is poorly understood. The current study was designed to address these issues. Participants (N = 138) completed the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), two emotions measures, as well as four intelligence tests. Results provide mixed support for the model hypothesized to underlie the MSCEIT, with emotions research and EI measures failing to load on the same factor. The emotions measures loaded on the same factor as intelligence measures. The validity of certain EI components (in particular, Emotion Perception), as currently assessed, appears equivocal.

Various policy papers and research studies assert that teamwork is one of the most important skills for students to learn if they are to become meaningful contributors to the 21st century workforce. However, outside of organizational psychology and adult populations, few reliable assessments of this construct exist, with suitable validity evidence scant or nonexistent. To redress this imbalance, teamwork assessments for high school students were developed using multiple methods: self-report ratings, situational judgment testing, and teacher reports. Exploratory factor, confirmatory factor, and latent class analyses were used to determine the structure of the scales. Measures showed reasonable reliability and promising validity evidence, relating to each other and to academic achievement, while remaining relatively independent from personality. The advantages and disadvantages of each methodology and the potential applications for identification and intervention, selection, and evaluation of training programs are discussed. This report also serves as an archival document for the teamwork and collaboration assessments that have been developed at ETS for high school students.

A situational judgment test of emotion management was administered to 382 eighth-grade students with typical-performance instructions (i.e., “What would you do in this situation?”). The emotion management test was also administered to a parent of each student in an observer-judgment format (i.e., “What would your child do in this situation?”). Compared to self-evaluations, parent-evaluations showed: (a) lower means, (b) higher correlations with Extraversion and lower correlations with Agreeableness, (c) lower correlations with intelligence, and (d) about equal prediction of criteria. In combination with a relatively low correlation between self- and parent-evaluations (r = .19), results suggest that self- and otherjudgments may measure substantively different constructs.

This article outlines the many different ways that emotional intelligence (EI) has been conceptualized, measured, and used from the early antecedents of emotional abilities such as facial expression research to the recent multi-media assessment paradigms. The divide between models describing EI as a character trait versus modeling EI as a form of information processing or knowledge is described, with both kinds of models evaluated based on theory and empirical evidence. It is concluded that the latter type of model, exemplified by the four-branch hierarchical model of EI, is the only logical construct to bear the label “emotional intelligence”. Potential emendations to the way EI is currently conceptualized and measures are discussed, including emotion recognition assessments, situational judgment tests, and multi-media assessments such as the empathic agent paradigm. The paper concludes with a suggested agenda for future research in the EI field.

Research examining the relationships between performance measures of emotional intelligence (EI), coping styles, and academic achievement is sparse. Two studies were designed to redress this imbalance. In each of these studies, both EI and coping styles were significantly related to academic achievement. In Study 1, 159 community college students completed the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) and problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidant coping scales. Collectively, the coping variables significantly mediated the relationship between EI and grade point average (GPA) for Emotion Perception, Emotion Facilitation of Thought and Emotion Management (but not for Emotional Understanding). Problem-focused coping was the only single significant mediator, mediating the relationship between emotion management and GPA (but not other branches and GPA). In Study 2, 293 middle school students completed the Situational Test of Emotion Management for Youths (STEM-Y) and scales measuring the same three coping strategies. In this study, the coping variables again significantly mediated the relationship between emotion management and GPA. Once again, problem-focused coping was a significant mediator. Collectively, these results suggest that better educational outcomes might be achieved by targeting skills relating to emotion management and problem-focused coping.