Upload
suparnashankar
View
38
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Assessing Emotional Intelligence within PDP: Choosing a Test
Kathryn Gardner, University of Central Lancashire
What “EI” am I Assessing?
So you want to assess EI within PDP, but where do you start? There is an abundance of
tests out there to assess EI (ignoring those commercial tests and quizzes that have not
been developed by academics and researchers), and one of their greatest strengths lies
in their value as developmental tools. However, to be able to select a test you first need
to know which type of EI you want to assess with your students. The two types of EI
(ability and trait) require different measurement techniques. We note this information
below, along with a third type of EI test that targets both EI facets and emotional
competencies:
Ability EI involves actual skills and is therefore measured using performance
tests that are similar to standard IQ tests. Individuals perform tasks such as
identifying the emotions in photographs of faces or art; matching emotions to
sensations and judging how mood states facilitate different types of thought;
deciding how emotions combine to form more complex emotions and how
emotional reactions change over time; and selecting the most appropriate
responses to manage emotions.
Trait EI is typically assessed via self-report questionnaires which are viable
measures of personality traits and self-perceptions. Individuals are asked to rate
statements using Likert scales such as “I am good at managing my emotions”
(e.g., 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree). Unlike performance tests such
as the MSCEIT, self-report questionnaires assess more subjective internal
emotional experiences and are relatively simple to administer and score.
In addition to trait EI measures, it is worth noting that some self-report measures
that have been used within the context of EI claim to be assessing emotional
competencies. These tests typically target some traditional EI facets but also
broader dimensions and competencies that relate directly to employability (e.g.,
problem solving or team building). As discussed below, we categorise these
1
instruments separately from trait EI measures which focus specifically on
emotion-related personality traits and self-perceptions.
The decision as to which type of test to use with your students (ability EI, trait EI,
emotional competencies) is dictated by (i) the purpose in using the measure within PDP,
and (ii) the practicalities of administration, both of which are discussed below.
Relevance to PDP
In choosing an appropriate test you will need to consider the test’s appropriateness for
use within a PDP context. For example, will making students aware of their own
strengths and weakness on the particular EI facets of this test facilitate their self-
development and educational aspirations? Does the test cover a broad range of EI
facets that, if well developed, are essential to increasing employability? Does the test
target key transferable skills? Or is the test fairly limited in scope and targets a more
focussed set of “core” EI facets (e.g., emotion regulation and emotion perception etc,
excluding other facets such as optimism and relationship skills)? In some cases, you
may even prefer to focus on core EI facets, if the specific teaching objectives are to
make students aware of their level of performance on these core aspects. This specific
and limited focus is in fact characteristic of the leading ability EI test, the MSCEIT. On
the one hand the measure assesses just four emotional skills posited in the ability EI
model: perceiving, using, understanding and managing emotions (Mayer & Salovey,
1997). On the other hand, the measure is comprehensive in the sense that it is the only
ability EI measure to cover all four of these ability EI skills.
Many self-report based trait EI measures have a specific focus on core EI facets similar
to the MSCEIT, albeit trait-based core EI facets. However, some include a wider range
of trait-based EI dimensions such as optimism and assertiveness. It is perhaps these
types of trait EI measures that have the most relevance to PDP. The assessment of a
wider range of emotion-related personality traits allows students to evaluate and reflect
on more key areas that are important to academic and occupational success. Notably,
the self-report nature of assessment does not render these tests useless relative to the
MSCEIT which assesses real emotional skills. Indeed, self-perceptions and personality
traits can have a significant impact on academic, occupational, personal and mental
functioning. Self-perceptions need not even be accurate to exert this influence.
2
As previously noted, there are also self-report tests that claim to be assessing EI-type
competencies such as problem solving, team building and leadership skills. These
attributes do not fit within mainstream theories of EI, but they are dimensions that many
employers are looking for and they have been included within some competing models
and approaches to EI. On that basis, it is our view that such broadly–defined EI
measures may be of significant value for use within a PDP context. These tests are
useful in increasing students’ self-awareness of a wide variety of emotion-related facets
and transferable skills.
Practical Issues and Resources
In addition to theoretical issues, you will want to consider the practicalities of
administering the test within the classroom environment. For example, is the test easy to
administer? Can it be administered within the time constraints of the session/s? Will
there be time for student’s to score their own tests or will scoring need to be performed
by a designated scorer outside of the classroom? Is the test user-friendly and easy to
interpret? Is the test a simple paper/pencil exercise or is computer or internet access
required? Of course, the cost of the test is also important if financial resources are
limited.
Whether you decide to administer and score your chosen EI test, and give feedback to
students, all within the same session depends on: i) the availability and length of
lectures/seminars, and ii) the length of the EI test. Tests which are relatively short (e.g.,
less than 10 minutes administration and 5-10 minutes scoring and plotting EI scores),
could be administered and scored within a brief lecture of seminar so that students can
gain immediate feedback on their EI. However, many EI tests are longer and it may be
more appropriate to administer them in one session, perhaps following a brief
introductory lecture to EI and its importance, and then score them outside of the session.
A second seminar or workshop is then devoted entirely to feedback. This is currently
how the University of Central Lancashire staff structure their sessions that use
EI tests within PDP development for their first students. Follow this link for our “Year 1 EI
within PDP lecture and seminar” teaching materials. ADD LINK once known on website
3
Reliability and Validity
Whilst you will be using your chosen EI measure as a developmental rather than
research tool, it is still important to select a test that has some evidence of reliability and
validity. At least then you can be pretty confident that the resulting student EI profiles
that the test produces are a reasonably accurate reflection of their EI skills
/traits/competencies etc. We will not delve too deeply into the issues of reliability and
validity here, but it is useful to know whether the measure is reliable and produces
consistent results and is valid by measuring what it is supposed to measure, in this case
EI.
Available Tests
In the sections below we cover some of the EI measures, the practicalities of
administration, their suitability for application within a PDP context and briefly touch on
issues surrounding reliability and validity. For each test a link is provided to either an
online abstract of a journal article that includes the measure, or to the test publisher’s
website where it can be found or purchased. Whilst the list of trait EI measures is not
exhaustive, we have selected a range of tests that differ somewhat in content. Some
may have more applicability to PDP than others. However, our aim was to illustrate the
different types of tests that are available, thus enabling you to arrive at your own
decision about which measure to select. The decision chart (Figure 1) summarises the
tests reviewed in this document.
4
Figure 1: EI test decision chart
5
Skills Traits/self-perceptions
Do you want to assess actual EI skills, EI traits/self-perceptions or a combination of EI traits and competencies?
Traits/competencies
MSCEIT Core EI facets (e.g., emotion perception & management) or additional dimensions such as optimism, assertiveness & impulse control?
Core EI facets Broader EI dimensions
Schutte EI Test
Multidimensional EI Assessment
Swinburne University EI Test
Trait EI Questionnaire
Emotional Quotient Inventory
Emotional Competence Inventory
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI Test Version 2.0 (MSCEIT V2.0; Mayer, Salovey &
Caruso, 2002)
Ability EI measures are sparse, mainly because of the time and resources involved in
developing such tests. The MSCEIT is a performance test that contains 141 items,
measuring eight EI tasks, four branches, two areas and global ability EI. The response
format of the MSCEIT can be seen in Table 1. Note however, that because the scoring
technique does not permit factually correct answers, the test is perhaps better seen as a
measure of emotion-related cognitive skills, as opposed to a type of intelligence.
Practicalities of Administration
The MSCEIT is lengthy and takes approximately 30-45 minutes to complete. Scoring is
performed by MHS, the test distributer, and so if you intend to use this test you will need
to factor in time for scoring in between the test administration and test feedback session.
The MSCEIT isn’t the cheapest test (for pricing order a catalogue from MHS), which is
problematic if you are on a tight budget.
Relevance to PDP
The MSCEIT has a specific focus on the assessment of four emotional skills and so may
have less applicability to PDP than tests that focus on a wider range of emotional facets.
Thus, there is less opportunity for students to evaluate and reflect on emotion-related
transferable skills. However, the MSCEIT does have the added benefit that it assesses
real emotional skills and so gives students an indication of their actual rather than
perceived level of emotional functioning (perceived levels being the focus of trait EI
tests).
Reliability and Validity
The four MSCEIT branches, two area scores and total EI have all shown good reliability
(i.e., the items in each subscale are consistently measuring EI), but some of the eight
tasks are only moderately reliable (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso. 2002). There is some
empirical support for the presence of four branches (e.g., Day and Carroll, 2004),
although other studies suggest that a different number of branches are present (e.g.,
three: Gardner & Qualter, manuscript submitted for publication; see also Keele & Bell,
6
Ability EI Tests
2008; Rossen, Kranzler, & Algina, 2008). Thus it seems that the MSCEIT global score is
the most reliable. The MSCEIT has been associated with a range of academic,
occupational, psychological and clinical variables (e.g., cognitive ability, academic
functioning, deviant behaviour, life satisfaction, aggression and personality disorder;
Bastain, Burns & Nettelbeck, 2005; Gardner & Qualter, 2009; see also Qualter, Gardner
& Whiteley, 2007, and Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004, for reviews).
7
Table 1: Structure and Content of the MSCEIT (Source: adapted from the MSCEIT manual; Mayer et al., 2002)
Areas Branches & Description Tasks Response Format
Experiential Emotional Intelligence: the ability to perceive, respond, and manipulate emotional information
Branch 1 - Perceiving Emotions: the ability to perceive emotion in others and stimuli
A - Faces task: the ability to identify facial expression of emotion
Rating faces: 1 (no emotion) to 5 (emotion)
E - Pictures task: the ability to identify emotion in images e.g., landscapes
Rating pictures: 1 (no emotion) to 5 (emotion)
Branch 2 - Facilitating Thought: the ability to reason about emotion
B - Sensations task: the ability to generate then reason with an emotion
Rating the usefulness of moods: 1 (not useful) to 5 (useful)
F - Facilitation task: knowledge of mood interaction to support thinking and reasoning
Making judgements on emotion similarity: 1 (not alike) to 5 (very much alike)
Strategic Emotional Intelligence: the ability to understand and manage emotions
Branch 3 - Understanding Emotions: the ability to label emotions and to understand groups of related emotions
C - Changes task: understanding how emotions transition from one to another
Multiple-choice questions
G - Blends task: the ability to understand complex feelings
Multiple-choice questions
Branch 4 – Managing Emotions: the ability to effectively regulate emotions
D - Emotion Management task: the ability to rate the effectiveness of certain actions or behaviours for managing emotions
Rating the effectiveness of actions for mood management: 1 (very ineffective) to 5 (very effective)
H - Emotional Relations task: the ability to judge the effectiveness of actions for regulating another’s emotions
Rating the effectiveness of responses: 1 (very ineffective) to 5 (very effective)
8
Because trait EI tests are typically self-report questionnaires, they are easy to administer
and score within a brief seminar, workshop or lecture. For all tests, rather than simply
providing students with their scores on each subscale of a test (which may be viewed as
meaningless by students), we recommend that scores are plotted on graphs so students
can visually identify their strengths and areas for development (see sample Figure 2).
Figure 2: Trait emotional intelligence profile
0
0.5
1
1.5
22.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Moodregulation
Emotionperception
Socialskills
Utilisingemotion
EI facet
Trait EI score
The Schutte EI Test (SEIS; Schutte et al., 1998)
The Schutte EI test is one of the most widely used trait EI scales in the literature. This is
partly because the measure was one of the first freely available self-report EI measures
that mapped onto an existing EI model. The test includes 33 items that assesses global
trait EI and four facets: optimism/mood regulation, appraisal of emotions, social skills
and utilisation of emotion. Participants respond using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
9
Trait EI Tests
Practicalities of Administration
Given the brevity of this questionnaire, it is quick and simple to both administer and
score within one seminar session or lecture if needs be. The SEIS is free to use for
research/academic purposes.
Relevance to PDP
Like the MSCEIT, this test has a specific focus on the assessment of four emotional
facets means and so may have less applicability to PDP. However, being able to identify
and manage emotions (in self and others) are important attributes for successful
navigation through life. In terms of the former, if we were unable to read the facial
expressions of peers or colleagues, it will be difficult to understand their emotional
needs. This could inevitably lead to problems in university or work relationships since we
use the emotional cues others send us to gage how we should behave around them.
With regard to emotion regulation, this is vital for successful management of all kinds of
situations that involve negative feelings such as anxiety or stress. These are important
attributes and students should be aware of their strengths and weaknesses in these
areas to allow them to set measurable goals for self development. Because the test is
free and brief, it can be re-administered multiple times to give students opportunities to
plan and reflect on their self-development.
Reliability and Validity
The global EI score and three of the four branches have shown acceptable levels of
reliability, but reliability of the utilisation of emotion subscale is moderate in some studies
(Gardner & Qualter, in press; Saklofske, Austin & Minksi, 2003). Some empirical
research supports the existence of the four subscales: optimism/mood regulation,
appraisal of emotions, social skills and utilisation of emotion (e.g., Saklofske et al.,
2003). However, other researchers have failed to confirm this structure, suggesting that
the test assesses a different number of EI facets (e.g., Gignac, Palmer, Manocha &
Stough, 2005). This questions the validity of the test, the implication being that we can’t
really be sure that the four subscales are truly assessing coherent EI facets each time
we administer the test. This issue also applies to the MSCEIT, and should be born in
mind if you wish to use these measures for PDP purposes.
10
The SEIS has been associated with various psychological and clinical variables (e.g., life
satisfaction, aggression and personality disorder; Bastain et al., 2005; Gardner &
Qualter, 2009; Gardner & Qualter, in press). Unlike the MSCEIT which is an ability-
based test that correlates with cognitive ability and academic grades, relationships
between the SEIS and these variables are often weak or negligible (e.g., Bastian et al.,
2005; Schutte et al., 2002). This is generally expected for all trait EI measures since they
assess personality traits and not cognitive abilities; they are thus more highly related to
established personality dimensions such as Neuroticism and Extraversion (Bastian et al.,
2005; Saklofske et al., 2003).
Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment (MEIA; Tett, Fox & Wang,
2005)
The 116-item MEIA includes 10 subscales and 3 broader EI factors, rated on a 6-point
Likert scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”:
i) self orientation: motivating emotions, recognition of emotion in the self, regulation
of emotion in the self and intuition vs. reason;
ii) emotional sharing: nonverbal emotional expression, empathy and mood
redirected attention;
iii) other orientation: creative thinking, recognition of emotion in others and
regulation of emotion in others.
Practicalities of Administration
Like the MSCEIT the MEIA is costly. It can be purchased from Sigma Assessments. On
the other hand, despite the large number of questions it typically takes less time to
administer than the MSCEIT (approx. 30 minutes). For scoring information contact
Sigma Assessments.
Relevance to PDP
The inclusion of 10 subscales to assess varying trait EI facets means that students
obtain a broader picture of their emotion-related personality traits than would be gained
with the SEIS. The core EI facets are important (as noted above), but additional
components such as “creative thinking” are skills that are vital to success within
educational and occupational spheres.
11
Reliability and Validity
All ten subscales have shown to be reliable and there is support for the 10-factor
structure of the test (Gardner & Qualter, in press; Tett et al., 2005). Research is currently
limited on associations between the MEIA and external criteria. However, there is some
evidence showing that the test is related to psychological variables such as life
satisfaction, cross-cultural adaptability and emotional resilience (Tett et al., 2005), the
latter two being most relevant to employability. Recent research also found that the test
performs in a similar manner to the SEIS and TEIQue (described below) in terms of
relating to range of psychological and well-being variables (e.g., aggression, loneliness
and happiness; Gardner & Qualter, in press).
Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT; Palmer & Stough, 2001)
The SUEIT uses 64 items to assess global EI and five EI facets: emotional control,
emotional recognition and expression, emotional management, emotions direct cognition
and understanding of emotions external. Participants respond using a 5-point Likert
scale, ranging from “never” to “always”.
Practicalities of Administration
The SUEIT is freely available for research/academic purposes and takes approx. 10-15
minutes to administer. It is thus an appropriate measure for being administered and
scored within one session if needs be. The test can be obtained (along with the technical
manual) by contacting Swinburne University’s Organisational Research Unit.
Relevance to PDP
The SUEIT is similar to the SEIS in terms of assessing a small number of core EI facets,
although awareness of strengths and weakness on these facets is important for students
(as argued in the context of the SEIS).
Reliability and Validity
The SUEIT’s five subscales and global EI have shown good evidence of reliability
(Palmer & Stough, 2001). The measure is related to cognitive, psychological and clinical
variables (e.g., IQ, life satisfaction, depression and leadership style; Gannon & Ranzijn,
12
2005; Downey et al., 2008; Gardner & Stough, 2001). However, there is some evidence
to suggest that the SUEIT does not conform to the five factor structure originally
outlined; rather nine dimensions are assessed by this test (Gignac, 2005). This suggests
exercising caution when using this test as scores for the five subscales may not be
representative of the dimensions they are assumed to be assessing.
Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue v. 1.50; Petrides, 2009)
The 153-item TEIQue (Petrides, 2009) is a more broadly-defined comprehensive
measure that covers all facets of trait EI as postulated by Petrides and Furnham’s (2001)
trait EI framework. The TEIQue includes 4 compound scales that encompass 15
subscales:
i) well-being: happiness, optimism and self-esteem;
ii) self-control: control/emotion regulation, stress management and impulsiveness
(low);
iii) emotionability: emotion expression, empathy, emotion perception (self and
others) and relationship skills;
iv) sociability: social competence, assertiveness and emotion management (others).
Self-motivation and adaptability are the final two subscales, but they do not belong to
any of the four broader scales. Questions are rated using a 7-point Likert scale, ranging
from “completely disagree” to 7 “completely agree”.
Practicalities of Administration
The TEIQue is a fairly lengthy instrument and is free of charge for research purposes.
Like the MEIA, the TEIQue takes approx. 30 minutes to complete and so can be easily
administered within a brief seminar or lecture. Scoring is done by the test publisher, free
of charge, requiring a second session to give scores and feedback to students.
Hpwever, you will need to contact the test publisher to enquire about use of the
instrument for non-research purposes.
Relevance to PDP
The inclusion of a broad range of facets renders the TEIQue an attractive measure for
use within a PDP context. An awareness of such traits such as optimism, stress
13
management, impulse control and relationship skills are crucial to academic success
and development as a life-long learner. They are also key components of a successful
work-life and are qualities that employer’s clearly value. Although in theory the test can
be re-administered multiple times to give students opportunities to plan and reflect on
their self-development, scoring is done by the test publisher. You will therefore need to
negotiate with the publisher whether multiple scoring of an individual’s test is permitted,
and also consider how this would work in practice i.e., how and when will students take
the second test? It is unlikely that you would be able to send in individual tests for re-
scoring based on when particular students decide to re-take the test.
Reliability and Validity
The TEIQue’s 15 subscales and the global EI score are reliable (Gardner & Qualter, in
press). There is support for the fifteen factor structure of the test (Mikolajczak, Luminet,
Leroy & Roy, 2007), although there is a large degree of overlap between some of test’s
subscales (e.g., happiness and optimism are highly related; Gardner, 2008; This is
theoretically expected, although it does raise the question of whether these particular
subscales are assessing unique facets of EI, or are tapping into the same underlying
construct. The TEIQue is associated with a range of academic, occupational,
psychological and clinical variables (e.g., cognitive ability, academic performance,
occupational stress, aggression and depression; Gardner & Qualter, in press; Petrides,
Frederickson & Furnham, 2004; Mikolajczak, Luminet et al., 2007; Mikolajczak, Menil &
Luminet, 2007; Petrides, Pérez-González & Furnham, 2007). It also more strongly
predicts criteria such as aggression, loneliness, life satisfaction, happiness than the
SEIS and MEIA, which may be a product of the test’s assessment of a wider range of
trait EI facets (Gardner & Qualter, in press).
The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997)
The 133-item Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-I; Bar-On, 1997) is a comprehensive
measure that is somewhat similar to the TEIQue. However, the EQ-I was developed as a
measure of emotional and social competencies that are important for dealing with
14
Other Self-reported EI/Emotional Competency Tests
environmental demands and pressures. It therefore also targets several non-trait EI
facets such as “problem solving” and “reality testing”. The test uses a 5-point Likert scale
and includes 5 compound scales encompassing 15 subscales:
i) interpersonal EQ (Emotional Quotient): empathy, interpersonal relationships and
social responsibility;
ii) intrapersonal EQ: assertiveness, emotional self-awareness, self-regard, self-
actualization and independence;
iii) stress management: impulse control and stress tolerance;
iv) adaptability: flexibility, reality testing and problem solving;
v) general mood, consisting of optimism and happiness.
Practicalities of Administration
The EQ-I is of a similar length to the MEIA and TEIQue and would take approx. 30
minutes to administer. The Technical Manual provides detailed information about the
administration and scoring of the test. Contact MHS for pricing.
Relevance to PDP
Like the TEIQue the inclusion of a range of facets renders the EQ-I an attractive tool for
use within a PDP context. The additional assessment of competencies such as “problem
solving” also makes the test appealing. It is exactly these types of skills that are crucial
components of a successful work-life and increasingly sought after my employers in a
variety of spheres. Unfortunately, because the EQ-I costs money, it would be costly to
administer the test more than once as a tool for assessing continuous self-development.
Reliability and Validity
While the EQ-i has generally been shown to a reliable measure (e.g., Bar-On, 1997;
Dawda & Hart, 2000), Petrides and Furnham (2001) found that reliabilities of some of the
EQ-i subscales are low. The 15-factor structure of the test also appears problematic, as
some studies have reported that 1 global scale - or alternatively a small number of
subscales - is present (e.g., Palmer, Manocha, Gignac & Stough, 2003; Petrides &
Furnham, 2001). There is some suggestion that the EQ-I is weakly related to cognitive
outcomes (e.g., spatial ability and university grades). In some, but not all studies the test
also relates to academic success (e.g., Parker et al., 2004). The EQ-I is also associated
15
with occupational and clinical outcomes such as managerial performance and eating
pathology (Marker & Vander Wall, 2007; Parker et al., 2004; Slaski & Cartwright, 2002).
Emotional and Social Competence Inventory (ESCI; Haygroup, Boyatzis &
Goleman, 2007)
The ESCI uses 70 items to assess emotional competencies, defined as learned EI-
based capabilities that contribute to work performance. The test uses a 5-point likert
scale and assesses 12 competencies via clusters:
i) self-awareness: emotional awareness
ii) self management: achievement orientation, adaptability, emotional self-control,
positive outlook;
iii) social awareness: empathy, organizational awareness;
iv) relationship management: inspirational leadership, influence, conflict
management, teamwork, coach and mentor.
Practicalities of Administration
The ESCI is a mid-length questionnaire and would take approx. 15-20 minutes to
administer. The Technical Manual provides information about the administration and
scoring of the test. Contact the Haygroup for pricing.
Relevance to PDP
Like the TEIQue and EQ-I, the inclusion of a range of facets renders the ESCI an
attractive tool for use within a PDP context. The additional assessment of competencies
such as “inspirational leadership” and “organizational awareness” means that the test
has direct relevance to employability. Thus, it is a worthwhile test for use within a PDP
context. The ESCI costs money though, making it costly to administer the test more than
once as a tool for assessing continuous self-development.
Reliability and Validity
There is little published psychometric information for this measure. The previous version
(the ECI) has shown low or moderate reliabilities for some of the smaller subscales or
four broader cluster scores (Hay Group & Wolff, 2005). Scores on the ECI are
16
associated with managerial style and career success (see ECI technical manual by Hay
Group & Wolff, 2005), suggesting applicability to employment.
References
Bastian, V. A., Burns, N. R., & Nettelbeck, T. (2005). Emotional intelligence predicts life
skills, but not as well as personality and cognitive abilities. Personality and
Individual Differences, 39, 1135-1145.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): a test of emotional
intelligence. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Dawda, D. & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity
of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in university students.
Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 797-812.
Day, A. L. & Carroll, S. A. (2004). Using an ability-based measure of emotional
intelligence to predict individual performance, group performance, and group
citizenship behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1443-1458.
Downey, L. A., Johnston, P. J., Hansen, K., Schembri, R., Stough, C., Tuckwell, V.,
Schweitzer, I. (2008). The relationship between emotional intelligence and
depression in a clinical sample. European Journal of Psychiatry, 22, 93-98.
Gannon, N. & Ranzijn, R. (2005). Does emotional intelligence predict unique variance in
life satisfaction beyond IQ and personality? Personality and Individual
Differences, 38, 1353-1364.
Gardner, K. (2008). Ability emotional intelligence, trait emotional intelligence and
borderline personality disorder. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Central Lancashire.
17
Gardner, K. J., & Qualter, P. Factor Structure, Measurement Invariance and Structural
Invariance of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.0.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Gardner, K. J., & Qualter, P. (in press). Concurrent and incremental validity of three trait
emotional intelligence measures. Special Issue on Emotional Intelligence,
Australian Journal of Psychology.
Gardner, K. & Qualter, P. (2009). Emotional intelligence and borderline personality
disorder. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 94-98.
Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and
emotional intelligence in senior level managers. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 23, 68-78.
Gignac, G. E. (2005). Determining the dimensionality of a self-report emotional
intelligence inventory (SUEIT) and testing its unique factorial validity.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Swinburne University of Technology:
Melbourne, Australia.
Gignac, G. E., Palmer, B. R., Manocha, R., & Stough, C. (2005). An examination of the
factor structure of the schutte self-report emotional intelligence (SSREI) scale via
confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1029-
1042.
Hay Group, Boyatzis, R. & Goleman, D. (2007). Emotional and Social Competence
Inventory – University edition self-assessment questionnaire.
Hay Group, McClelland Center for Research and Innovation, & Wolff, S. B. (2005).The
emotional competence inventory (ECI) technical manual. Retrieved on August,
12, 2009: http://www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/ECI_2_0_Technical_Manual_v2.pdf
Keele, S. M. & Bell, R. C. (2008). The factorial validity of emotional intelligence: an
unresolved issue. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 487-500.
18
Markey, M. A. & Vander Wal, J. S. (2007). The role of emotional intelligence and
negative affect in bulimic symptomatology. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48, 458-
465.
Mayer, J. D. & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey and D.
Sluyter (Ed.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for
educators (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT): User's manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi Health
Systems.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2004). Emotional intelligence: theory, findings,
and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 197-215.
Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Leroy, C., & Roy, C. (2007). Psychometric properties of the
Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue; Petrides & Furnham, 2003):
factor structure, reliability, construct, and incremental validity in a French-
speaking population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 338-353.
Mikolajczak, M., Menil, C., & Luminet, O. (2007). Explaining the protective effect of trait
emotional intelligence regarding occupational stress: exploration of
challenge/threat appraisals and emotional labour processes. Journal of Research
in Personality, 41, 1107-1117.
Palmer, B. R., Manocha, R., Gignac, G., & Stough, C. (2003). Examining the factor
structure of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory with an Australian general
population sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1191-1210.
Palmer, B.R., Stough, C., (2001). Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test:
Interim technical manual. Melbourne: Organisational Psychology Research Unit,
Swinburne University of Technology (unpublished).
19
Parker, J. D. A., Creque, S., Barnhart, D. L., Harris, J. I., Majeski, S. A., Wood, L. M. et
al. (2004). Academic achievement in high school: does emotional intelligence
matter? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1321-1330.
Petrides, K. V. (2009). Technical manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence
Questionnaires (TEIQue). London: London Psychometric Laboratory
Petrides, K., Pérez-González, J. C., & Furnham, A. (2007). On the criterion and
incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 26-
55.
Petrides, K. V. & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric
investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of
Personality, 15, 425-448.
Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional
intelligence in academic performance and deviant behaviour at school.
Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277-293.
Qualter, P., Gardner, K. J., & Whiteley, H. E. (2007). Emotional intelligence: review of
research and educational implications. Pastoral Care in Education, 25, 11-20.
Rossen, E., Kranzler, J. H., & Algina, J. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V 2.0 (MSCEIT). Personality
and Individual Differences, 44, 1258-1269.
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a
trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34,
707-721.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J. et
al. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.
20
Slaski, M., & Cartwright, S. (2002). Health, performance, and emotional intelligence: An
exploratory study of retail managers. Stress and Health, 18, 63-68.
Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation of a self-report
measure of emotional intelligence as a multidimensional trait domain. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1-30.
21