30
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 1

Choosing an EI Test

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 2: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 3: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 4: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 5: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 6: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 7: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 8: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 9: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 10: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 11: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 12: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 13: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 14: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 15: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 16: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 17: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 18: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 19: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 20: Choosing an EI Test

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

Page 21: Choosing an EI Test

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