The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s and the copyright owner s are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Abstract Emotional Intelligence EI emerged in the s as an ability based construct analogous to general Intelligence. Currently more than 30 different widely-used measures of EI have been developed. Although there is some clarity within the EI field regarding the types of EI and their respective measures, those external to the field are faced with a seemingly complex EI literature, overlapping terminology, and multiple published measures.

Author:Dulkree Munris
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):5 October 2017
PDF File Size:1.26 Mb
ePub File Size:11.52 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author s and the copyright owner s are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.

No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Abstract Emotional Intelligence EI emerged in the s as an ability based construct analogous to general Intelligence. Currently more than 30 different widely-used measures of EI have been developed. Although there is some clarity within the EI field regarding the types of EI and their respective measures, those external to the field are faced with a seemingly complex EI literature, overlapping terminology, and multiple published measures.

In this paper we seek to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners seeking to utilize EI in their work. We first provide an overview of the different conceptualizations of EI. We then provide a set of recommendations for practitioners and researchers regarding the most appropriate measures of EI for a range of different purposes.

We provide guidance both on how to select and use different measures of EI. We conclude with a comprehensive review of the major measures of EI in terms of factor structure, reliability, and validity. Keywords: emotional intelligence, measures, questionnaires, trait, ability, mixed, recommendations Overview and Purpose The purpose of this article is to review major, widely-used measures of Emotional Intelligence EI and make recommendations regarding their appropriate use.

For ease of reading therefore, we begin this article with an introduction to the different types of EI, followed by a brief summary of different measures of EI and their respective facets. We then provide a detailed set of recommendations for researchers and practitioners.

Recommendations focus primarily on choosing between EI constructs ability EI, trait EI, mixed models as well as choosing between specific tests. We take into account such factors as test length, number of facets measured and whether tests are freely available. Consequently we also provide recommendations both for users willing to purchase tests and those preferring to utilize freely available measures. In our detailed literature review, we focus on a set of widely used measures and summarize evidence for their validity, reliability, and conceptual basis.

Our review includes studies that focus purely on psychometric properties of EI measures as well as studies conducted within applied settings, particularly health care settings.

We include comprehensive tables summarizing key empirical studies on each measure, in terms of their research design and main findings. For readers interested in reviews relating primarily to EI constructs, theory and outcomes rather than specifically measures of EI, we recommend a number of recent high quality publications e.

Additionally, for readers interested in a review of measures without the extensive recommendations we provide here, we recommend the chapter by Siegling et al. Early Research on Emotional Intelligence EI emerged as a major psychological construct in the early s, where it was conceptualized as a set of abilities largely analogous to general intelligence. They argued that individuals high in EI had certain emotional abilities and skills related to appraising and regulating emotions in the self and others.

Accordingly, it was argued that individuals high in EI could accurately perceive certain emotions in themselves and others e. However, despite having a clear definition and conceptual basis, early research on EI was characterized by the development of multiple measures e.

One cause of this proliferation was the commercial opportunities such tests offered to developers and the difficulties faced by researchers seeking to obtain copyrighted measures see section Mixed EI for a summary of commercial measures. A further cause of this proliferation was the difficulty researchers faced in developing measures with good psychometric properties. A comprehensive discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this article see Petrides, for more details however one clear challenge faced by early EI test developers was constructing emotion-focused questions that could be scored with objective criteria.

A further characteristic of many early measures was their failure to discriminate between measures of typical and maximal performance. In particular, some test developers moved away from pure ability based questions and utilized self-report questions i. Other measures utilized broader definitions of EI that included social effectiveness in addition to typical EI facets see Ashkanasy and Daus, e.

Over time it became clear that these different measures were tapping into related, yet distinct underlying constructs. Currently, there are two popular methods of classifying EI measures. Fortunately there is overlap between these two methods of classification as we discuss below.

We are not proposing that these terms are ideal or even useful when classifying EI, but rather we wish to adopt language that is most representative of the existing literature on EI.

As outlined later, decisions regarding which measure of EI to use should be based on what form of EI is relevant to a particular research project or professional application.

In contrast to trait based measures, ability measures do not require that participants self-report on various statements, but rather require that participants solve emotion-related problems that have answers that are deemed to be correct or incorrect e. Nevertheless, ability-based measures are valid, albeit weak, predictors of a range of outcomes including work related attitudes such as job satisfaction Miao et al.

Trait EI In this review, we define trait based measures as those that utilize self-report items to measure overall EI and its sub dimensions. Individuals high in various measures of trait EI have been found to have high levels of self-efficacy regarding emotion-related behaviors and tend to be competent at managing and regulating emotions in themselves and others. Also, since trait EI measures tend to measure typical behavior rather than maximal performance, they tend to provide a good prediction of actual behaviors in a range of situations Petrides and Furnham, Recent meta-analyses have linked trait EI to a range of work attitudes such as job satisfaction and organization commitment Miao et al.

The term mixed EI is predominately used to refer to questionnaires that measure a combination of traits, social skills and competencies that overlap with other personality measures. Generally these measures are self-report, however a number also utilize degree forms of assessment self-report combined with multiple peer reports from supervisors, colleagues and subordinates e.

Research on mixed measures have found them to be valid predictors of multiple emotion-related outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational commitment Miao et al. Effect sizes of these relationships tend to be moderate and on par with trait-based measures.

We note that although different forms of EI have emerged trait, ability, mixed there are nevertheless a number of conceptual similarities in the majority of measures. Additionally, the facets in ability, trait and mixed measures of EI have numerous conceptual overlaps.

This is largely due to the early influential work of Mayer and Salovey. In particular, the majority of measures include facets relating to 1 perceiving emotions in self and others , 2 regulating emotions in self, 3 regulating emotions in others, and 4 strategically utilizing emotions. Where relevant therefore, this article will compare how well different measures of EI assess the various facets common to multiple EI measures.

Emotional Intelligence Scales The following emotional intelligence scales were selected to be reviewed in this article because they are all widely researched general measures of EI that also measure several of the major facets common to EI measures perceiving emotions, regulating emotions, utilizing emotions.

The following section provides a set of recommendations regarding which of these measures is appropriate to use across various research and applied scenarios. In particular ability EI is important in situations where a good theoretical understanding of emotions is required.

For example a manager high in ability EI is more likely to make good decisions regarding team composition. Indeed numerous studies on ability EI and decision making in professionals indicates that those high in EI tend to be competent decision makers, problem solvers and negotiators due primarily to their enhanced abilities at perceiving and understanding emotions see Mayer et al.

More generally, ability EI research also has demonstrated associations between ability EI and social competence in children Schultz et al. This should be when ongoing, typical behavior is likely to lead to positive outcomes, rather than intermittent, maximal performance.

For example, research on task-induced stress i. More generally, research tends to show that trait EI is a good predictor of effective coping styles in response to life stressors e. Indeed some research demonstrates that both forms of EI are important stress buffers and that they exert their protective effects at different stages of the coping process: ability EI aids in the selection of coping strategies whereas trait EI predicts the implementation of such strategies once selected Davis and Humphrey, Mixed measures are particularly appropriate in the context of the workplace.

This seems to be the case for two reasons: first, the tendency to frame EI as a set of competencies that can be trained e. Second, the emphasis on degree forms of assessment in mixed measures provides individuals with information not only on their self-perceptions, but on how others perceive them which is also particularly useful in training situations.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Trait and Ability EI There are numerous advantages and disadvantages of the different forms of EI that test users should factor into their decision. One disadvantage of self-report measures is that people are not always good judges of their emotion-related abilities and tendencies Brackett et al.

A further disadvantage of self-report, trait based measures is their susceptibility to faking. Participants can easily come across as high in EI by answering questions in a strategic, socially desirable way. However, this is usually only an issue when test-takers believe that someone of importance e. When it is for self-development or research, individuals are less likely to fake their answers to trait EI measures see Tett et al.

We also note that the theoretical bases of trait and mixed measures have also been questioned. Some have argued for example that self-report measures of EI measure nothing fundamentally different from the Big Five e. We will not address this issue here as it has been extensively discussed elsewhere e.

One advantage of ability based measures is that they cannot be faked. Test-takers are told to give the answer they believe is correct, and consequently should try to obtain a score as high as possible. A further advantage is that they are often more engaging tests. Rather than simply rating agreement with statements as in trait based measures, test-takers attempt to solve emotion-related problems, solve puzzles, and rate emotions in pictures.

Overall however, there are a number of fundamental problems with ability based measures. First, many personality and intelligence theorists question the very existence of ability EI, and suggest it is nothing more than intelligence.

This claim is supported by high correlations between ability EI and IQ, although some have provided evidence to the contrary e. Additionally, the common measures of ability EI tend to have relatively poor psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity. Ability EI measures do not tend to strongly predict outcomes that they theoretically should predict e. Maul also outlines a comprehensive set of problems with the most widely used ability measure, the MSCEIT, related to consensus-based scoring, reliability, and underrepresentation of the EI construct.

Also see Petrides for a comprehensive critique of ability measures. General Recommendation for Non-experts Choosing Between Ability and Trait EI While the distinction between trait, ability and mixed EI is important, we acknowledge that many readers will simply be looking for an overall measure of emotional functioning that can predict personal and professional effectiveness.

Compared to ability based measures, trait based measures tend to have very good psychometric properties, do not have questionable theoretical bases and correlate moderately and meaningfully with a broad set of outcome variables. In general, we believe that trait based measures are more appropriate for most purposes than ability based measures.

That being said, several adequate measures of ability EI exist and these have been reviewed in the Literature Review section. If there is a strong preference to use ability measures of EI then several good options exist as outlined later.

If users are not restricted by time or costs commercial users need to pay, researchers do not then the TEIQue is a very good option. It has been cited in more than 2, academic studies. There is extensive evidence in support of its reliability and validity Andrei et al. One disadvantage of the TEIQue however is that it is not freely available for commercial use.

The website states that commercial or quasi-commercial use without permission is prohibited. The test can nevertheless be commercially used for a relatively small fee. A second disadvantage is that the test can be fairly easily faked due to its use of a self-report response scale. However, this is generally only an issue when individuals have a reason for faking e.

Consequently, we do not recommend the TEIQue to be used for personnel selection, but it is relevant for other professional purposes such as in EI training and executive coaching. There are very few free measures of trait EI that have been adequately investigated.


How can we measure emotional intelligence?

Content validity results identified items lack a direct assessment of emotional experiences. Given the definition of EI presented previously Mayer et al. It should be emphasized that there are not direct assessments of an emotional reaction to finding it hard to understand non-verbal messages. It is possible that an individual might find understanding non-verbal messages hard to understand, but this might not activate an emotional response.


Validity of the Emotional Intelligence Scale for Use in Sport

The SSEIT includes a item self-report using a 1 strongly agree to 5 strongly disagree scale for responses. Each sub-test score is graded and then added together to give the total score for the participant. Author Dr. Nicola Schutte, Reliability and Validity Schutte and her colleges report a reliability rating of 0.


Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT)




Related Articles