EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE TESTING AND ITS VARIOUS FORMS
Vicky L. Arias
DePaul University
Abstract
The concept of emotional intelligence, or EI, has been studied by many scientists in brain and psychological studies. In their definition of EI in 1990, Mayer and Salovey define it as the capacity of one to correctly express and assess their own emotions and the emotions of others, manage these emotions appropriately, and employ them to reach life goals (Salovey and Mayer, 1990). In effect, Mayer and Salovey are proclaiming EI to be ability-based, or inherent at birth. Similarly in the literature, EI is defined as an ability to identify one’s own emotions, as well as the emotions of others, perceive the commencement of those emotions, and employ these abilities to strengthen positive behaviors (Fiori, Antonietti, Mikolajczak, Luminet, Hansenne, 2014). Adding to this is the declaration that EI is not only ability-based, but consists of three levels, which are “knowledge, abilities, and traits” (Mikolajczak, Brasseur, Fantini-Hauwel, 2014). Elsewhere in the literature, EI is referred to under the label of emotional competence (EC), indicating that it can be learned (Brasseur, Gregoire, Bourdu, Mikolajczak, 2013). As a result of these definitions, two types of EI theory have come forth. They are ability EI and trait EI. This research proposal will look at various testing methods for ability-based EI and trait-based EI, and the aspects of those tests. It will evaluate whether abilities-based emotional intelligence testing or trait-based emotional intelligence testing is the best practice. My hypothesis is that trait-based EI testing will be better suited to uncovering the emotional intelligence of an individual.
Chapter One
Introduction
In order to better understand emotional intelligence and its application, testing methods have emerged. My research will ask the following question: Are there testing measurements that can evaluate emotional intelligence and, if so, which measurements may work best, and which evaluative factors were found in those tests to be significant? The reason for my study is that it has been asserted that “EI will be a more effective predictor of academic success and life achievement than general intelligence” (O’Connor, R., Little, I., 2003, p. 1893-1894). If this is true, then it would be logical to assume that emotional intelligence could pervade a majority of life areas, like an individual’s work life, personal life, and the relationships that one has with others. To be able to measure emotional intelligence could possibly prove to be very useful in predicting strengths and weaknesses in these areas for individuals, and could point to areas that are lacking, and in need of attention.
Two competing systems of assessing EI have come to the fore. The first type is the system of testing EI as an abilities-based construct and the second type of testing looks at EI as that which is based on traits and tendencies. Abilities-based EI testing assesses an individual’s “emotion-related cognitive abilities” (Petrides, 2011, p. 657), which are measured by performance on a standardized test. This testing is evaluated against answers that have been predetermined to be correct based on a set of typical answers given by a sample group in tandem with answers that have been provided by professionals in the field of emotion studies (Mayer, Caruso, Salovey, Sitarenios, 2003). By contrast, the trait view of EI, or “Trait EI” (Petrides, 2011, p. 660) uses testing that requires individuals to provide self-assessments of their emotions through self-declared proclamations. This type of test does not have a standardized ‘right and wrong’ answer key. Instead, it allows the tester to self-examine any problem areas they perceive. For example, an individual may be asked to evaluate if they often feel happy by employing a Likert scale, (Brasseur et al., 2013). A Likert scale is a system that can be used for many testing purposes, including the two testing systems we are looking at, trait-based EI testing and abilities-based EI testing. It measures value based on the degree to which an individual agrees with a statement, which can range from no agreement to some agreement to full agreement.
The nature of my research is descriptive in that it will attempt to investigate that which already exists, which is emotional intelligence (EI) testing.
DEFINITIONS OF THE TERM EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE:
|
Emotional intelligence
|
A set of skills hypothesized to contribute to the accurate appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and in others.
|
Salovey, P., Mayer, J., 1990, p. 185
|
|
Emotional intelligence
|
The individual differences in the identification, understanding, expression, regulation and use of one’s own emotions and those of others.
|
Mikolajczak, M., Brasseur, S., Fantini-Hauwel, C., 2014, p. 42
|
|
Emotional intelligence
|
The knowledge and/or competencies to effectively deal with emotions to regulate social and emotional behaviors.
|
Pekaar, K., Bakker, A., van der Linden, D., Born, M., 2017, p. 222
|
|
Emotional intelligence
|
The capacity to recognize emotions in oneself and others, understand how they originate, develop, and change during emotional experience, and use this understanding to enhance thinking and behavior.
|
Fiori, M., Antonietti, J., Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Hansenne, M., 2014, p. 1
|
|
Emotional intelligence
|
A constellation of emotional perceptions operationalized via questionnaires and ratings scales.
|
van der Linden, D., Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Dunkel, C. S., & Petrides, K. V., 2017, p. 39
|
Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
Abilities-Based EI Testing
The theory behind abilities-based EI testing is that individuals possess a certain capacity to cognitively recognize and express emotions. The predominate, most ubiquitous and popular test to measure emotional intelligence as an ability is the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) (Fiori, Antonietti, Mikolajczak, Luminet, Hansenne, Rossier, 2014). It is the most commonly used assessment in evaluating emotional intelligence ability, or that which is inbuilt. It measures this theorized capability with items that have been determined by its creators to have right or wrong answers. It employs a Likert scale, with 1 meaning that an emotion is not there and has not been produced whatsoever through 5, meaning that an emotion has certainly been produced and is absolutely active. The test can be self-administered if you are qualified. If you are not qualified, then a qualified professional must administer the test to you. The effectiveness of the test is seen as promising, however, certain aspects of it have been called into question. Scores on the MSCEIT have been known to be misrepresented in individuals with average or high emotional intelligence, meaning that they do not accurately distinguish between the two (Fiori et al., 2014). This is because the test items are not nuanced enough to have an effect on categorizing low EI individuals versus average to high EI individuals and, as a result, average EI individuals often get grouped together with high EI individuals and vice versa. This being said, there is, however, significant effect in using this test to determine individuals considered to have low EI.
Another facet of the MSCEIT is that it is positively correlated with verbal and non-verbal intelligence (Kong, 2014). The ability-based definition of EI causes it to be implicitly linked to intelligence, which essentially denotes various echelons of mental and intellectual abilities. It has been
reasoned that EI is in the same vein as verbal intellect, which would account for the positive correlation (Kong, 2014). Abilities-based EI testing essentially provides an overview of what a core group of individuals, i.e. a sample group and group of experts, have gauged to be emotionally intelligent. That is, if an individual scores highly on an abilities-based EI test, then, according to the preset determination of the test, that individual is considered, by the authors of these types of tests, to possess emotional capabilities at the “maximum performance” (Petrides, 2011, p. 657) level within society. As a result, it is argued that high scoring individuals hold a greater capacity for emotional intelligence than a low scoring individual.
Trait-Based EI Testing
The theory behind trait-based EI testing is that one’s emotional make-up is closely tied to one’s personality traits, for example, sociability (Petrides, 2011). Trait-based EI testing provides a measurement of the differences of emotion management of self and others from person to person through individual self-assessment. By assessing individual differences, trait EI tests are informative on a more personal basis. It is also stated in the literature that trait EI is associated with “outcomes such as job performance.” (van der Linden, D. et al., 2017, p. 39)
Unlike abilities-based EI testing, trait-based testing offers several more testing instruments. Three of those instruments are: The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) (Petrides, K., 2009), The Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC) (Brasseur, S., Grégoire, J., Bourdu, R., & Mikolajczak, M., 2013), and The Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS) (Pekaar, K., Bakker, A., van der Linden, D., Born, M., 2017).
The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) is a test that may be self-administered or given by a professional. It consists of a series of 153 self-reporting questions using a Likert scale (Petrides, K., 2009). The strength of this test is that it claims to examine the self-perception aspects of emotions, which are fluid, rather than emotional capabilities, which are innate and inherent at birth, and have already been looked at on the MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence Test (2002). It explores 15 different dimensions of emotion, such as emotion management and perception, as well as optimism and happiness, and provides scores on all 15 of these dimensions.
The Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC) is a self-reporting test that employs 50 items consisting of multiple choice as well as Likert scale questions, in order to obtain a measure of emotional competence (EC), which looks at the differences of individuals in how they regulate their own emotions as well as the emotions of others (Brasseur et al., 2013). The goal of this instrument is to measure 10 different aspects of emotional intelligence, focusing on intrapersonal emotional
intelligence, or the management of one’s own emotions and interpersonal emotional intelligence, or the management of emotional interaction with others’ emotions (Mikolajczak, 2014).
Thirdly, The Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS) is a test that was developed to measure the mechanisms that underpin emotional intelligence in and of itself (Pekaar, Bakker, van der Linden, Born, 2018). Since most EI measurements do not demarcate a line between ‘self’ emotional
assessment versus ‘other-focused’ emotional assessment, the main focus of this test is to differentiate between these two factors of EI. In addition, it addresses the regulation of emotions. This assessment is similar to The Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC) test (2013) in that the PEC attempted to differentiate between self-assessment of emotions versus one’s ability to assess the emotions of someone else, or other-focused emotional intelligence. The PEC falls short, however, in keeping focus on self versus other assessment, or appraisal, due to its efforts to distinguish between ten different features of EI, thereby pulling itself in too many directions and spreading itself too thin.
The Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS) (2017) test distinguishes between four different aspects of emotional intelligence. They are: self-focused emotion appraisal, self-focused emotion regulation, other-focused emotion appraisal, and other-focused emotion regulation. The goal is to attempt to determine which smaller EI characteristic is associated with which larger emotional criterion. This test essentially evaluates whether or not the capacity of an individual to accurately manage / recognize their own emotions is comparable to their capacity to accurately manage / recognize the emotions of others. It is a 28-item test measurement and the results show that the REIS
test methodically examines both self and other-focused emotional intelligence, which allows for future deeper understanding of the smaller units of intricate dimension that make up the greater total scope of EI.
Issues with the MSCEIT Test
Since its inception in 2002, the reliability of the MSCEIT test has been debated. Given that the instrument is the only standardized abilities-based test for EI (Fiori, Antonakis, 2011) and that it is the most widely used, debate is to be expected. There are advocates as well as critics of the abilities-based test. One critique of the instrument is that its scoring method is flawed because it uses consensus scoring (Maul, 2012). Maul argues that scores deemed to be in agreement with a consensus doesn’t necessarily mean that those scores are accurate. He uses the example of the “camera smile” (Maul, 2012, p.397). It is a situation where a person fakes a smile. In a genuine smile, an individual’s eye muscles move with expression. However, with a fake smile, the eye muscles of the individual are not animated upon smiling. Instead, they remain still and unused (Maul, 2012). Many people would not detect this minute discrepancy in the stimulation of the eye muscles attached to a disingenuous smile. The majority would likely judge the smile to connote happiness when, in reality, it does not. Using this logic, Maul points out that consensus agreement that a smiling face equates to the emotion of happiness would be incorrect. Maul exacts this logic onto the consensus scoring method of the MSCEIT and claims that the test is not a true reflection of a person’s EI, but rather, their ability to recognize shared “emotional perceptions” (Maul, 2012, p. 400).
Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, the creators of the MSCEIT test, responded to Maul’s concerns in 2012. They say, “the scoring system is adequate” (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, 2012, p. 404) because the items of the test are based on previously developed theories that are sound (Mayer et al., 2012). They
feel that their theoretical approach to item formation is knowledgeable, and should, therefore, be viewed as credible.
As stated earlier, it is claimed that scores on the MSCEIT test misreports individuals with average or high emotional intelligence, meaning that they do not accurately differentiate the two (Fiori et al., 2014). This is a result of the test items not having enough gradation to effectively categorize low EI individuals versus average to high EI individuals. The result is that average EI individuals often get grouped together with high EI individuals and vice versa. The reliabilities approximated for the MSCEIT are less than favorable (Maul, 2012). Maul furthers this argument when he states that, “a respondent would have to get a score of higher than 116 or lower than 84 to be statistically significant (p
< .05) above or below average” (Maul, 2012, p. 398). In addition, expert consensus was found to be very similar to “general consensus” (Fiori et al., 2011, p.333) scores, meaning that “emotion experts” (Fiori et al., 2011, p. 333) answered the items of the test similarly to the lay population (Fiori et al., 2011). This, again, points to the misrepresentation of low, average and high EI individuals. It would be as if highly intelligent individuals received similar scores on an IQ test as those of average intelligence (Fiori et al., 2011). It is possible that the items on the MSCEIT test are simply too easy and, therefore, it is not difficult to determine the answer that is expected to be correct.
Chapter Three
Research Methodology
For my research, I will look at various emotional intelligence (EI) tests and their possible relevance to the EI construct. I’m planning to look for possible correlations between people who are trying to work on their emotional intelligence and those people’s test scores over a three-year period, as well as their mean test results. They will be required to answer a survey before taking two different EI tests, one abilities-based EI test and one trait-based EI test, since these are the two main types of tests that have emerged in the literature. The goal is to find out which test better reflects the possible growth of EI in individuals who are actively working to improve their EI. I would use probability sampling - simple random sampling for my research. I would invite the first 100 respondents to an ad placed at my local library to complete the survey, as well as the two tests - an ability-based test, called the MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence Test, as well as a trait-based test, called the TEIQue Emotional Intelligence Test. This would give me a sampling frame with which to work. Next, I would proceed to ask those individuals to participate in a longitudinal study, repeated measures design, where every year for the next 3 years I would re-test them using the same survey and the same two tests. The subjects’ test scores would be continuous, as they are measured and can land anywhere within a results spectrum. The research would have quantitative data, as it would be looking at correlations between variables and qualitative data, in that it would look at human emotion as it relates to outcomes on tests.
I would obtain expressed written permission from the creators of the TEIQue test, as well as the MSCEIT test, before administering the tests. My mode would be to use a rented space, like a conference room at my local library, and set it up where respondents could sit at a desk and complete the survey and the two tests. Complete confidentiality would be guaranteed to respondents in writing and I would not share their identities with anyone.
Prior to administering the preexisting TEIQue emotional intelligence trait-based test and the MSCEIT emotional intelligence abilities-based test, I would explain to respondents, in a clearly separated and designated section, that there is a precursory survey that needs to be answered, preceding the test. One of the survey questions would ask whether or not respondents have actively tried to improve their emotional intelligence over the past year through workshops, therapy, self-help exercises, etc. I would then try to determine whether a correlation exists on two separate accounts. I would determine whether a correlation exists between those who have actively tried to improve their emotional intelligence and their associated scores on the MSCEIT test and those who have actively tried to improve their emotional intelligence and their associated scores on the TEIQue test. So, two different possible correlations would be looked at. If a respondent cares enough to have made an active effort to improve their EI, then testing measures should, likely, reflect said effort. If the TEIQue test reflects a more positive correlation between active effort and scores than the MSCEIT test, then it gives positive promotion to the idea that trait-based EI testing is possibly a more accurate reflection of emotional intelligence and could be a better alternative in measuring EI than abilities-based EI testing.
A potential issue in the experiment could be a content issue, where the respondents would not have a clear understanding of the concept of emotional intelligence. To curb this issue, it would be essential for me to provide respondents with the two definitions of emotional intelligence that were developed by each of the creators of the two tests.
Suggestion of Possible Findings
It is my belief that the standardized scoring method of the MSCEIT test is flawed and not nuanced enough to accurately reflect an individual’s emotional intelligence. I also believe that emotional intelligence is a construct that is always in flux, with life’s events effecting one’s emotional state, and, therefore, their emotional outlook and perspectives at a given time. For example, if a soldier is afflicted with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after combat, he or she is likely to, for a time, have a more difficult time managing their emotions, as a result of panic attacks, etc., when compared to a person who has never experienced the disorder. Said person may score low on the MSEIT test as a result of answering ‘wrongly’ to questions surrounding emotion management. This, however, does not seem to be an accurate reflection of the person’s EI, as said person may not necessarily be of low emotional intelligence, but simply have a temporarily different outlook than what the MSCEIT would deem to be ‘correct’. With this in mind, I do not believe that tests that measure the emotional intelligence of a person should have right and wrong answers, as in the MSCEIT test, but rather categories of self-assessment that score different dimensions of a person’s emotionality, such as empathy, social awareness, and happiness, as on the TEIQue trait-based EI test. I feel that this self-reflection gives the respondent something to work with, something to improve upon. In summation, I predict that my research will show greater growth of EI and a stronger positive correlation on the TEIQue test between the variables of active effort to improve one’s EI and one’s EI score, as I believe that trait-based tests have greater sensitivities to individual changes within persons, and are, therefore, more accurate measures of emotional intelligence.
Chapter Four
Discussion and Conclusion
Discussion
This investigation looked at whether abilities-based emotional intelligence testing or trait-based emotional intelligence testing is the best practice. I hypothesized that trait-based EI testing will be better suited to uncovering the emotional intelligence of an individual. The research findings indicated trait-based EI testing is, in fact, the better measurement in assessing emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence is a vast field of scientific inquiry and in order to properly investigate the field, instruments for assessment could possibly be very useful. The subject of testing emotional intelligence is split between two schools of thought. The first ideology is that assessment should be steeped in measuring the abilities of an individual, or the capacity of emotion assessment and regulation that one was born possessing. The second ideology comes from the idea that emotional intelligence is more of a competence or disposition. It posits that EI is akin to a trait and does not possess an uttermost capacity.
Conclusion
The problem with abilities-based EI testing lies in the fact that individual encounters with emotion vary wildly from person to person. These emotions cannot be synthesized to cooperate with measurements, similar to IQ tests, that evaluate a person’s maximum achievement potential (Petrides, 2011). Another problem with abilities-based EI testing is that what one knows does not always manifest as an ability (Mikolajczak et al., 2014). An individual may simply know what is and isn’t acceptable in society and, therefore, know what answer will be viewed as being correct, without the ability to actually apply that knowledge in his or her life. Some even go so far as to claim that trait-based EI testing and abilities-based EI testing are separate concepts completely, rather than similar concepts testing the same construct (O’Connor, Little, 2003). Depending upon an individual’s personal emotional experiences and personality, answers given on an abilities-based test may not conform to the standardized answer which the test author’s sample population has deemed to be ‘correct’.
In addition, the scoring method used on the MSCEIT test is less than desirable and “has drawn considerable controversy” (Maul, 2012, p. 396). With regard to the consensus scoring method of the MSCEIT, it has been noted that “nothing inherent to the logic of consensus-based scoring of emotional stimuli indicates either that consensus determines the correctness of answers, or that consensus will reliably discover
correct answers” (Maul, 2012, p. 397). Perhaps items are too easy to figure out, but it seems that they are not sensitive enough to differentiate the varying degrees of emotional intelligence, especially in the case of average and high EI scorers.
Furthermore, abilities-based EI testing, with minor exceptions, relies almost entirely on one test, the MSCEIT test. The Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM) (2008) was an effort to create another abilities-based EI test. However, reliability tests are not very promising for the measurement, and its items are too similar to the MSCEIT test. It is, therefore, not a viable substitute for the MSCEIT test (Fiori et al., 2011).
Emotions are inherently individualistic and vary greatly from one individual to the next. Trait-based EI testing understands this and accounts for personality of individuals in its measures. In other words, “trait EI theory provides an operationalization that recognizes the inherent subjectivity of emotional experience” (Petrides, 2011, p.660).
As a result of the use of consensus scoring on the only major abilities-based test, the MSCEIT, as well as the impossibility to synthesize personal emotions in order to evaluate one’s maximum emotional intelligence, as the MSCEIT requires, I find abilities-based EI testing to be flawed and an improper measurement in researching an individual’s emotional intelligence.
For the future, I would suggest further studies be done on possible alternative ways to score the MSCEIT without relying on consensus scoring. In addition, perhaps the theories behind trait-based EI testing could be researched and developed further, in order to build on what is a, seemingly, promising foundation. Also, “reaction time and/or speed of processing” (Fiori et al., 2011, p. 333) by an individual answering items on an EI test could be considered when developing new scoring methods for EI tests.
References
Brasseur, S., Grégoire, J., Bourdu, R., & Mikolajczak, M. (2013). The Profile of Emotional
Competence (PEC)
PLoS ONE 8(5): e62635. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062635.s001 [Measurement instrument].
Brasseur, S., Grégoire, J., Bourdu, R., & Mikolajczak, M. (2013). The profile of emotional competence (PEC): Development and validation of a self-reported measure that fits dimensions of emotional competence theory. Plos one, 8(5), e62635.
Buros Center for Testing. (2017). Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. In J. Carlson, K. Geisinger, & J. Jonson (Eds.), The twentieth mental measurements yearbook
(pp. 331 – 336). Lincoln, Nebraska: Buros Center for Testing, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Fiori, M., & Antonakis, J. (2011). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Searching for valid
measures. Personality and individual differences, 50(3), 329-334.
Fiori, M., Antonietti, J., Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Hansenne, M., Rossier, J., & Brucki, S., Editor. (2014). What is the ability emotional intelligence test (msceit) good for? an evaluation using item response theory. Plos One, 9(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098827
Kong, D. (2014). Mayer-salovey-caruso emotional intelligence test (msceit/meis) and overall, verbal, and nonverbal intelligence: Meta-analytic evidence and critical contingencies. Personality and Individual Differences, 66, 171-175.
Maul, A. (2012). The validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as
a measure of emotional intelligence. Emotion Review, 4(4), 394-402.
Mayer, J.D., Salovey P., & Caruso, D.R. (2002). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence
Test (MSCEIT) Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems, Inc. [Measurement instrument].
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2012). The validity of the MSCEIT: Additional analyses
and evidence. Emotion Review, 4(4), 403-408.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. 0. Emotion, 3(1), 97.
Mikolajczak, M., Brasseur, S., & Fantini-Hauwel, C. (2014). Measuring intrapersonal and interpersonal EQ: The Short Profile of Emotional Competence (S-PEC). Personality & Individual Differences, 65, 42–46.
O'Connor Jr, R. M., & Little, I. S. (2003). Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional intelligence:
Self-report versus ability-based measures. Personality and Individual differences, 35(8), 1893-
1902.
Pekaar, K., Bakker, A., van der Linden, D., Born, M. (2017). The Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence
Scale (REIS) [Measurement instrument].
Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., van der Linden, D., & Born, M. P. (2018). Self-and other-focused emotional intelligence: Development and validation of the Rotterdam Emotional Intelligence Scale (REIS). Personality and Individual Differences, 120, (pp.222-233).
Petrides, K. V. (2009). Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire
(TEIQue). In Assessing emotional intelligence (pp. 85-101). Springer, Boston, MA.
Petrides, K. V. (2009). The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue)
[Measurement
instrument]. Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, and J. D. Parker, Advances in the assessment of emotional intelligence. New York: Springer http://www.psychometriclab.com/adminsdata/files/TEIQue%20v%201.50.pdf
Petrides, K. V. (2011). Ability and trait emotional intelligence. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbooks of personality and individual differences. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 656-678). West Sussex, UK: Wiley- Blackwell.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality,
9(3), 185-211.
van der Linden, D., Pekaar, K. A., Bakker, A. B., Schermer, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Dunkel, C. S., &
Petrides, K. V. (2017). Overlap between the general factor of personality and emotional intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 36.
Appendix A
In my proposal, I would be administering two preexisting tests, the MSCEIT Emotional Intelligence Test and the TEIQue Emotional Intelligence Test, on three different occasions. I would be sure to obtain permission to use each test from its developers, prior to administering it.
In a clearly separated and designated section, I would preface the tests with my questions. I would explain that there are some precursory questions that need to be answered, preceding the MSCEIT test and the TEIQue test. I would then try to find two different correlations. One between these questions and the results of the MSCEIT test and another between these questions and the TEIQue test.
The preliminary survey questions would be as follows:
- 1) I feel that emotional intelligence is a valid concept.
__Strongly Agree __Agree __Neutral __Disagree __Strongly Disagree
- 2) I have actively tried to improve my emotional intelligence over the past year through workshops, therapy, self-help exercises, etc.
__Strongly Agree __Agree __Neutral __Disagree __Strongly Disagree
- 3) I believe that emotional intelligence can be learned.
__Strongly Agree __Agree __Neutral __Disagree __Strongly Disagree
- 4) I feel that my emotional intelligence has grown in the past year.
__Strongly Agree __Agree __Neutral __Disagree __Strongly Disagree
