Emotional Intelligence being important, the question of assessment and measurement becomes particularly pressing. In a paper published in 1998, Davies, Stankov, & Roberts concluded that there was nothing empirically new in the idea of Emotional Intelligence.
This conclusion was based solely on a review of existing measures purporting to measure Emotional Intelligence at the point in time when they wrote that paper. However, most of those measures were new, and there was not yet much known about their psychometric properties. Research now is emerging that suggests Emotional Intelligence, and particularly the new measures that have been developed to assess it, is in fact a distinct entity. However, there still is not much research on the predictive validity of such measures, and this is a serious lack. Here is a brief summary of what is really known about the most popular ones.
Bar-On’s EQ-I - The oldest instrument is Bar-On’s EQ-I, which has been around for over a decade. This self-report instrument originally evolved not out of an occupational context but rather a clinical one. It was designed to assess those personal qualities that enabled some people to possess better “emotional well-being” than others.
The EQ-I has been used to assess thousands of individuals, but less is known about its predictive validity in work situations. However, in one study the EQ-I was predictive of success for U.S. Air Force recruiters. In fact, by using the test to select recruiters, the Air Force saved nearly 3 million dollars annually. Also, there were no significant differences based on ethnic or racial group.
Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale - A second instrument is the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS). The MEIS is a test of ability rather than a self-report measure. The test-taker performs a series of tasks that are designed to assess the person’s ability to perceive, identify, understand, and work with emotions. There is some evidence of construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, but none for predictive validity.
Emotional Competence Inventory - A third instrument is the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). The ECI is a 360 degree instrument. People who know the individual rate him or her on 20 competencies that Goleman’s research suggests are linked to Emotional Intelligence. Although the ECI is in its early stages of development, about 40 percent of the items come from an older instrument, the Self-Assessment Questionnaire that was developed by Boyatzis.
These earlier items had been validated against performance in hundreds of competency studies of managers, executives, and leaders in North America, Italy, and Brazil. However, there currently is no research supporting the predictive validity of the ECI.
EQ Map - Another measure that has been promoted commercially is the EQ Map. Although there is some evidence for convergent and divergent validity, the data have been reported in a rather ambiguous fashion.
Self-Report - One other measure that deserves mention, even though it is less well known than the others is the Self-Report. Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, & Dornheim have developed a 33-item Self-Report measure based on Salovey and Mayer’s early work. There is evidence for convergent and divergent validity. Emotional Intelligence scores on this measure were positively associated with first-year college grades and supervisor ratings of student counselors working at various mental health agencies. Also, scores were higher for therapists than for therapy clients or prisoners.
This conclusion was based solely on a review of existing measures purporting to measure Emotional Intelligence at the point in time when they wrote that paper. However, most of those measures were new, and there was not yet much known about their psychometric properties. Research now is emerging that suggests Emotional Intelligence, and particularly the new measures that have been developed to assess it, is in fact a distinct entity. However, there still is not much research on the predictive validity of such measures, and this is a serious lack. Here is a brief summary of what is really known about the most popular ones.
Bar-On’s EQ-I - The oldest instrument is Bar-On’s EQ-I, which has been around for over a decade. This self-report instrument originally evolved not out of an occupational context but rather a clinical one. It was designed to assess those personal qualities that enabled some people to possess better “emotional well-being” than others.
The EQ-I has been used to assess thousands of individuals, but less is known about its predictive validity in work situations. However, in one study the EQ-I was predictive of success for U.S. Air Force recruiters. In fact, by using the test to select recruiters, the Air Force saved nearly 3 million dollars annually. Also, there were no significant differences based on ethnic or racial group.
Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale - A second instrument is the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS). The MEIS is a test of ability rather than a self-report measure. The test-taker performs a series of tasks that are designed to assess the person’s ability to perceive, identify, understand, and work with emotions. There is some evidence of construct validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, but none for predictive validity.
Emotional Competence Inventory - A third instrument is the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI). The ECI is a 360 degree instrument. People who know the individual rate him or her on 20 competencies that Goleman’s research suggests are linked to Emotional Intelligence. Although the ECI is in its early stages of development, about 40 percent of the items come from an older instrument, the Self-Assessment Questionnaire that was developed by Boyatzis.
These earlier items had been validated against performance in hundreds of competency studies of managers, executives, and leaders in North America, Italy, and Brazil. However, there currently is no research supporting the predictive validity of the ECI.
EQ Map - Another measure that has been promoted commercially is the EQ Map. Although there is some evidence for convergent and divergent validity, the data have been reported in a rather ambiguous fashion.
Self-Report - One other measure that deserves mention, even though it is less well known than the others is the Self-Report. Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, & Dornheim have developed a 33-item Self-Report measure based on Salovey and Mayer’s early work. There is evidence for convergent and divergent validity. Emotional Intelligence scores on this measure were positively associated with first-year college grades and supervisor ratings of student counselors working at various mental health agencies. Also, scores were higher for therapists than for therapy clients or prisoners.