The Mayer Salovey Caruso Notes Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) 2 The Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) 2 The MSCEIT 2 measures four related abilities. 3 Perceiving Facilitating Understanding Managing The Ability to Recognize How You and Those Around You Are Feeling The Ability to Generate, and to Use in Cognitive Tasks Such as Problem-Solving and Creativity The Ability to Understand Complex and Emotional "Chains" How Transition from One Stage to Another The Ability to Intelligently Integrate in Yourself and Others to Devise Effective Strategies That Help You Achieve Positive Outcomes The four abilities that are measured by the MSCEIT 2 are sometimes also referred to as branches. Each of the four branches/abilities, in turn, has two subsections called test sections. Ability Test Sections Question Types Perceiving Accurately Identify Faces Identify Subtle in Faces Facilitating Generate an Emotion and Solve Problems with That Emotion Understanding Understand the Causes of Managing Stay Open to and Blend with Thinking Faces Pictures Facilitation Sensations Changes Blends Emotion Management Emotional Relations Identify Subtle in Faces Identify in Complex Landscapes and Designs Knowledge of How Moods Impact Thinking Relate Various Feeling Sensations to Multiple Choice Questions about How Change Over Time Multiple Choice Emotion Vocabulary Definitions Indicate Effectiveness of Various Solutions to Internal Problems Indicate Effectiveness of Various Solutions to Problems Involving Other People 222!
The Mayer Salovey Caruso Notes Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) 2 Internal Reliability The MSCEIT 2 reports two sets of reliability data. The first, called expert is based on scores from twenty-one scholars and researchers with specialties in emotion. The general score is based on a sample of approximately 2,000 participants. The MSCEIT 2 overall split-half reliability was.93 for general and.91 for expert consensus scoring. 4 Split-Half Reliability Scores General Experts Overall MSCEIT 2.93.91 Perceiving.91.90 Faces.80.82 Pictures.88.87 Facilitating.79.76 Facilitation.64.63 Sensations.65.55 Understanding.80.77 Changes.70.68 Blends.66.62 Managing.83.81 Emotion Management.69.64 Emotional Relations.67.64 Confirmatory Factor Analysis A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a general sample of 1,985 participants found support for the four-factor model hypothesized for the MSCEIT 2 of perceiving emotions, facilitating emotions, understanding emotions and managing emotions. The factor loadings for the four components were between.53 and.77. (X 2 = 94.28, df = 15, NFI =.97; TLI =.96; RMSEA =.05). 5 223
The Mayer Salovey Caruso Notes Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) 2 Convergent Validity Brackett and Mayer (2003) reported that the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test was correlated with the Emotional Quotient Inventory at.21 and with the Schutte Self Report Emotional Intelligence Test at.18. Discriminant Validity The MSCEIT was correlated with the Army Alpha Vocabulary Test at.36, Verbal SAT scores at.32, Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery-General at.27 and the Air Force Qualifying Test at.32. The MSCEIT 2 ability and total scores were weakly correlated with the big five measures of personality, ranging from no significance (gray cells) to.24 for managing emotions and agreeableness. 6 Total EI Perceiving Facilitating Understanding Managing Neuroticism -.09 -.08 -.08 -.07.00 -.07 Extraversion.06.11.05.06.01.11 Openness.17.25.09.11.18.15 Agreeableness.21.28.17.10.08.24 Conscientiousness.11.03.04.10.04.13 Psychological Well-Being.28 Subjective!!!! -.05 Well-Being Verbal SAT.32!!!!!!!! Predictive Validity Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (2004) meta-analyzed eight studies that used the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test and some measure of performance. The measures of performance included employment, academic and other measures of performance. The true score correlation between scores on the MSCEIT and performance was.19 (k = 8, N = 1,368,! (rho) =.19). 7 Harms and Credé (2010) meta-analyzed four studies in which followers rated their leader on transformational leadership and the leaders completed the MSCEIT. The true score correlation was.05 (k = 4, N = 441,! (rho) =.05). Acquiring the MSCEIT 2 As of 2014, the MSCEIT 2 was available for purchase from Multi-Health Systems, Inc., (MHS) of Toronto, Canada http://www.mhs.com 224!
The Bar-On Model Bar-On based his model on the belief that emotional-social intelligence is a cross section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators that determine how effectively we understand and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands. From about 1990 until 2012, The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) was the instrument used to measure Bar-On s mixed model of emotional intelligence. Around 2013, an updated version of the EQ-I was released called the. The contains 133 items in the form of short sentences and employs a 5-point response scale with a textual response format ranging from "very seldom or not true of me" (1) to "very often true of me or true of me" (5). Development of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) Face Validity Bar-On originally developed 15 dimensions of emotional intelligence. Using those dimensions and existing literature, Bar-On and a group of experienced healthcare practitioners generated approximately 1,000 items (questions) that might measure these dimensions. Exploratory Factor Analyses Test items were administered to 3,831 North American adults. Through a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFA) using varimax rotation, the 1,000 items were eventually reduced to 133 items believed to load on 15 primary scales. The results, however, produced a 13-factor rather than a 15- factor solution. In the 13-factor solution, the current subscale of assertiveness loaded with the current subscale of independence as one component called assertiveness/independence. Additionally in the 13-factor solution the current subscales of self-regard, happiness, optimism and self-actualization loaded on multiple components. 225
226! Confirmatory Factor Analyses Bar-On next ran two confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). One CFA was run for the combination of self-regard, happiness, optimism and self-actualization and a second for the combination of assertiveness and independence. It is important to note that these CFA s were not run on all 133 items, but rather on the 34 questions that measured aspects of self-regard, happiness, optimism and self-actualization and as a second CFA on the 14 questions that measured assertiveness and independence. When a CFA was run on just the 34 questions measuring self-regard, happiness, optimism and self-actualization, the questions loaded on the four components hypothesized. Similarly, the CFA ran on the 14 questions that measured assertiveness and independence produced the two-factor solution hypothesized. Bar-On elected to treat self-regard, happiness, optimism, self-actualization, assertiveness and independence as six separate factors (subscales). Bar-On s rationale was that this treatment struck the correct, delicate balance between theory and empirical research results. 8 Using the five hypothesized second-order scales of intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management and general mood, Bar- On ran a confirmatory factor analysis to determine the degree to which these five second-order scales loaded on a single EQ-i scale. The CFA supported this fit (GFI =.97, CFI =.98). The factor loadings for intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability and stress management fell in the range of.83 to.90. The factor loading for general mood was.65. 9 Internal Reliability Bar-On has reported overall internal consistency coefficients in the range of.60 to.89 in studies of the 15 subscales across nine international samples. The average Cronbach Alpha scores from these studies ranged from.69 to.85. The overall mean Cronbach Alpha scores across all scales, across all studies was.76. 10 In a university student sample, Dawda and Hart (2000) found the Cronbach Alpha for the overall EQ-i score was 0.96. The Cronbach Alpha scores for the subscales ranged from.69 to.93. Gowing (2001) reported that the average correlation among EQ-i subscales was.50. Brackett and Mayer (2003) found inter-correlations in the range of.32 to.75. Test-Retest Reliability Bar-On (2004) reported test retest reliability of the EQ-i as.72 for males and.80 for females at a six-month interval. Schutte, Malouff, Haggerty, Cooper and Golden (1998) reported a testretest statistic of.78.
Convergent Validity Mayer, Caruso and Salovey (2000) reported that the correlation between the EQ-i and the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS) was.36. Brackett and Mayer (2003) reported that the EQ-i was correlated with the Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test 2.0 at.21 and with the Schutte Self Report Emotional Intelligence Test at.43. Discriminant Validity One of the primary criticisms of the EQ-i is discriminant validity. On the one hand, Bar-On posits that emotional intelligence is a cross section of interrelated emotional and social competencies, skills and facilitators. On the other hand, the total EQ-i score has been correlated at.72 with emotional stability measured by the 1970 Cattell 16PF; at -.57 with neuroticism measured by the NEO-PI; and at -.77 with anxiety measured by the 1993 Cattell 16PF. EQ-i Correlations In a North American Sample 11 Emotional Stability.72 Apprehension -.55 Social Boldness.51 Tension -.44 Dominance.38 Abstractedness -.37 Openness to Change.33 Vigilance -.36 Rule-Consciousness.24 Privateness -.28 Perfectionism.21 Sensitivity Not significant Warmth.20 Self-Reliance Not significant Reasoning Not significant Liveliness Not significant Total EQ-i 12 Male Students 13 Female Students Neuroticism -.57 -.62 -.72 Extraversion.37,.46.52.56 Openness.16 -.12.17 Agreeableness.27.43.43 Conscientiousness.48.51.33 Depression -.57 "#$% Anxiety -.77! Tough-Mindedness -.11! Independence.44! Self-Control.36! Gen Cognitive Ability.08! Psych Well-Being.58 Subj Well-Being.35 Verbal SAT -.03 WAIS 14.12 227
Predictive Validity Van Rooy and Viswesvaran (2004) meta-analyzed 13 studies that used the Emotional Quotient Inventory and some measure of performance. The measures of performance included employment, academic and other measures of performance. The true score correlation between the EQ-i and performance was.20 (k = 13, N = 3,046,! (rho) =.20). 15 Harms and Credé (2010) meta-analyzed four studies in which followers rated their leader on transformational leadership and the leaders completed the EQ-i. The true score correlation was.20 (k = 4, N = 267,! (rho) =.20). Acquiring the EQ-i or As of 2014, the EQ-i or were available for purchase from Multi-Health Systems, Inc., (MHS) of Toronto, Canada http://www.mhs.com 228!