This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Concurrent and incremental validity of three trait emotional intelligence measures
KATHRYN JANE GARDNER & PAMELA QUALTER
School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK
Abstract This study explored concurrent and incremental validity of three trait emotional intelligence measures: the Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale, Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment, and Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. A total of 307 participants were drawn predominantly from community and student populations. Concurrent criterion validity of the measures varied depending on whether emotional intelligence (EI) was assessed as a lower, middle or higher level construct, with validity coefﬁcients being larger for the former. In all cases, the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire was the superior predictor of multiple psychological criteria. At the higher level of assessment, incremental validity beyond (a) age, gender and the Big Five, and (b) the remaining two EI measures, was also superior.
Keywords: Personality, trait emotional intelligence, validity
Trait emotional intelligence (EI) is a constellation of emotion-related self-perceptions at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007) and is typically assessed via selfreport questionnaire. An abundance of trait EI measures now exist, with their validity being subjected to much empirical scrutiny (e.g., Petrides, Perez-Gonzalez, & Furnham, 2007; Saklofske, Aus´ ´ tin, & Minski, 2003). The papers in this special issue provide further examples of these validation studies, covering the associations of trait EI measures with processing style and subjective wellbeing (Schutte et al., 2010), stress and coping (Austin, Saklofske, & Mastoras, 2010), problem behaviours, coping and academic success in adolescence (Downey, Johnston, Hansen, Birney, & Stough, 2010; Hogan et al., 2010), and also EI proﬁles of university students (Sanchez-Ruiz, Perez-Gonzalez, & Petrides, ´ ´ ´ 2010). Few studies, however, have compared the validity of multiple trait EI measures within one study (although some do exist e.g., Bastian, Burns, & Nettelbeck, 2005; Brackett & Mayer, 2003). This hinders conclusions regarding the validity of individual EI instruments due to methodological variation.
Our overriding aim was to conduct such a study. We focused on two pervasive and contentious validity issues. First, we examined concurrent criterion validity of the measures in predicting a range of theoretically relevant psychological constructs. Such ﬁndings aid selection of one trait EI measure over another for predicting speciﬁc criteria. As noted by Petrides, Perez-Gonzalez, et al. (2007), this is ´ ´ important to establish the nomological network of trait EI. Second, incremental validity was tested to explore the range of criteria in which the measures make an incremental contribution. The usefulness of any test is questioned if it cannot account for additional variance in relevant criteria (Garb, 1984), ﬁndings that impact on whether a test is selected over other available measures. When testing incremental validity of trait EI measures, the primary concern has been whether they are incrementally valid beyond theoretically similar constructs such as the Big Five: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness (e.g., Saklofske et al., 2003). More recently Petrides, Perez-Gonzalez, et al. (2007) suggested that ´ ´ because trait EI is a lower order personality trait (lower
Correspondence: Dr K. J. Gardner, School of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire PR1 2HE, UK. E-mail: email@example.com ISSN 0004-9530 print/ISSN 1742-9536 online ª The Australian Psychological Society Ltd Published by Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/00049530903312857
Global scores can also mask the importance of lower level EI facets and attenuate relationships. Helmes. if any. it is important for any comparison of trait EI measures to consider the level at which each test is assessed. 2003). Ten subscales load on three broader factors: (a) self orientation. lower level subscales have narrow bandwidths and utilise the nonrandom variance speciﬁc to these narrow traits. order traits being ones that make up the highest level traits of a hierarchical personality taxonomy). Clearly. empathy and mood redirected attention. empathy... may be superior for the TEIQue because the SEIS and MEIA assess a speciﬁc and limited set of trait EI facets.. Perez-Gonzalez. . There is often inconsistency. and TEIQue with aggression and life satisfaction (Petrides.. & Rothstein. emotion perception (self and others) and relationship skills. As with concurrent validity. Paunonen. Concurrent and incremental validity of the SEIS.g. and utilisation of emotion (e. stress management and impulsiveness (low). measurement reliability is maximised and there is a broader bandwidth. and the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire version 1. 2005). 2005) targets all facets outlined in the Salovey and Mayer (1990) model. there is evidence that validity estimates differ as a function of global versus subscale score usage (e. Thorsteinsson. 2009.. 2003. et al. 2005). Self-motivation and adaptability do not belong to any of the four factors. and (d) sociability: social competence. Gardner & P. From the perspective of trait EI theory the three measures should produce compatible ﬁndings (Petrides. the use of EI subscales beyond the Big Five creates an imbalance between the bandwidth and ﬁdelity at which each measure is assessed (Chapman & Hayslip. however. The SEIS and TEIQue have also been related to clinical variables such as personality disorder (Gardner & Qualter. Chapman & Hayslip. 1990) and some research supports the assessment of four facets: optimism/mood regulation. appraisal of emotions. the MEIA with emotional resilience and life satisfaction (Tett et al. recognition of emotion in others and regulation of emotion in others.. which begs the question of which. et al. 2003). Selected for inclusion in the study were three trait EI measures: the Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale (SEIS) (Schutte et al. The TEIQue includes four compound scales that encompass 15 subscales: (a) wellbeing: happiness. In sum. These relationships are typically moderate in strength. and (c) other orientation. There may be similarity in results for the latter two measures given the same underlying model. Such analyses are also important and test the relative strengths of these measures in predicting criteria. All three trait EI measures have also shown some evidence of incremental validity beyond personality (e. Perez-Gonzalez. 2001). 1995. The SEIS is one of the most widely used trait EI measures based on the earlier ability model of EI (Salovey & Mayer. The TEIQue (Petrides. the SEIS has been associated with loneliness and life satisfaction (Saklofske et al. This broader bandwidth can result in the prediction of a wider range of criteria. Why such comparisons are made difﬁcult is explained by Ones and Viswesvaran (1996): when higher level facets or global constructs are used. is a superior measure. Perez-Gonzalez.6 K.50 (TEIQue) (Petrides. 2005). 2007). 2009) is a broadly deﬁned comprehensive measure that covers all facets of trait EI as postulated by the Petrides and Furnham (2001) framework. (c) emotionability: emotion expression. J. Validity estimates.. & Wang. ´ ´ et al.g. Jackson. across studies regarding the use of lower level trait EI subscales or higher level global scores. 2007).. it should share large proportions of variance with the Big Five and only be incrementally valid beyond emotionally laden variables.g. TEIQue: Petrides.. MEIA: Tett et al. 2009). 1998). ´ ´ 2007). recognition of emotion in the self. (b) emotional sharing. et al.. Qualter For example. differential treatment of trait EI measures regarding global versus subscale score usage across studies hinders our understanding of the incremental validity of these tests.g. 2005). optimism and self-esteem. the Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment (MEIA) (Tett. Moreover. For the SEIS in particular incremental power appears limited and may be criterion speciﬁc (e. Paunonen & Ashton. (b) self-control: control/emotion regulation. making it difﬁcult to compare ﬁndings. assertiveness and emotion management (others). & Rooke. Perez-Gonzalez.. The focus on incremental validity beyond personality has meant that little attention has been paid to the incremental validity of particular trait EI measures beyond others.. Malouff. 2007). they therefore typically afford greater predictive precision due to increased instrument ﬁdelity (e. but are often higher for broadly deﬁned measures such as the TEIQue.. Saklofske et al. Fox. regulation of emotion in the self and intuition versus reason. Petrides. Bhullar. irrespective of the ´ ´ underlying model. The MEIA (Tett et al. 2005. consisting of motivating emotions. In contrast. but instrument ﬁdelity (similar to validity) tends to be moderate. social skills.g. ´ ´ 2007). SEIS: Saklofske et al. however.. consisting of non-verbal emotional expression. Ashton. This pattern is consistent with the results of a recent meta-analysis (Schutte.. MEIA and TEIQue All three measures (although less so for the MEIA) have been related to a range of psychological criteria.. Chapman & Hayslip. consisting of creative thinking. 2005).
and reported themselves as ‘‘white British’’ (89.. the majority had not been investigated in terms of relationships with our three chosen EI measures. & Roy.9%). Internal consistencies in this sample were . as a further test of incremental validity. Internal consistencies in this sample were . drug abuse and eating pathology attempts to regulate emotion. variables were chosen that may relate to emotional experience and have some affective relevance. alcohol and drug abuse and eating pathology. .97 (total score).5%). hours or days after completing Session 1. Internal consistencies in this sample were . ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Criterion selection In selecting the criterion measures. SD ¼ 12. Saklofske et al. they are unlikely to be equally valid indicators (Grucza & Goldberg. ranging from completely disagree to 7 completely agree. 1998) includes 33 items that assess global trait EI and four facets (as previously described). 2007). rated on a 6-point Likert scale.2%). rated using a 7-point Likert scale.86 (four subscales). or were not employed (9. The sample consisted of 310 (74 male) UK native English speakers aged 18–79 (M ¼ 36. The MEIA was completed on a separate website hosted by the test developer (R.. 2003) and the Big Five. measured by life satisfaction and happiness (note that effect sizes may vary as a function of affective relevance of the criterion: Petrides.82–.3%).e.90 (total score) and . Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. other public sector (17.Validity of trait emotional intelligence measures Aims Although multiple measures of a construct are useful. 2005) includes 10 facets and three higher order EI factors (as previously described). Positive associations were anticipated with indicators of wellbeing. Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment. To reduce respondent burden. The 116-item MEIA (Tett et al. Leroy. Most participants were educated up to General Certiﬁcate in Secondary (high school) Education level (94. ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. International Personality Item Pool. Perez-Gonzalez. that is. four higher order factors and a global score (as previously described).. the size of the validity coefﬁcients). This 50-item questionnaire is a broad-bandwidth public-domain personality scale adapted from the International Method Design The study used a Web-based approach to data collection. The study had three aims: the ﬁrst aim was to compare concurrent criterion validity of the trait EI instruments with each assessed at the same hierarchical level or approximately comparable levels of speciﬁcity (Chapman & Hayslip. those with duplicate email addresses. loneliness. academic sector (31. Participants responded using a 5-point Likert scale. 2007. The SEIS (Schutte et al.. the Big Five and psychological functioning. In addition. and evaluations of how happy or satisﬁed one is may be inﬂuenced by low levels of trait EI. ´ ´ 7 measures of trait EI.71–.g. A total of 35% were students. 2007).3%). women and different age groups may differ on trait EI e.. Luminet.70 years.95 (total score).9%). Measures Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale. 2005). Second. were deleted. A large percentage were from the northwest of England (53. with highest percentages working in health services (8. Occupations were diverse.90–.94 (15 subscales) and . for which the participants completed . We considered the range of criteria predicted and the ability to predict each criterion (i. Global EI scores were used here so as to avoid imbalance between bandwidth and ﬁdelity of the EI and personality measures. Mikolajczak. we aimed to provide a stringent approach to testing incremental validity in predicting criteria by partialling out variance from demographic variables (age and gender because men. Tett). physical aggression may indicate a failure to manage emotions.. 2009) assesses 15 trait EI facets.90 (10 subscales) and 89–.05). This study extends the literature by providing an empirical evaluation of concurrent and incremental validity of multiple trait EI measures in predicting a range of criteria.95 (four higher order factors). In conducting these analyses we also addressed the issue of bandwidth and ﬁdelity to provide a fairer comparison of validity across measures. Participants identiﬁed as submitting multiple data sets.91 (three higher order factors). et al. using global EI scores we examined the capacity of one of the three measures to increment the other two when predicting the criteria. . Negative associations were anticipated between trait EI and aggression. The 153item TEIQue (Petrides. Third. For example. at the time of selecting these criteria (2004).63–. the study was conducted in two sessions whereby participants could return to the website to complete the second half minutes. Participants A mixed community and student sample was used.3%).
77. all ps 5 .90. Internal consistency in this sample was . This questionnaire includes 35 dichotomous yes/no items that screen for alcohol-related problems (Hurt. 2003) and entry into a £100 prize draw.89. Internal consistency in this sample was . & Best. Openness. Satisfaction With Life Scale. The test assesses the higher order Big Five factors (Neuroticism. 1985). we compared adjusted multiple R2 (R2 ) to adjust for the number adj of predictors across all regression models. Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults–Short form. anger and hostility. a 6-point Likert scale ranging from not at all to extremely.84). 1980). but one example is not very happy person to very happy person. Stice. 2004). a more stringent alpha of . an EI workbook (Qualter. Self-Administered Alcoholism Screening Test. A 5-point Likert scale is used. Brannen. Internal consistency in this sample was . producing a revised N ¼ 307 (Tabachnick & Fidell. middle and higher level] and the 11 criterion variables is available upon request from the ﬁrst author. The scale ranges from very inaccurate to very accurate.) Notably. (The correlation matrix between all components of the three trait EI measures [lower. Main analyses Concurrent validity. For descriptive purposes we examined convergence among the three trait EI measures (restricted to global scores to keep the number of correlations to a minimum).95. Morse.8 K. 1992) contains 29 items assessing self-reported physical aggression. & Grifﬁn. but the latter item (addressing amenorrhea) was omitted from the scoring procedure in this study to produce a score suitable for both male and female subjects (E. Internal consistency in this sample was . Prior to analysis three cases identiﬁed as multivariate outliers were deleted.91. verbal aggression. Subjective Happiness Scale.90. Table I shows the standard multiple regression results at three hierarchical levels. Larsen. Extraversion. The composite score is based on items 1–18 and item 21. 1999) is a fouritem measure of subjective happiness rated using a 7-point Likert scale. unadjusted R2 were highly similar or identical. Procedure All participants completed the questionnaires via a website and provided demographic information. Telch. 2000) is a 22-item self-report questionnaire. & Swenson. & Gardner. A 7-point Likert scale is used. Participants were provided with incentives for participating.77–. The statements at each end of the scale differ.89–.01 was used to control Type I error. freely available and publicly accessible.) Given that the purpose of these analyses was to compare concurrent criterion validity rather than determine which subscales explain the criteria. Gardner & P. Internal consistencies in this sample were .36). for all criteria the strongest correlation was always with a component of the TEIQue. ranging Results Data screening and preliminary analyses Missing values were estimated using person mean substitution. 2001).80–. Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) on a 5-point Likert scale. After Session 2 participants received scores and feedback on their trait EI (using the SEIS). 1999). Response formats vary. (The table of beta weights for Step 3 of all analyses in Table I is available upon request from the ﬁrst author.001).73). This is a well-established questionnaire that includes ﬁve items that assess life satisfaction (Diener. After Session 1 these included scores and feedback on their levels of happiness and life satisfaction. Personality Item Pool (Golberg. There was high convergence among the measures: SEIS and MEIA (r ¼ . MEIA and TEIQue (r ¼ . Internal consistencies in this sample were . In these and the incremental validity analyses the average adjusted squared multiple correlation . This questionnaire includes 15 items and three subscales assessing self-reported emotional loneliness (family and romantic) and social loneliness. Whiteley. Internal consistencies in this sample were . The Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry. J. Aggression Questionnaire. At the component level [lower and middle level]. variance inﬂation factors 5 4. Unlike the NEO.89. personal communication. Eating Disorders Diagnostic Scale. ranging from extremely uncharacteristic of me to extremely characteristic of me.85. Emmons. this test is brief. Qualter from strongly disagree to strongly agree. for example. In interpreting our results. The Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper. The Eating Disorders Diagnostic Scale (Stice. & Rizvi. SEIS and TEIQue (r ¼ . rated using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (DiTommaso.76. as recommended in Hawthorne and Elliot (2005). For all regression models multicollinearity among predictors did not appear to be present (r 5 . 14 July 2005). or a dichotomous yes/no format.
19** Validity of trait emotional intelligence measures 9 Notes: EI ¼ emotional intelligence.21** .11** .41** 4 10 15 .42** . (xx) Figures for models with TEIQue happiness items excluded due to high theoretical overlap with the criterion.10** . TEIQue ¼ Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire.01 .04** .06** .06** .26** .05** .07** .19** .40** . .25** .00 .28** .74** (.18 .15 .11** 7.29** .15** . **p 5 .21** . a N ¼ 289 due to pairwise deletion of data for respondents who had made no attempt to complete the alcohol abuse questionnaire.01.04** .06** .10** .46** .21) Higher (global) level constructs SEIS MEIA TEIQue .02* .18** .29** .25** .45** .42** .43** .42** .22** .07** .11** .25** .50** (. Adjusted squared multiple correlation coefﬁcients for predicting psychological functioning from EI measures Inventory k Physical aggression Anger Hostility Verbal aggression Social loneliness Family loneliness Romantic loneliness Eating disorder Alcohol abusea Happiness Life Satisfactionb Mean R2 adj .02 .05** .22** .32 (.14** .40 (.46** . subscales.20** .27** .47** .08** . k ¼ no. b N ¼ 306 due to pairwise deletion of data for one respondent who had made no attempt to complete the life satisfaction questionnaire.05** 1 1 1 Middle level constructs MEIA TEIQue .001.01 .09** .46**) .25 .19) Mean signiﬁcant R2 adj .31** .35** .00 .57** .36) – – – .23 (.52** .06** .21** . MEIA ¼ Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment.00 .18** .15 .64** (.32** .21 (. SEIS ¼ Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale.46** .06** .28) .26** .08** .30** .36** .55**) .37** . *p 5 .63**) .00 .11 .Table I.34** .04** .21** .16** .17 .07** .00 .20** .35** .16** .28** .40** .12** .13** 3 4 .11** .19 – – – Lower level constructs SEIS MEIA TEIQue .11 .35** .27** .16** .
At each hierarchical level and on average the TEIQue was the strongest predictor of all 11 criteria (one exception includes the higher level analyses in which no EI measure predicted signiﬁcant variance in verbal aggression). gender (Step 1) (Cohen & Cohen. in terms of both predictive strength and number of criteria signiﬁcantly predicted. Physical aggression Verbal aggression Anger Hostility Social loneliness Family loneliness Romantic loneliness Eating disorder Alcohol abusea .24** 25. the Big Five (Step 2) and global trait EI (Step 3) (R2 ) validity coefﬁcient across criteria is also shown. although the adjusted R2 change (DR2 ) for the latter was small.16** .00 10. *p 5 .04** 44. MEIA ¼ Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment.03* 3. 2007).20** .03 .39** .03** 26. however.06) Overall F 7. there was some variation in validity coefﬁcients at the three hierarchical levels. the TEIQue signiﬁcantly predicted small to moderate amounts of variance in all criteria except verbal aggression. and alcohol abuse.00 22.72** .00 5.58** . As shown in Table I. and signiﬁcantly predicted the most criteria as a higher level construct.e.10* .07** 21. although these items also inﬂate validity estimates).95** 4. For each model.09** 23.02 .48** . The SEIS and MEIA were comparable when assessed as higher level constructs.09** 17.01 4.06** . family and romantic loneliness.24** (50. The MEIA only predicted signiﬁcant variance in alcohol abuse. incremental validity beyond age.02 .02 .09** (.78** . was a slightly stronger predictor of some criteria (particularly all components of aggression and romantic loneliness) when lower level subscales were used.02 .10 K. As shown. the variables on Steps 1 and 2 remain the same despite the variables on Step 3 changing (i. Qualter Notes: EI ¼ emotional intelligence.08** .36** 6.05 .08** . and was a better predictor on average. Which measure was a stronger predictor.01 Step 1 R2 adj Step 2 DR2 adj Step 3 SEIS: DR2 adj Overall F Step 3 MEIA: DR2 adj Overall F Step 3 TEIQue DR2 adj .06 .36** 7.01 . As shown in Table II. Both the MEIA and TEIQue signiﬁcantly predicted all 11 criteria when assessed at the middle or lower level.17** .30** .11** 7.11 (.00 .12** .01 . The MEIA. b N ¼ 306 due to pairwise deletion of data for one respondent who had made no attempt to complete the life satisfaction questionnaire.10**) .11** . This was still the case when the TEIQue happiness items were removed when predicting the happiness criterion (TEIQue optimism items were not removed due to a lack of direct conceptual overlap. TEIQue ¼ Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire.01. adj as an evaluative index that combines both bandwidth and ﬁdelity (Grucza & Goldberg. First. adj Second. but again the amount was small.17** 7. results for Steps 1 and 2 are presented only once.01 . a N ¼ 289 due to pairwise deletion of data for respondents who had made no attempt to complete the alcohol abuse questionnaire.53** 10.00 . thus.16** . The TEIQue performed slightly better still.11** .07 (.00 3.00 .22** 7. J. Mean signiﬁcant DR2 adj Adjusted squared multiple correlation coefﬁcients for psychological functioning with gender. Gardner & P.05** 8.02 . **p 5 . 1983) and the Big Five (Step 2) was explored. SEIS ¼ Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale.26** .58** 7. with larger numbers of predictors producing higher adjusted multiple R2. (xx) Figures for models with TEIQue happiness items excluded due to high theoretical overlap with the criterion.04 Happiness Variables Table II. we tested the relative strengths of the three measures by examining the ability of each to increment the other two (Table III). In contrast.37** . three different sets of EI variables). social. however.81** . predicting larger amounts of signiﬁcant variance in these six criteria. age (Step 1).00 5.07** 4.02* .85** 5.06** 48..001.49** .06** .06** 7.02 .29** 22.00 10. the SEIS and MEIA signiﬁcantly predicted modest degrees of unique variance in the same six criteria: hostility. happiness and life satisfaction.03** 26. global SEIS predicted small amounts of signiﬁcant variance in social loneliness and eating disorder.09) .04** .17** . was a function of the criterion predicted.18** .01 .74** . Discussion This study examined concurrent and incremental validity of three trait EI measures.93** .09** .07**) 55.01 7.07** 9.00 25. Incremental validity.53** .06** 15. taking into account Mean DR2 adj Life Satisfactionb .17** .06** .81** 32.14** .50** 13.15** 7. The use of global scores ensured consistency with the Big Five in terms of the speciﬁcity at which each are assessed.00 7.82** .94** 32.
10 (.01 .00 .01.21** .04** 13.01 7.00 .23** .18**) 106.91 Verbal aggression Social loneliness Family loneliness Romantic loneliness Eating disorder Alcohol abusea Happiness Life Satisfactionb .02* .08** Hostility . TEIQue: R2 adj .51** (.29** (.19** 74.01) .01 .46**) .00 .07** 9.50** (. . Adjusted squared multiple correlation coefﬁcients predicting psychological functioning with two trait EI measures on Step 1 and one on Step 2 Physical aggression Anger .03* .07** Step 2: SEIS: DR2 adj 7.22** .41** .42**s .00 7.96** .02* .73** .08** . *p 5 .01 .04* .46** Mean DR2 adj Mean signiﬁcant DR2 adj Step 1: MEIA.01 7.00 1. TEIQue: R2 adj .02* . MEIA ¼ Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment.00 .001.40** .03) ¨ adj Step 1: SEIS. TEIQue ¼ Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire.08** .11** .35** . (xx) Figures for models with TEIQue happiness items excluded due to high theoretical overlap with the criterion.17** .29** .03 (.11**) Validity of trait emotional intelligence measures 11 Notes: EI ¼ emotional intelligence.22** .16** .01) . **p 5 .06** .00 (.00 . MEIA R2 .08) .00 .46**) .40** .00 .09** 69.07** Step 2: MEIA: DR2 adj 7.77** .11** .01 .05** .08** 7.00) .73** 59.66** .18** .10** 12.00 7.00 (.19** .00 . a N ¼ 289 due to pairwise deletion of data for respondents who had made no attempt to complete the alcohol abuse questionnaire.37** .95** 29.02) Step 1: SEIS.10** .00 . c For each criterion variables the overall F is equivalent across the three sets of predictors.00 (.02 (.07** (88.09) Overall Fc 7. SEIS ¼ Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale.14** 23.02 .00 .00 .Table III.00) .01 (.00 7.29**) .00 . b N ¼ 306 due to pairwise deletion of data for one respondent who had made no attempt to complete the life satisfaction questionnaire.11 (.04** Step 2: TEIQue: DR2 adj .22** (.26** .
Paunonen & Ashton. Petrides. Conclusion For researchers interested in using trait EI inventories for prediction... although there is no guarantee that more variables will add substantially to prediction. 2007). It is interesting that average validity coefﬁcients were comparable for the SEIS and MEIA when assessed as higher level constructs with only slight differences across individual criteria. and criteria for which the shorter and freely available SEIS is an equally valid and alternative indicator of trait EI (brief scales save time in testing and also avoid participant boredom and fatigue). G. where each EI measure carried only one degree of freedom and the TEIQue was unable to capitalise on chance associations. N. R. D. For researchers wishing to assess a limited and speciﬁc set of components. These positive ﬁndings regarding the TEIQue’s incremental validity are in accordance with past studies (e. V. middle or higher level constructs. This may arise.. H. Journal of Research in Personality. Personality and Individual Differences. and exam-related stress in Canadian undergraduate students. It is important for future research to determine the range of criteria in which the MEIA is a superior predictor.. This may result from the broader theoretical domain of the TEIQue. 42–50. For criteria for which predictive power of both measures is comparable. (1995).. (2010). M. Differential incremental validity was also documented via tests of the capacity of one EI measure to increment the other two. 29.g. Jackson. In addition. & Rothstein. (2005). for the lower and middle levels of assessment this is not surprising because measures with more subscales have a predictive edge. S. T. these data suggest that the TEIQue should be used. C.12 K. Helmes. Moreover. that these were stringent tests of incremental validity given the use of (a) multiple control variables. et al. results that are consistent with past literature in the personality ﬁeld (e. 2001) and the bandwidth–ﬁdelity trade-off. Statistically speaking. N. Austin. 2001). There was also some suggestion that the SEIS and MEIA (although more so the former) assess something unique in speciﬁc criteria and enhance predictions beyond the other EI measures. 39. either signiﬁcantly predicting a broader range of criteria than the MEIA and SEIS (mainly at the higher level of assessment). 62. The MEIA and SEIS produced fairly similar-sized validity coefﬁcients and the TEIQue demonstrated superior incremental power. It is worth noting too. Emotional intelligence predicts life skills. Emotional intelligence. coping. the MEIA and SEIS (both based on the Salovey & Mayer  model) appear to be equally valid measures of global trait EI. that in some cases each . it was still stronger. the three measures were incrementally associated with approximately half of the criteria. Thus. all three measures were related to a range of criteria.g. Paunonen. In the latter case trait EI carries only one degree of freedom and is being pitted against ﬁve personality factors that carry ﬁve degrees of freedom and are measured at similar bandwidths. Ashton et al. however. because the MEIA includes more subscales than the SEIS. V. which may inﬂate validity coefﬁcients. H. E. Australian Journal of Psychology. Regarding incremental validity. EI may be better assessed by the MEIA for some criteria given stronger predictive power.. however. D.. Future research should assess incremental validity of these EI measures at lower levels of assessment and beyond lower level personality facets. References Ashton. 1995. however. at least out of the three trait EI measures given and in the context of the present criterion variables. S. 1135–1145. Related to this point. but the former is more useful when using lower level facets to predict criteria. When assessing lower level facets. which carries only four degrees of freedom.. M. In support of concurrent validity. A. as in this case (Paunonen & Ashton. & Mastoras.. 432–442. Of all measures. Gardner & P. where again the TEIQue performed best. Validity coefﬁcients were maximised for lower levels of assessment. for others such as aggression it is only a substitute for measuring the real construct. bandwidth and ﬁdelity to conduct a fairer comparison across measures. These ﬁndings show important information regarding what psychological criteria each measure is incrementally associated with. happiness and life satisfaction).. Saklofske. the prediction of non-self-report-based criterion measures will avoid the problems of common method variance. the TEIQue was a superior predictor at each level. The criterion validity of broad factor scales versus speciﬁc facet scales. even at the higher levels of assessment (global scores). M.. Bastian.g.. 1983). J. ´ ´ It is also clear.. under the law of parsimony it is preferable to use fewer factors (the SEIS) if they are equally good indicators of trait EI (Gorsuch. regardless of whether they were assessed as lower. but not as well as personality and cognitive abilities. J. & Nettelbeck. Burns. Perez-Gonzalez. and (b) a global trait EI score. Qualter measure was redundant and unable to increase predictions (this is not to say that the measures have little explanatory value). although self-report may be an appropriate assessment method for some criteria (e. or being a consistently stronger predictor (as evidenced by higher average validity coefﬁcients). there may be little advantage in using one of these measures over the other if the aim is to assess global trait EI.
99–119. J. W. P.. P. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. H. and binge-eating disorder. A. Applied multiple regression/correlation for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed. & F.. Incremental validity of a measure of emotional intelligence. Mikolajczak. 185–211. S. 524–539. 29. Petrides & Furnham. European Journal of Personality. (1983). (2007). C. & Qualter. & Wang. P.. K. S. 49. J. Luminet. & Perry. J.Validity of trait emotional intelligence measures Brackett. Thorsteinsson. A. (2005). Hogan.. (2007). R. A. L. 26–55. 12. E. V. (2007). M. Paunonen. J. C. 4. (1996). Malouff. Investigating the mediating effects of emotional intelligence and coping on problem behaviours in adolescents. 167–187. (2005). K. & Best. Bhullar. V. Diagnosis of alcoholism with a Self-Administered Alcoholism Screening Test: Results with 1. Stice. R. N. (2010). R. S. 62. The comparative validity of 11 modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts. M. 46. E. Fox. Telch. J. 39. K. & Viswesvaran. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. R. E. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. Hansen. Hawthorne. 1147– 1158. Downey. Australian Journal of Psychology. A.. 921–933. I. The Aggression Questionnaire. 21. . (2005).. F. Malouff... & Rizvi. T. K. Johnston. B. K. R. Leroy. 1–30. J. 94–98. Technical manual for the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires (TEIQue). reliability. Garb. 89. M. 167–177. G. Social Indicators Research. Emmons. R. (2003). C. 7– 28). Schutte... 47. Larsen. How to make emotional intelligence work for you: A workbook.. W. Ostendorf (Eds. R.. Imagination. (1984). (1992). Cooper. Deary. 123–131. Petrides. & Furnham. D. C. Saklofske. Australian Journal of Psychology. & Stough. (2000). C. M. & Fidell. & Grifﬁn. 39–57. Factor analysis (2nd ed. 71–75. Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Brannen. (2007). and clinical indicators. The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. P. Grucza. & Furnham.. E. 81... D. J. et al. J. 137–155. M. Salovey. construct. B. P. J.. Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. 2003): Factor structure.... F. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health. Psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue. B. Mervielde.. (2007). Personality psychology in Europe (pp. K. 17. Development and validation of a self-report measure of emotional intelligence as a multidimensional trait domain. S. J.. D. and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Measurement and validity characteristics of the short version of the Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults. Buss. Gorsuch. H. & Mayer. 31. Trait emotional intelligence proﬁles of students from different university faculties.. M. L.). J. M. & Hayslip B. European Journal of Personality.). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Whiteley. E. E.... 85. 88. V. H. 13 Ones. 365–370. A broad-bandwidth. Chapman. A.. J. 338–353. C. & Goldberg. (1998).. social support and emotional intelligence. 51–57. Emotional intelligence and borderline personality disorder. A. Foster. S. & Mayer. H. E. Big ﬁve factors and faces and the prediction of behavior. E. British Journal of Psychology. Golden. L. & Cohen. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum. Birney. Personality and Individual Differences. E. Morse. (1990). 63. & Gardner. & Swenson. (2001). P. Perez-Gonzalez. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. C.). D. K. D. Diener. 17.. (2004). 20–29. Sanchez-Ruiz. L.. A. K. Australian Journal of Psychology. S... Cauchi. 425–448. Tilburg. & Furnham. (2003). & Minski. bulimia. K. R. S. Hall. London: London Psychometric Laboratory. Journal of Personality Assessment. Lyubomirsky.. Gardner. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. C. Experiential and rational processing styles. A.. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (2009). Perez-Gonzalez. 55. Personality and Individual Differences. L. L. O. V. Personality and Individual Differences. S. J. Qualter.... & Oke. emotional intelligence and wellbeing. M. Clinical Psychology Review. C. Wood. Schutte.. Petrides. Unpublished manuscript. 14–19. Hillsdale. In I. (2010). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 9. S. Imputing cross-sectional missing data: Comparison of common techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 641– 655..002 consecutive patients receiving general examinations. Cognition and Personality.. Hurt. M. Using multivariate statistics (4th ed. S. Journal of Personality Assessment. S. & Rooke.. N.. G. Watters. (1999). Mayo Clinic Proceedings. informant reports. D. Psychological Assessment.. P. Australian Journal of Psychology. 62. (2010). A. Jr. P. Development and validation of the Eating Disorder Diagnostic Scale: A brief selfreport measure of anorexia. Wiener. Emotional intelligence. Petrides. (1980).. The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several Five-Factor models. V.). 583–590. V. A. B. F. & Kokkinaki. J. (2001). L. Journal of Personality Assessment. Petrides. On the ´ ´ criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. 273–289. Petrides. Schutte... Convergent. R. 25.. N. Cognition and Emotion. P.. K.. L. Tabachnick. discriminant. N. DiTommaso. & Ashton.. Austin. A. M. J. C.. 154–169... & Binns.. Personality and Individual Differences. & Petrides. 64.. & Roy. 62. De Fruyt. (1985). & Elliott. Cohen. (1999).. (2009). 707–721. (1983)... J. 34. 42. 62. Thorsteinsson. A. C. & Lepper. E. Educational and Psychological Measurement. A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. 609–626. 15. (2003). Golberg L. public-domain. and incremental validity in a French-speaking population.. Hine. Journal of Personality Assessment. (2003). H. 452–459.. N. ´ ´ ´ (2010). Academic success in adolescence: Relationships among verbal IQ. Haggerty. J. Parker. (2001). S. M. Tett.. R. A. R. J. J. C. D. Pita. 98. Bandwidth-ﬁdelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. The incremental validity of information used in personality assessment. 30–41.
. users may print. However. download. or email articles for individual use.Copyright of Australian Journal of Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.