American Psychological Association 2008 Convention Presentation

Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment

Scale: Construct and Incremental Validity

RALPH L. PIEDMONT, Loyola College I n Maryland

ELAINE M. BAIN, Loyola College I n Maryland
MARTIN F. SHERMAN, Loyola College I n Maryland
NANCY C. SHERMAN, Villa Julie College
JOSEPH E.G. WILLIAMS, Eastern Illinois University

Topics: 51.3 personality measurement; 42.2 test construction

 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 1

The Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment Scale: Construct and

Incremental Validity

Ralph L. Piedmont, Elaine M . Bain, Martin F. Sherman

Loyola College in Maryland

Nancy C. Sherman

V i l l a Julie College

Joseph E. G. Williams

Eastern Illinois University

Note. Correspondence regarding this paper should be directed to Dr. Ralph L. Piedmont,
Department o f Pastoral Counseling, Loyola College i n Maryland, 8890 M c G a w Raod,
Suite 380, Columbia, M D 21045 or via e-mail at: rpiedmont@loyola.edu.
 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 2

Emotional Intelligence has developed into a household w o r d since Goleman's

(1995) seminal work. The definition o f emotional intelligence (EI) has expanded over

time and continues to undergo change. Typically, E I is defined i n terms o f emotional

empathy, awareness, and discrimination o f one's emotions; accurate recognition o f one's

own and others' disposition; and mood management or control over emotions. Bar-On

and Parker (2005) have asserted that Emotional intelligence pertains to the emotional,

personal, and social dimensions o f intelligence.

However, conceptually it is not clear whether E I represents a non-cognitive

measure o f intelligence or a personality dimension, or i f it represents a trait or an ability.

Empirically, questions have arisen over E l ' s construct validity. Cherniss et al. (2006)

have noted that different measures o f E I do not converge w e l l w i t h each other or

consistently w i t h external criteria. The Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence

Assessment ( M E I A ; Tett, Fox, & Wang, 2005) is a next generation measure o f E I that

aims to capture its multidimensional aspects while demonstrating its distinctiveness from

personality. The purpose o f this report was to examine the construct and incremental

validity o f the M E I A .

Method

Participants consisted o f a 281 adults (67 men and 216 women), ranging in age 18

years old to 42 years old ( M =19.58, SD = 3.14). Ethnic composition o f the sample

consisted o f 84.2 % Caucasian, 9.2 % African-American, 2.5 % Hispanic, 2.5 Other 0.4

%, Arabic, 0.4 % Asian and 1.1 % were missing data .

Individuals completed the Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment

( M E I A ) ; the Bradburn Affect Balance Scale ( B r a d b u r n , 1969); a S e l f Actualization

Scale (Jones & C r a n d a l l , 1986); the Life-Satisfaction Scale ( D i e n e r , E m m o n s ,

 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 3

Larsen, & G r i f f i n s , 1985); the Delighted- Terrible Scale ( A n d r e w s & W i t h e y ,

1976); Bipolar Adjective Rating Scale (BARS) developed and validated b y M c C r a e

and Costa (1985), as a measure o f the F F M personality domains; Rosenberg's

(1965) Self-esteem Scale; the Life Orientation Test -Revised (LOT-R) was used to

measure optimism (Carver & Scheier, 2003); the State Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1996).

Results

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the M E I A and alpha reliabilities for

each scale. Two points o f interest here. First, gender differences are observed on several

scales, effects not examined during the development o f this instrument. Second, alpha

reliabilities are consistent w i t h , although somewhat lower than, those reported by Tett et

al. (2005).

A principal components analysis was conducted using the 10 M E I A scales and a

single dimension was extracted. This first unrotated factor explained 3 2 % o f the total

variance, and 9 o f the ten scales loaded significantly on the dimension (e.g., > .30); only

Regulate Emotions in Self did not load (eigenvector = .27). This suggests that the scales

evidence substantial overlap. This raises the question, " D o the M E I A scales have

sufficient uniquely reliable variance to warrant their separate interpretation?"

Variance Decomposition o f M E I A Subscales

In order to determine the relative uniqueness o f the scales, each subscale's

variance was broken down into four components: reliable variance (denoted b y a), error

variance (1 - a), common variance (which represents the amount o f shared variance each

M E I A scale shares i n common w i t h the others, denoted by the R2 obtained from

regressing each M E I A scale on the remaining subscales), and uniquely reliable variance,

which is the amount o f non-shared, reliable variance (obtained b y a - R ). The

 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 4

breakdown o f the M E I A scales' variances is presented i n Table 2. The M E I A scales share

w i t h the other subscales between 15% and 48% o f their variance ( M = 35%). Kaufman

(1975) suggested that for a scale to warrant specific interpretation, the uniquely reliable

variance should be greater than the error variance and should account for at least one

quarter o f the total variance. Inspecting Table 2 reveals that all o f the M E I A scales meet

this criterion. Thus, despite a significant amount o f overlap, these scales contain

sufficient variance to support their individual interpretation.

Construct Validity

Table 3 presents the correlations between the M E I A scales and the F F M domains.

There are numerous associations across the two instruments. The last column summarizes

the extent to which each M E I A scale overlaps w i t h the five personality domains. Overlap

ranges from 4 % shared variance to 53% (Mean = 25%). The last row o f the table presents

the extent to which each o f the five personality domains are involved across the 10 M E I A

scales. Personality shares between 32% (Agreeableness) and 53% (Openness) w i t h these

dimensions (Mean = 40%). I n comparing the actual inter-scale correlations w i t h those

presented by Tett et al. (2005), 31 o f the 50 correlations (62%) are replicated here.

The M E I A scales were correlated w i t h several psychosocial outcomes

surrounding three themes: satisfaction w i t h life; positive psychological values; and

psychological maturity. As can be seen i n Table 4, the M E I A scales have numerous,

significant associations w i t h these outcomes.

Incremental Validity

The above analyses indicate that the M E I A scales share considerable variance in

common w i t h personality, which raises the question, " D o the M E I A scales have

incremental validity over and above established measures o f personality to justify their
 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 5

usage?" To answer this question, a series o f hierarchical multiple regression analyses

were performed, using each o f the outcome variables as the dependent variable. On Step

1 o f the regression, the F F M domains were entered as a block. On Step 2, using forward

entry, the M E I A scales were tested to determine whether any continued to be significant

predictors. The results o f these analyses are presented in Table 5. As can be seen, in each

instance at least one o f the M E I A scales evidence significant incremental validity over

personality. Motivating Emotions appears to be the most consistent predictor.

Discussion

Overall, these results provide psychometric support for the new M E I A scales. The

scales were found to be reliable and to predict a number o f psychologically salient

constructs, even after controlling for the predictive influence o f personality. Although the

M E I A scales have considerable overlap among them, each scale contains sufficient

unique variance to warrant their individual interpretation. The existence o f scales that are

independent o f the F F M domains opens the door to the potential identification o f new

individual difference dimensions.

 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 6

References

Andrews, F. M . , & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators o f well-being: American's

perceptions o f life quality. New York: Plenum.

Bar-On, R., & Parker, J.D.A. (2005). Baron Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth

version. Technical Manual. Canada: Health Systems.

Bradburn, N. M . (1969). The structure o f psychological well-being. Chicago, I L : Aldine.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M . (2003). Optimism. In S J . Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.),

Positive psychological assessment: A handbook o f models and measures, (pp. 75 -

89). Washington, D C : American Psychological Association.

Chermiss, C , Extein, M . , Goleman, D., & Weissberg, R.P. (2006). Emotional

intelligence: What does the research really indicate? Educational Psychologist.,

4 1 , 239-245.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffins, S. (1985). The Satisfaction w i t h

Life Scale. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 71-75.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation o f a short index o f self-actualization.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 63-73.

Kaufman, A . S. (1975). Factor analysis o f the WISC-R at 11 age levels between 6 lA and

16 Vi years. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 135-147.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1985). Updating Norman's "Adequate Taxonomy":
 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 7

Intelligence and personality dimensions i n natural language questionnaires. Journal

o f Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721.

Rosenberg, L. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, N J : Princeton

University Press.

Snyder, C. R., Harris, C , Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M . , Sigmon, S. T.,

Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C , & Harney, P. (1991). The w i l l and the

ways: Development and validation o f an individual differences measure o f hope.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585.

Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A . (2005). Development and validation o f a self-report

measure o f emotional intelligence as a multidimensional trait domain. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3 1 , 859-888.

 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 8

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics by Gender and Alpha Reliabilities f o r Each Multidimensional

Emotional Intelligence Assessment Scale (MEIA).

Men Women
(n = 67) fa = 216)

M E I A SCALE M SD M SD a

Regulate Emotions i n Self 3.88 .83 3.28 .29 -5.37 * * .76

Recognize Emotions i n Self 4.43 .67 4.32 .66 -.86 .83

Recognize Emotions i n Others 4.43 .67 4.32 .66 •1.10 .80

Regulate Emotions i n Others 4.32 .63 4.40 .59 .98 .76

Non-Verbal Emotions
3.79 .75 4.21 .72 4.01** .77
Expression

Empathy 4.20 .71 4.56 .64 3.69** .67

Intuition vs Reason 3.63 .76 3.78 .60 1.46 .75

Creative Thinking 3.69 .72 3.51 .69 -1.85 .76

Mood Redirected Attention 4.41 .70 4.51 .63 1.03 .70

Motivating Emotions 4.62 .63 4.44 .61 -2.08* .75

:^.<0.05; * * p < .01; two-tailed.

 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 9

Table 2

The Variance Decomposition o f the Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment

Scales.

Variance Elements
M E I A Scale a R2* a -R2 1-a
Recognize Emotions i n Self .76 .48 .28 .24
Regulate Emotions i n Self .83 .33 .50 .17
Recognize Emotions i n Others .80 .41 .39 .20
Regulate Emotions i n Others .76 .47 .29 .24
Non- verbal Emotion Expression .77 .48 .29 .23

.67 .33 .34 .33

Empathy

.75 .26 .49 .25

Intuition Vs Reason

Creative Thinking .76 .26 .50 .24

M o o d redirected Attention .70 .15 .55 .30

Motivating Emotions .75 .31 .44 .25

a r>2
R values are based on each MEIA scale's overlap with the remaining M E I A Scales.
 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 10

Table 3
Correlations between the Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment Subscales
and the Domains o f the Five-Factor Model.

MEIA
Scale Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness R2

Kecognize _ 99** 34** 67 17* 21**

Emotion in
Self

iv^uiai^ ^ 57** 13* 00 27** 15*

Emotions in
Self

Kecognize _.07
Cil . 2029**** . 3a0n**** ns
.08 on**
.20*
Emotions in
Others

iv^uiaic; _24** 51** 19** 23** 26**

Emotions i n
Others

Nonverbal ^ ^^ 45** Q0 34** ^9** -^

Emotions
Express

Empathy .05 .14* .05 .40** .14* .22 * *

Intuition Vs .11 .22** .28** .07 -.18** .15**

Reason

Creative .04 .21** .72** .07 -.13* .53**

Thinking

Mood 04*
I * , * .05 .06 .16** .03 .09
Redirected
Attention

Motivating -.24** .28** .11 .14* .52** .33**

Emotions

R2 .38** .39** .53** .32** .36**

N = 283. */> < .05; * * p < .01; two-tailed.

 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 11

Table 4

Correlations between the MEIA Scales and Measures ofLife Satisfaction, Psychological Maturity, and Positive Psychological Status.

Positive Negative Satisfaction Self- Self-

MEIA Scale Affect Affect With Life Delite Actualization Esteem Hope Optimism
Recognize Emotions: Self .16** _ 22*** 24*** ay*** 25*** 42*** 23*** 32***
Regulate Emotions: Self 11 _ 4Q*** 24*** 22*** 36*** 34*** 22*** 27***
Recognize Emotions: Other 11 .01 .07 .15* 16** 24*** 15* 15**
Regulate Emotions: Other 18** . 19** 3Q*** 37*** 3^*** 33*** 33*** 3Q***
Nonverbal Emotional Express -|7** -.13* 24*** 2g*** 11 .26*** 19*** 27***
Empathy 10 .04 .09 .10 03 .11 15* 15*
Intuition vs Reasoning 06 .03 -.02 .02 12* .00 .04 04
Creative Thinking 14* -.02 .01 .02 22*** .06 07 06
Mood Redirected Attention 18** .07 .06 .07 07 .11 13* 11
Motivating Emotions 34*** -.26*** an*** 4/c*** 08 52*** 55*** 43***

N = 284. * p < .05; ** p < .01; two-tailed.

 Measuring Emotional Intelligence 12
Table 5

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Incremental Validity o f the M E I A

Scales over the F F M Personality Domains.

FFM MEIA Partial

Outcome R2 AR2 F M E I A Predictors
Life Satisfaction
Positive Affect ny** .08 13.13*** Motem, M R A
Negative Affect 24*** .03 12.58*** RegSlf
Satisfaction w i t h L i f e 39*** .03 13.53*** Motem
Delighted-Terrible 37*** .05 26.04*** Motem
Psychological Maturity
Self-Actualization 21*** .06 10 7 9 * * * Regslf, regemoth
S elf-Esteem 42*** .09 15.05*** M o t e m , recslf, emp
Positive Psychological Status
Hope 23*** .10 41.81*** Motem
Optimism an*** .05 21.02*** motem

Note. F F M = Five-Factor Model o f Personality; M E I A ^ M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l Emotional

Intelligence Assessment; Motem=motivating emotions; regslf=regulate emotions o f self;
M R A = m o o d redirected attention; regemot^regulate emotions o f others; recslf=recognize
emotions i n self; emp=empathy.

** p < . 0 1 ; ***/?<.001.