RECOMMENDATIONS

The capacity for emotional intelligence is essential for success in education, employment,
personal development as well as interpersonal relationships. Both the EQi2.0 and the
MSCEIT are adequately valuable assessments for measuring emotional intelligence. In the
cultural context of South Africa, with its rich and wonderful diversity, quite plenty of factors
are taken into consideration, to determine the most appropriate assessment to measure
emotional intelligence. These factors include the cultural context, psychometric properties,
administrative procedure, cost and availability of each measurement assessment.

Cultural Context and Applicability

Perceiving and comprehending emotions differ across cultures; hence, culture plays a
significant role on how individuals perceive and understand their emotions. South Africa is a
diverse country that comprises of different languages, ethnic groups, races, traditions, as well
as religions. The EQi2.0 has particularly been adapted for different cultures, including South
Africa, making it more relevant and applicable for its cultural context. Cultural adaptation
involves modifying the assessment to ensure that it is culturally appropriate and sensitive to
the cultural norms, values, and experiences of the target population (Van de Viljver & Tanzer,
2004).

As much as the MSCEIT ‘is the most widely used ability measure of El’, it is commonly not
used in the South African context (Nel et al., 2015). Furthermore, the MSCEIT, while
designed to be culturally neutral, may not fully capture the nuances of emotional intelligence
in the South African context. South Africa comprises of numerous collectivist cultures, which
are centred more on maintaining group harmony and strong interpersonal relationships than
on individual emotional expression (Nicholas, 2021). Individualistic perspectives are central
to the MSCEIT and may not fully resonate with the cultural values of South Africa (OpenAI,
2024). Hence using the MSCEIT in the South African context, has a potential for cultural
limitations. Moreover, the MSCEIT evaluates emotional intelligence based on a Western
perspective of emotions, which might not fully align with the cultural norms and values in
South Africa (OpenAI, 2024). Thus, the EQi2.0 is a more appropriate assessment as cultural
relevance and broad applicability across diverse populations in South Africa are crucial
considerations.
Administrative Procedure and Practicality

The EQ-i2.0 is a self-report questionnaire that is easy to administer and score. It can be
completed relatively quickly and does not require specialized training for interpretation (Bar-
On, 2002). The administration time is usually ’20-30 minutes’, hence making it practical for
busy settings where time is limited (MHS, 2011). The efficiency and simplicity of the EQi2.0
makes it practical for the use in various settings, including ‘cooperate, educational,
counselling/ therapeutic, forensic, medical, clinical, human resource and research settings’
(MHS, 2011). Moreover, it is administered to individuals who are ‘18 years and older’, which
allows it to be administered with a wide range of population (MHS, 2011). Lastly, the central
purpose for the EQi2.0 assessment is ‘to scientifically measure emotional intelligence’ (MHS,
2011).

In contrast, the MSCEIT is more complex and time-consuming, as it involves a series of tasks
that assess different aspects of emotional intelligence. It also requires trained administrators
for proper administration and scoring, which may limit its practicality in some contexts
compared to the EQi2.0 (Mayer et al., 2002). The MSCEIT is applicable in ‘cooperate,
educational, clinical and research settings’ as well as ‘correctional facilities’ and ‘preventative
programs’ (MHS, 2002). It is administered to individuals who are ‘17 years and older’,
similarly to the EQi2.0, it allows administration through a wide range of population (MHS,
2002). Moreover, the administration time is usually ’30-40 minutes’ (MHS, 2002). The main
purpose of this assessment is to assess ‘an ability-based measure of emotional intelligence’
(MHS, 2002. Overall, these factors position the EQi2.0 as a more suitable option for
assessing EI in terms of administration and practicality.

Psychometric Properties

The EQ-i2.0 and the MSCEIT are two measurement assessments that have been thoroughly
tested for their reliability and validity, particularly in the South African context. ‘The EQ-i2.0
has demonstrated good internal consistency’ as well as ‘test-retest reliability across different’
populations, including in South Africa (Van Zyl, 2014). It also has strong construct validity,
meaning that it measures what it intends to measure, which in this case is ‘emotional
intelligence.’ Further research results conducted by Van Zyl (2014, p. 7), ‘seem to support the
reliability and factorial validity of the EQi2.0 in the South African context.’ On the other
hand, the MSCEIT also has good psychometric properties, particularly in its ability to assess
emotional intelligence as a cognitive ability. Thus, its construct validity is excellent compared
to any other measurement assessment of EI (cite). Both the norms of the EQi2.0 and the
MSCEIT are relatively stable (MHS, 2005). However, the EQ-i2.0’s strong psychometric
properties, combined with its cultural relevance and broad applicability, make it a more
suitable choice for emotional intelligence assessment in South Africa.

INTRODUCTION

What is emotional intelligence? Daniel Goleman (1995) in his book Emotional Intelligence:
Why It Can Matter More Than IQ defines emotional intelligence as the ability to manage and
understand both one’s and others’ emotions, as well as effectively navigating social
interactions and relationships. Understanding emotional intelligence can be challenging
because of its complex and subjective nature. To thoroughly understand the concept of
emotional intelligence, the following study explores two of the most widely recognised
measurement assessments for emotional intelligence and compares and contrasts them. It
further analyses the similarities and differences in the construct definitions as well as how the
constructs are measured in each assessment. Then, examines the theoretical background as
well as the psychometric properties for each assessment. Lastly, it evaluates the purpose,
criticisms, and the appropriateness of each assessment in accordance with the cultural context
of South Africa. This research aims to examine the EQi2.0 and MSCEIT models of emotional
intelligence through a comprehensive analysis to determine which tool is better suited for
assessing emotional intelligence in South Africa.

REFERENCES

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New York:
Bantam Books.

Multi-Health Systems (MHS). (2022). Emotional Quotient Inventory 2.0 (EQi2.0). South
African English Technical Manual Supplement.

Multi-Health Systems (MHS). (2002). MSCEIT User’s Manual.

Nel, P., Du Plessis, M., & Bosman, L. (2015). Comparing different versions of the Rahim El
questionnaire in a South African context: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. SA
Journal of Industrial Psychology, 41(1), 1-9.

Nicholas, L.J. (2021). Personality Psychology. 2nd ed. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT (Apr 8 Version) [MSCEIT in South Africa].
https://chat.openai.com/c/29494b84-e9c9-4021-920c-8902e2846812