20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What Is the Ability Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Good for? An Evaluation Using Item Response Theory

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The ability approach has been indicated as promising for advancing research in emotional intelligence (EI). However, there is scarcity of tests measuring EI as a form of intelligence. The Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, or MSCEIT, is among the few available and the most widespread measure of EI as an ability. This implies that conclusions about the value of EI as a meaningful construct and about its utility in predicting various outcomes mainly rely on the properties of this test. We tested whether individuals who have the highest probability of choosing the most correct response on any item of the test are also those who have the strongest EI ability. Results showed that this is not the case for most items: The answer indicated by experts as the most correct in several cases was not associated with the highest ability; furthermore, items appeared too easy to challenge individuals high in EI. Overall results suggest that the MSCEIT is best suited to discriminate persons at the low end of the trait. Results are discussed in light of applied and theoretical considerations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Emotional intelligence: new ability or eclectic traits?

          Some individuals have a greater capacity than others to carry out sophisticated information processing about emotions and emotion-relevant stimuli and to use this information as a guide to thinking and behavior. The authors have termed this set of abilities emotional intelligence (EI). Since the introduction of the concept, however, a schism has developed in which some researchers focus on EI as a distinct group of mental abilities, and other researchers instead study an eclectic mix of positive traits such as happiness, self-esteem, and optimism. Clarifying what EI is and is not can help the field by better distinguishing research that is truly pertinent to EI from research that is not. EI--conceptualized as an ability--is an important variable both conceptually and empirically, and it shows incremental validity for predicting socially relevant outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0.

            Does a recently introduced ability scale adequately measure emotional intelligence (EI) skills? Using the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; J. D. Mayer, P. Salovey, & D. R. Caruso, 2002b), the authors examined (a) whether members of a general standardization sample and emotions experts identified the same test answers as correct, (b) the test's reliability, and (c) the possible factor structures of EI. Twenty-one emotions experts endorsed many of the same answers, as did 2,112 members of the standardization sample, and exhibited superior agreement, particularly when research provides clearer answers to test questions (e.g., emotional perception in faces). The MSCEIT achieved reasonable reliability, and confirmatory factor analysis supported theoretical models of EI. These findings help clarify issues raised in earlier articles published in Emotion.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Emotional intelligence as a standard intelligence.

              The authors have claimed that emotional intelligence (EI) meets traditional standards for an intelligence (J. D. Mayer, D. R. Caruso, & P. Salovey, 1999). R. D. Roberts, M. Zeidner, and G. Matthews (2001) questioned whether that claim was warranted. The central issue raised by Roberts et al. concerning Mayer et al. (1999) is whether there are correct answers to questions on tests purporting to measure EI as a set of abilities. To address this issue (and others), the present authors briefly restate their view of intelligence, emotion, and EI. They then present arguments for the reasonableness of measuring EI as an ability, indicate that correct answers exist, and summarize recent data suggesting that such measures are, indeed, reliable.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2014
                5 June 2014
                : 9
                : 6
                : e98827
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Organizational Behavior, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
                [2 ]Institute of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
                [3 ]Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
                [4 ]Department of Psychology, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
                University of São Paulo, Brazil
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: MF JPA. Performed the experiments: MH MM OL. Analyzed the data: JPA. Wrote the paper: MF. Feedback on the manuscript: JPA MM OL MH JR.

                Article
                PONE-D-13-44601
                10.1371/journal.pone.0098827
                4046984
                24901541
                6d2edc80-1704-466d-ab4f-d924fac1fd62
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 30 September 2013
                : 9 April 2014
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Funding
                No current external funding sources for this study.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Intelligence
                Human Intelligence
                Psychology
                Experimental Psychology
                Personality
                Psychometrics
                Social Psychology
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Social Sciences

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article