ABSTRACTEmotion understanding, which can broadly be defined as expertise in the meaning of emotion, is a core component of emotional intelligence and facilitates better intra- and interpersonal outcomes. However, to date only very few standard tests to measure emotion understanding in healthy adults exist. Here, we present two new performance-based tests that were developed and are scored based on componential emotion theory and large-scale cross-cultural empirical findings. These instruments intend to measure facets of emotion understanding that are not included in (...) existing tests. The first test measures the ability to understand and label emotional experiences of a target person from a description of emotion features covering five emotion components embedded in a written vignette. The second test measures semantic knowledge about which features from each component a... (shrink)

Despite widespread support for the idea of measuring EI as an ability based on Mayer and Salovey’s model, only a few performance-based EI tests have been developed. I argue that both the original and updated ability EI model provide little guidance for a theory-driven generation of items and their scoring, as the functions and processes associated with high and low EI are not specified in enough detail. One solution is to draw on theories from other fields when creating a measurement (...) rationale for a new EI test. I illustrate this approach by describing two new tests measuring emotional understanding and emotion management. (shrink)

We meta-analytically investigated relations between the four-branch model of ability emotional intelligence with fluid and crystallized intelligence. We found that for each branch, the strength of relations with Gf and Gc were equivalent. Understanding emotions has the strongest relation with Gf/Gc combined, relative to facilitating thought using emotion, managing emotions, and perceiving emotion ; for the latter, relations were also moderated by stimulus type. We conclude with implications and recommendations for the study of ability EI.

We describe an approach that enables a more complete evaluation of the validity of emotional intelligence measures. We argue that a source of evidence for validity is often overlooked by researchers and test developers, namely, evidence based on response processes. This evidence can be obtained through a definition of the ability, a description of the mental processes that operate when a person uses the ability, the development of a theory of response behaviour that links variation in the construct with variation (...) on the responses to the items of a measure, and a test of the theory of response behaviour through one or more strategies that we describe. (shrink)

We address concerns raised by Maul (2012) regarding the validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). We respond to requests for clarifications of our model, and explain why the MSCEIT’s scoring methods stand up to scrutiny and why many reported reliabilities of the MSCEIT may be underestimates, using reanalyses of the test’s standardization sample of N = 5,000 to illustrate our point. We also organize findings from four recent articles that provide evidence for the MSCEIT’s validity based on its (...) relations with other tests. (shrink)

MacCann, Matthews, and Roberts (2012) and Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (2012) have offered responses to my evaluation of the validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a measure of emotional intelligence. MacCann et al. argue that my standards for validity evidence are unrealistically high, but their argument mistakenly supposes that the concept of measurement is somehow relative, rather than absolute. Mayer et al. offer valuable clarifications regarding their emotional intelligence (EI) model, and some new evidence of its correlates. (...) However, the new evidence is not persuasive, and I think that they have largely missed the point of my call for a stronger focus on causal explanations of test performance. (shrink)

This comment responds to Maul’s (2012) article evaluating the validity evidence and argument for the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a measure of emotional intelligence (EI). We suggest that Maul’s standards for establishing validity evidence are unrealistically high, and may not be met by other established psychometric tests. As an example, we show that evidence for the validity of Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) is of a similar standard to the MSCEIT.

The internal structure of ability emotional intelligence tests at item level has been hardly studied, and if studied often the predicted structure did not show. In the present study, an a priori model for responses to EI ability items using Likert response scales with a Situational Judgement Test format is investigated with confirmatory factor analysis. The model consists of a target EI ability factor, an acquiescence factor, which is a method factor induced by the Likert response scales, and design-based error (...) covariances, which are induced by the SJT format. It is investigated whether this a priori model can account for the observed associations between the raw item responses of the Components of Emotion Understanding Test-24. The CEUT-24 is a new test developed to assess emotion understanding, a key aspect of the EI ability construct, based on the componential emotion framework. The sample consisted of 1184 participants from four European countries speaking four different languages. Findings showed that the a priori model fitted the data well in all four languages. Furthermore, measurement invariance testing gave evidence for a well-fitting configural, metric, and partial scalar invariance model. The conclusion is that within a regular CFA framework using raw observed items responses, method factors can be disentangled from the targeted EI ability factor. (shrink)