How is emotional intelligence tested

There are numerous advantages and disadvantages of the different forms of EI that test users should factor into their decision. One disadvantage of self-report measures is that people are not always good judges of their emotion-related abilities and tendencies Brackett et al.

A further disadvantage of self-report, trait based measures is their susceptibility to faking. Participants can easily come across as high in EI by answering questions in a strategic, socially desirable way. However, this is usually only an issue when test-takers believe that someone of importance e. When it is for self-development or research, individuals are less likely to fake their answers to trait EI measures see Tett et al.

We also note that the theoretical bases of trait and mixed measures have also been questioned. Some have argued for example that self-report measures of EI measure nothing fundamentally different from the Big Five e. We will not address this issue here as it has been extensively discussed elsewhere e.

One advantage of ability based measures is that they cannot be faked. Test-takers are told to give the answer they believe is correct, and consequently should try to obtain a score as high as possible.

A further advantage is that they are often more engaging tests. Rather than simply rating agreement with statements as in trait based measures, test-takers attempt to solve emotion-related problems, solve puzzles, and rate emotions in pictures. Overall however, there are a number of fundamental problems with ability based measures. First, many personality and intelligence theorists question the very existence of ability EI, and suggest it is nothing more than intelligence.

This claim is supported by high correlations between ability EI and IQ, although some have provided evidence to the contrary e. Additionally, the common measures of ability EI tend to have relatively poor psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity. Ability EI measures do not tend to strongly predict outcomes that they theoretically should predict e.

Maul also outlines a comprehensive set of problems with the most widely used ability measure, the MSCEIT, related to consensus-based scoring, reliability, and underrepresentation of the EI construct. Also see Petrides for a comprehensive critique of ability measures. While the distinction between trait, ability and mixed EI is important, we acknowledge that many readers will simply be looking for an overall measure of emotional functioning that can predict personal and professional effectiveness.

Compared to ability based measures, trait based measures tend to have very good psychometric properties, do not have questionable theoretical bases and correlate moderately and meaningfully with a broad set of outcome variables. In general, we believe that trait based measures are more appropriate for most purposes than ability based measures.

That being said, several adequate measures of ability EI exist and these have been reviewed in the Literature Review section. If there is a strong preference to use ability measures of EI then several good options exist as outlined later. If users are not restricted by time or costs commercial users need to pay, researchers do not then the TEIQue is a very good option.

It has been cited in more than 2, academic studies. There is extensive evidence in support of its reliability and validity Andrei et al. One disadvantage of the TEIQue however is that it is not freely available for commercial use.

The website states that commercial or quasi-commercial use without permission is prohibited. The test can nevertheless be commercially used for a relatively small fee. A second disadvantage is that the test can be fairly easily faked due to its use of a self-report response scale. However, this is generally only an issue when individuals have a reason for faking e. Consequently, we do not recommend the TEIQue to be used for personnel selection, but it is relevant for other professional purposes such as in EI training and executive coaching.

There are very few free measures of trait EI that have been adequately investigated. Please note that although one study has comprehensively critiqued the SREIT Petrides and Furnham, , it actually works well as a multidimensional measure.

This was acknowledged by the authors of the critique and has been subsequently confirmed e. We recommend using the short form when users are interested in measuring only the 4 broad EI factors measured by this questionnaire self-control, well-being, sociability, emotionality.

Additionally, there is much more research on the short form of the questionnaire e. All subscales are regarded as equally important and should be included if possible. Although not as widely researched as the short version, the long version nevertheless has strong empirical support for reliability and validity.

It has been cited in more than 1, academic studies. It uses a 4 branch approach to ability EI and measures ability dimensions of perceiving emotions, facilitating thought, understanding emotions and managing emotions.

However, this is a highly commercialized test and relatively expensive to use. The test is also relatively long items and time consuming to complete 30—45 min. A second, potentially more practical option includes two related tests of ability EI designed by MacCann and Roberts see Tables 2 , 7. These tests are becoming increasingly used in academic articles; the original paper has now been cited more than times.

The two aspects of ability EI measured in these tests map neatly onto two of the broad EI constructs present in multiple measures of EI. Specifically, the STEM can be regarded as a measure of emotional regulation in oneself and the STEU can be regarded as a measure of emotional understanding. A further advantage of STEU is that it contains several items regarding workplace behavior, making it highly applicable for use in professional contexts. Although these measures could all come from relevant scales of tests reviewed in this article see Table 1 , there is a further option.

Alternatively, for those open to using a combination of ability and trait measures, users might wish to use Schutte et al. These include appraisal of emotions for perceiving emotions and utilization of emotions for strategically utilizing emotions , respectively. Table 1. Summary of recommended emotional intelligence assessment measures for each broad EI construct.

The first option represents the most pragmatic and generally optimal solution because all information about the relevant facets and related measures would usually be located in a single document e. Furthermore, single EI tools are generally based on theoretical models of EI that have implications for training and development. Therefore, if a single EI tool is selected, the theory underlying the tool could be used to model the interventions. This will often be the case when practitioners are seeking a comprehensive measure of EI but prefer a freely available measure.

The second option specified above would solve this problem. However, the trade-off would be increased complexity and the absence of a single underlying theory that relates to the selected measures. Tables 2 — 8 describe facets within each measure as well as reliability and validity evidence for each facet and can be used to assist the selection of multiple measures if users choose to do this.

Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. In general, we caution the selective use of individual EI scales and recommend that users habitually measure and control for EI facets they are not directly interested in. We do this for both free measures and those requiring payment. The measure should have been used in multiple research studies published in high quality journals. There should be good evidence for the reliability of the measure in multiple academic studies incorporating the measure.

The measure should have obtained adequate validity evidence in multiple academic studies. Most importantly, evidence of construct validity should have been established, including findings demonstrating that the measure correlates meaningfully with measures of related constructs.

The measure should be based on a strong and well-supported theory of EI. The measure should be practical i. Where multiple measures met the above criteria, they were compared on their performance on each criterion i.

Table 1 summarizes these results. The measure was developed primarily to predict and enhance performance at work and items are generally written to reflect workplace scenarios. Most research using this measure has also used peer-ratings rather than self-ratings which makes it difficult to compare with the majority of measures this is not a weakness though.

Nevertheless, it should be considered if cost is not an issue and there is a strong desire to utilize a test specifically developed for the workplace. First, we recommend that all researchers and practitioners considering using one more of these tests have a good understanding of the principles of psychological assessment. Users should understand the concepts of reliability, validity and the role of norms in psychological testing.

There are many good introductory texts in this area e. Furthermore, we recommend users have a good understanding of the limitations of psychological testing and assessment. They can help to better understand social skills, management skills, and so forth. They do not provide any information on whether you are emotionally intelligent or not.

We saved the best for last. How do you determine whether you are skilled or not skilled? You test your skills of course. If you want to know if you can type, you take a typing test. A typing test does not ask you how fast you are, it does not ask a friend how fast you can type. It requires you to type. Emotional Intelligence is a set of skills or abilities. They can be measured just like other skills or other abilities. An Emotional Intelligence ability test may have questions such as these:.

A manager gives an employee unexpected negative feedback in front of other team members. How is the employee likely to feel? That's great, you may be thinking, but what is the correct answer? There isn't one. And I'm not being flip with you, because there really isn't a single, best answer. There are answers to this emotional intelligence test item, some of which are better than others. Here's how we figure out the best answers. Hundreds of people have taken the MEIS.

We then look at the frequency with which these people select each of the rating responses. For instance, lets say that these were the results for the example given above, listing the number of people who selected each of the ratings:. To score the MEIS, we would compare your responses on the test to those of the hundreds and hundreds of people in the database.

If you said that the person was feeling Angry "A Lot" then you would get 75 points. If you said "Not At All" you would get 0 points, and so on. Is this a legitimate way to score a test? Its a concept that applies to business, just as it does to one of the worlds toughest yacht races.

He says that professional knowledge is important, but his experience in the BT Challenge has convinced him that EI is also a key factor in any successful senior level business appointment.

Hes not alone in this theory. Experts now agree that key people skills, such as empathy, self-awareness and motivation can make all the difference, particularly at managerial or senior levels. Identifying and developing individuals within your organisation who have these skills may help to pinpoint your future leaders.

But how can you measure, or even detect, such a subjective, intangible quality? Psychometric testing is a method of measurement that is becoming increasingly prevalent, according to Dulewicz. The test developed by Higgs and Dulewicz at Henley is now used as far afield as Australia, as well as in a number of European countries, and Henley is now organising an annual conference in the UK devoted to methods of measuring EI. But HR specialists who are keen to introduce a psychometric test for EI may find themselves faced by a confusing number of options.

There are a few psychometric tests that are able to measure various aspects of EI. Its important to stress various aspects because it is just as difficult, if not as impossible, to directly measure emotional intelligence as it is to measure cognitive intelligence.

All EI tests measure how well an individual is presently performing on a particular test, so they are measuring overt behaviour rather than the potential that somehow drives this behaviour. There are three common ways to measure emotional intelligence: self-report, other-report tests and ability measures. The Bar-On EQ-i uses the self-report approach, with a questionnaire including items which the participant is asked to score on a scale of 1 to 5. Other-report uses feedback from workplace colleagues, in the familiar assessment format.

Ability tests measure the individuals skills or abilities. How accurate are these tests? Ian Florance, director of ASE which markets the Higgs-Dulewicz test, claims that a reputable test should be the result of statistical evidence based on years of experience, and accompanied by a manual which demonstrates that. He says, If you try such a test on several occasions under the same conditions you will get the same answers.

Its essential, however, to ensure accuracy, by following the guidelines laid down by the British Psychological Society about who can administer the test. We will only provide it to people who have been trained in its use.

But John Hackston, managing consultant at Oxford Psychologists Press OPP , argues that there is no convincing evidence that tests for EI relate to job performance any more effectively than a more general personality questionnaire. He says, There is disagreement about the definition of EI which tends to muddy the issue. One version claims it is an ability, while another sees it as a personality trait, and each definition requires a different type of questionnaire.

I always act as a trusted advisor to the customer. Increasing customers satisfaction and loyalty is always part of the way I work is not important in achieving the sale.

The vision and mission are always given to staff so they know where we are going. I always let people know of the behaviours expected. I always give assignments to people who can get the job done and do it well.

Winning people over is something that I find difficult to do. I am very good at. I always communicate in a way that everyone understands what I am saying. I always go along with the changes being driven by others. I always handle difficult people in a straight forward and direct manner. I always seek out relationships that are mutually beneficial. I generally have a stronger focus on tasks rather than relationships balanced focus on tasks and relationships.

When I work with teams, I always make it clear what I expect members to do. Sampler completed. Jump to Start.