Self-report ratings of emotional intelligence (EI) can be faked in high-stakes situations. Although forced-choice administration can prevent response distortion, it produces ipsative scores when scored conventionally. This study (n = 486) develops an 18-item EI rating scale assessing emotion perception, understanding, and management. We compare validity evidence for: (a) a singlestimulus rating scale; and (b) a forced-choice assessment scored with conventional methods versus item response theory (IRT) methods. The single-stimulus items showed acceptable fit to a three-factor solution, and the forced-choice items showed acceptable fit to the IRT solution. Correlations with criterion variables (ability and self-reported EI, Big Five personality, loneliness, life satisfaction, and GPA) were obtained for 283 participants. Correlations were in the expected direction for the single-stimulus and the IRT-based forced-choice scores. In contrast, the conventionally scored forced-choice test showed the expected correlations for emotion management, but not for emotion perception nor understanding. Results suggest that IRT-based methods for scoring forced-choice assessments produce equivalent validity to singlestimulus rating scales. As such, IRT-based scores on forced-choice assessments may allow EI tests to be used for high-stakes applications, where faking is a concern.
Keywordsitem response theory (IRT), emotional intelligence, forced-choice assessment, Thurstone's law of comparative judgment There are two ways that emotional intelligence (EI) can be measured. First, rating scales, associated with typical performance, require participants to rate their agreement with items such as "I know why my emotions change." Second, ability scales, associated with maximum performance, require participants to process emotion-related stimuli and make a judgment (e.g., the extent of emotion expressed in a particular facial expression; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008). One