A psychometric evaluation of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.0

Palmer, Benjamin R.; Gignac, Gilles E.; Manocha, Ramesh; Stough, Con

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.11.003

Cited by 210 publications

(228 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

176

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…very close to those found in other studies using the original English version (see, e.g., Brackett & Mayer, 2003;Mayer et al, 2002Mayer et al, , 2003Palmer et al, 2005;Rossen et al, 2008), even for populations whose original language is not English (e.g., Karim & Weisz, 2010) or when using versions in other languages (e.g., Iliescu, Ilie, Ispas, & Ion, 2013). The CFA performed on the hierarchical model proposed by Mayer et al (2002) and the invariance analyses provide empirical evidence in favor of the theoretical EI model based on the hierarchical structure of eight tasks, four branches, two areas, and a total EI score.…”

Section: Apa Nlmsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The MSCEIT, which has become one of the most widely used instruments for measuring EI as a human ability, has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties in normal and clinical samples (Eack et al, 2009;Karim & Weisz, 2010;Mayer et al, 2000Mayer et al, , 2003Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2012;Palmer et al, 2005). Current research on EI has shown that high MSCEIT scores are positively related to healthy personal and social functioning, and to academic and professional success in different contexts (see Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008;Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008, for reviews).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.

Sánchez-García

Extremera

Fernández‐Berrocal

2016

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examined evidence regarding the reliability and validity of scores on the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Version 2.0 (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). In Study 1, we found a close convergence of the Spanish consensus scores and the general and expert consensus scores determined with Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and Sitarenios (2003) data. The MSCEIT also demonstrated adequate evidence of reliability of test scores as estimated by internal consistency and test-retest correlation after 12 weeks. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 3-level higher factor model with 8 manifest variables (task scores), 4 first-level factors (corresponding to the 4-branch model of Mayer & Salovey [1997], with 2 tasks for each branch), 2 second-level factors (experiential and strategic areas, with 2 branches for each area), and 1 third-level factor (overall emotional intelligence [EI]), and multigroup analyses supported MSCEIT cross-gender invariance. Study 2 found evidence for the discriminant validity of scores on the MSCEIT subscales, which were differentially related to personality and self-reported EI. Study 3 provided evidence of the incremental validity of scores on the MSCEIT, which added significant variance to the prospective prediction of psychological well-being after controlling for personality traits. The psychometric properties of the Spanish MSCEIT are similar to those of the original English version, supporting its use for assessing emotional abilities in the Spanish population.

show abstract

Section: Apa Nlmsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.

Sánchez-García

Extremera

Fernández‐Berrocal

2016

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other research provides only partial support for the four-factor model. Specifically, Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, and Stough (2005) found only partial support for a four-factor model and no support for the dimension of emotional facilitation of thinking. We explore this issue later in the article.…”

Section: Emotional Intelligence Measuresmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…People from emerging or non-Western nationals taking the test, and non-native English language speakers, should be alert to the fact that cultural variation can lower scores on the MSCEIT" (p. 80). Given the plethora of research in the fields of anthropology, cross-cultural psychology, communication studies, international business management, and other disciplines that focus on the impact of culture on attitudes and behavior, it is not surprising that the authors of the MSCEIT Palmer et al (2005) recently found that while there were no significant relationships between overall MSCEIT scores and age, females scored significantly higher than males among an adult population sample. Overall, the external validity of research results on EI using the MSCEIT remains low.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Choosing among tests of emotional intelligence: What is the evidence?

McEnrue

Groves

2006

Human Resource Development Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a comprehensive review of research regarding five types of validity for each of four major tests used to measure emotional intelligence (EI). It culls and synthesizes information scattered among a host of articles in academic journals, technical reports, chapters, and books, as well as unpublished papers and manuscripts. It enables human resource development professionals and researchers to determine the absolute and incremental value they are likely to derive by using any one of the tests to assess and develop emotional intelligence among managers and employees.Emotional intelligence (EI) is growing into a multimillion dollar training industry (Kunnanatt, 2004;Adkins, 2004). Because the major vendors of training use various means of measuring it, human resource development (HRD) professionals are forced to consider which index to choose for developmental purposes-that is, which index offers added value above and beyond existing tests (personality and intelligence), is conceptually sound, and is likely to have more face validity than another from the vantage point of managers and employees. Moreover, development professionals must consider which index has more predictive power than the others in explaining work-related phenomena and can be used to measure EI among individuals with markedly different demographic attributes operating in different contexts (for example, Thai versus Mexican American managers in retail sales versus health care executives). In sum, the task facing HRD professionals and researchers is to determine which test has more construct (convergent and divergent), content, face, predictive, and external validity than others.HRD professionals stand much to gain from efforts to identify an effective EI index for a wide range of developmental applications in the workplace. example, EI indexes have been used for training and development programming, organizational development initiatives, and career development planning. Assessments of EI dimensions have facilitated training and development modules for customer service skills, conflict management strategies, and stress management programs (Rozell, Pettijohn, & Parker, 2004;Cherniss, 2000). Similarly, HRD professionals have used EI measures as components in individual development plans (Cummings & Worley, 2005;Kunnanatt, 2004), organizationwide competency models (Gowing, O'Leary, Brienza, Cavallo, & Crain, 2005), and executive coaching interventions (Peterson, 1996). At the group and organization level of application, EI indexes have critical implications for team building and enhancing team effectiveness (Druskat & Wolff, 2001) and for assessing capacity for organizational change and performance in various structural arrangements (Sy & Cote, 2004). However, the effective application of any EI index to organizational applications requires a thorough assessment of the measure' s psychometric qualities and appropriate fit for the particular intervention. Unfortunately, no comprehensive assessment of the major EI measures and their...

show abstract

“…Antecedents of EI development have not been definitively identified outside of the EI of parents (Vernon, Petrides, Bratko, & Schermer, 2008). However, over time, it has been shown that a person's EI can increase, as it has been demonstrated to increase with age (Kafetsios, 2004;Malik & Shahid, 2016;Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999;Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough, 2005). Additionally, emotional intelligence can interact with feelings of insecurity in the workplace.…”

Section: Leadership and Emotional Intelligence (Ei)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional Intelligence and its Effect on Performance Outcomes in a Leadership Development School

Lebeck¹,

Chighizola²

2018

JVBL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A psychometric evaluation of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test Version 2.0

Cited by 210 publications

References 28 publications

The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.

The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.

Choosing among tests of emotional intelligence: What is the evidence?

Emotional Intelligence and its Effect on Performance Outcomes in a Leadership Development School

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About