The factor structure of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V 2.0 (MSCEIT): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach

Fan, Huiyong; Jackson, Todd; Xin-Guo, Yang; Tang, Wenqing; Zhang, Jinfu

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.004

Cited by 60 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some researchers have claimed that their studies support a four-factor MSCEIT structure that is consistent with the four-branch model (e.g., Brackett, Rivers, & Salovey, 2011;Day & Carroll, 2004;Mayer et al, 2002Mayer et al, , 2003. Whereas others have doubts concerning the suitability of this factor structure, in most cases, these researchers have used a college student population (Fan, Jackson, Yang, Tang, & Zhang, 2010;Gardner & Qualter, 2011;Gignac, 2005;Palmer et al, 2005;Roberts et al, 2006;Rode et al, 2008;Rossen, Kranzler, & Algina, 2008) and proposed alternative one-, two-, three-, or four-factor models. Despite the proliferation of models, the hierarchical model (i.e., the MSCEIT's implied theoretical structure of eight tasks, four branches, two areas, and general EI) has been tested on a few occasions and yet is almost never proposed as the best model for later analyses, even though Mayer et al (2002) thought that this type of test best determined the clustering of MSCEIT scores according to theory.…”

Section: Factor Structurementioning

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

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: Factor Structurementioning

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

“…Model 4 represents the three-factor model preferred by Fan et al (2010) in their meta-analysis of factor-analytic studies of the MSCEIT, with Perceiving and Using Emotions Adams and Khoo (1996) suggested a rule of thumb of flagging items with infit meansquares less than 0.75 or greater than 1.33. Bond and Fox (2007) gave several rules of thumb for acceptable values in different situations, the most conservative of which (for high-stakes educational tests) is 0.8 to 1.2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A meta-analysis by Fan, Jackson, Yang, Tang, and Zhang (2010) looked across factor-analytic studies of the MSCEIT and found that a three-factor model, with Perceiving and Using Emotions combining to form a single factor, was the model most consistently supported in the literature, but again noted only partial support for the existence of a general EI factor.…”

Section: Empirical Investigations Of the Msceitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the structure of emotional intelligence at the item level: New perspectives, new conclusions

Maul

2011

Cognition and Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite twenty years of research, many unknowns remain regarding the Mayer-Salovey (e.g., 1997) model of emotional intelligence (EI) and the validity of tests that have been designed to measure it. Evidence relevant to the internal structure of EI has come mainly from factor-analytic studies of the MSCEIT and the MEIS, utilising parcelled task scores rather than individual test items. This approach has several deficiencies: in addition to the loss of item-level information, it results in an insufficient number of observed variables per factor and an inability to separate structural sources of local item dependence (i.e., method variance) from construct-related variance. The present study (N=707) employed multidimensional item response modelling to investigate the dimensional structure of the MSCEIT, at the item level, for the first time. It is shown that item format and the specific choice of task explain far more of the variance in response patterns than does the hypothesised dimensional structure of EI, to the point that there is no empirical reason to prefer a higher-dimensional model of EI over a unidimensional model. It is argued that the advantage of an item-level perspective can be fundamental, rather than merely incremental.

show abstract

“…Specifically, EI is defined according to Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (1999) of four ability branches: (1) identifying emotions; (2) using emotions to facilitate thought; (3) understanding emotions; and (4) managing emotion. However, recent research suggests that the "using emotions" concept is both empirically and conceptually redundant with other branches (Fan, Jackson, Yang, Tang, & Shang, 2010;Joseph & Newman, 2010;MacCann, Joseph, Newman, & Roberts, 2014), so we do not examine this branch in the current study. Our comparison of text-based versus multimedia assessments contrasts the (text-based) MSCEIT Management assessment against the newly developed (multimedia) MEMA.…”

Section: Assessing Ei With An Ability Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences between multimedia and text-based assessments of emotion management: An exploration with the multimedia emotion management assessment (MEMA)

MacCann

Lievens

Libbrecht

et al. 2015

Cognition and Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The factor structure of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test V 2.0 (MSCEIT): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach

Cited by 60 publications

References 27 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.

Examining the structure of emotional intelligence at the item level: New perspectives, new conclusions

Differences between multimedia and text-based assessments of emotion management: An exploration with the multimedia emotion management assessment (MEMA)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About