The Validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a Measure of Emotional Intelligence

Abstract

The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has drawn a great amount of scholarly interest in recent years; however, attempts to measure individual differences in this ability remain controversial. Although the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) remains the flagship test of EI, no study has comprehensively examined the full interpretive argument tying variation in observed test performance to variation in the underlying ability. Employing a modern perspective on validation, this article reviews and synthesizes available evidence and discusses sources of concern at every level of the interpretive argument. It is argued that a focus on causal explanation of observed variation in test performance would significantly improve the validity of the MSCEIT as a measure of EI.

The Validity of the MSCEIT: Additional Analyses and Evidence

“…The MSCEIT Has Good Construct Representation Maul (2012) argued that, because the MSCEIT does not test each and every emotional intelligence skill specified in our theory, the MSCEIT suffers from concept underrepresentation. Because human skills are diverse in most intellectual domains, it is neither advisable nor possible to measure all possible skills therein.…”

On being nice and effective: Work‐related emotional intelligence and its role in conflict resolution and interpersonal problem‐solving

“…Fortunately, these problems can be solved by reserving the term EI for tests that adopt ability-related procedures (Ashkanasy & Daus, 2005). For example, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI Test (the MSCEIT) is copyrighted in a way that limits its use, and there are also questions about this test's reliability and validity (Maul, 2012;Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough, 2005). For example, the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso EI Test (the MSCEIT) is copyrighted in a way that limits its use, and there are also questions about this test's reliability and validity (Maul, 2012;Palmer, Gignac, Manocha, & Stough, 2005).…”

Prosocial knowledge mediates effects of agreeableness and emotional intelligence on prosocial behavior

“…Additionally, it should be noted that while our measure of emotion understanding relied on theoretical scoring, our measure of emotion management was scored using expert-based consensus, which some researchers have suggested can be problematic (e.g. Maul, 2012).…”