You are not logged in.

The factorial validity of emotional intelligence : an unresolved issue

Keele, Sophie M and Bell, Richard C 2008, The factorial validity of emotional intelligence : an unresolved issue, Journal of personality and individual differences, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 487-500, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.013.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title The factorial validity of emotional intelligence : an unresolved issue
Author(s) Keele, Sophie M
Bell, Richard C
Journal name Journal of personality and individual differences
Volume number 44
Issue number 2
Start page 487
End page 500
Publisher Elservier Ltd.
Place of publication Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Publication date 2008-01
ISSN 0191-8869
1873-3549
Keyword(s) emotional intelligence
factorial validity
trait emotional intelligence
ability emotional intelligence
Summary An unresolved but pertinent issue in the field of emotional intelligence (EI) is factorial validity. Numerous studies have investigated this issue (Gignac, 2005; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003; Petrides & Furnham, 2000; Saklofske, Austin, & Minski, 2003), but most are based on correlations among subscale scores from relevant measures, making the implicit assumption that subscale scores are unidimensional, rather than questioning the structure of subscales themselves. Accordingly, the present study adopts the Anderson and Gerbing (1988) two-step strategy of first considering the structure within subscales before examining the relationship between subscales. An evaluation was undertaken using the Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS, Schutte et al., 1998), the Work Profile Questionnaire – Emotional Intelligence Version (WQPei, Cameron, 1999) and the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT V.2., Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1999b). Results were characterised by instability, heterogeneity and inconsistency. Specifically, the EIS was not found to form the homogenous structure postulated by authors. Similarly, support was not found for the seven factor model of the WPQei. Large discrepancies exist between the one, two and four factor models described by Mayer et al. (2003) for the MSCEIT V.2. and the 21 components revealed at the primary level in the current analyses. Additionally, reliability statistics for the MSCEIT V.2. were less than optimal. Questions remain regarding the clarity, reliability and validity of the instruments examined.
Language eng
DOI 10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.013
Field of Research 170107 Industrial and Organisational Psychology
Socio Economic Objective 810109 Personnel
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2007, Elsevier Ltd
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30021345

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: Faculty of Health
School of Psychology
Higher Education Research Group
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 28 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 37 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 560 Abstract Views, 0 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Fri, 11 Dec 2009, 16:36:50 EST by Sophie Keele

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.