Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / New scoring and test construction methods for emotional intelligence (EI) are suggested as alternatives for current practice, where most tests are scored by group judgment and are in ratings-based format. Both the ratings-based format and the proportion-based scores resulting from group judgments may act as method effects, obscuring relationships between EI tests, and between EI and intelligence. In addition, scoring based on standards rather than group judgments add clarity to the meaning of test scores. For these reasons, two new measures of emotional intelligence (EI) are constructed: (1) the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU); and (2) the Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM). Following test construction, validity evidence is collected from four multi-variate studies. The STEU’s items and a standards-based scoring system are developed according to empirically derived appraisal theory concerning the structure of emotion [Roseman, 2001]. The STEM is developed as a Situational Judgment Test (SJT) with situations representing sadness, fear and anger in work life and personal life settings. Two qualitative studies form the basis for the STEM’s item development: (1) content analysis of responses to semi-structured interviews with 31 psychology undergraduates and 19 community volunteers; and (2) content analysis of free responses to targeted vignettes created from these semi-structured interviews (N = 99). The STEM may be scored according to two expert panels of emotions researchers, psychologists, therapists and life coaches (N = 12 and N = 6). In the first multi-variate study (N = 207 psychology undergraduates), both STEU and STEM scores relate strongly to vocabulary test scores and moderately to Agreeableness but no other dimension from the five-factor model of personality. STEU scores predict psychology grade and an emotionally-oriented thinking style after controlling vocabulary and personality test scores (ΔR2 = .08 and .06 respectively). STEM scores did not predict academic achievement but did predict emotionally-oriented thinking and life satisfaction (ΔR2 = .07 and .05 for emotionally-oriented thinking and .04 for life satisfaction). In the second multi-variate study, STEU scores predict lower levels of state anxiety, and STEM scores predict lower levels of state anxiety, depression, and stress among 149 community volunteers from Sydney, Australia. In the third multi-variate study (N = 181 psychology undergraduates), Strategic EI, fluid intelligence (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc) were each measured with three indicators, allowing these constructs to be assessed at the latent variable level. Nested structural equation models show that Strategic EI and Gc form separate latent factors (Δχ2(1) = 12.44, p < .001). However, these factors relate very strongly (r = .73), indicating that Strategic EI may be a primary mental ability underlying Gc. In this study, STEM scores relate to emotionally-oriented thinking but not loneliness, life satisfaction or state stress, and STEU scores do not relate to any of these. STEM scores are significantly and meaningfully higher for females (d = .80), irrespective of gender differences in verbal ability or personality, or whether expert scores are derived from male or female experts. The fourth multi-variate study (N = 118 psychology undergraduates) distinguishes an EI latent factor (indicated by scores on the STEU, STEM and two emotion recognition ability measures) from a general cognitive ability factor (indicated by three intelligence measures; Δχ2(1) = 10.49, p < .001), although again cognitive ability and EI factors were strongly related (r = .66). Again, STEM scores were significantly higher for females (d = .44) and both STEU and STEM relate to Agreeableness but not to any other dimension from the five-factor model of personality. Taken together, results suggest that: (1) STEU and STEM scores are reasonably reliable and valid tests of EI; (2) EI tests assess slightly different constructs to existing measures of Gc, but more likely form a new primary mental ability within Gc than an entirely separate construct; and (3) the female superiority for EI tests may prove useful for addressing adverse impact in applied settings (e.g., selection for employment, promotion or educational opportunities), particularly given that many current assessment tools result in a male advantage.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/216023 |
| Date | January 2006 |
| Creators | MacCann, Carolyn Elizabeth |
| Publisher | University of Sydney., School of Psychology |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Language | en_AU |
| Detected Language | English |
| Rights | The author retains copyright of this thesis., http://www.library.usyd.edu.au/copyright.html |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds