Advertisement

Psychometrics and the Measurement of Emotional Intelligence

  • Gilles E. Gignac
Chapter
Part of the The Springer Series on Human Exceptionality book series (SSHE)

It may be suggested that the measurement of emotional intelligence (EI) has been met with a non-negligible amount of scepticism and criticism within academia, with some commentators suggesting that the area has suffered from a general lack of psychometric and statistical rigour (Brody, 2004). To potentially help ameliorate this noted lack of sophistication, as well as to facilitate an understanding of many of the research strategies and findings reported in the various chapters of this book, this chapter will describe and elucidate several of the primary psychometric considerations in the evaluation of an inventory or test purported to measure a particular attribute or construct. To this effect, two central elements of psychometrics, reliability and validity, will be discussed in detail. Rather than assert a position as to whether the scores derived from putative measures of EI may or may not be associated with adequate levels of reliability and/or validity, this chapter will focus primarily on the description of contemporary approaches to the assessment of reliability and validity. However, in many cases, comments specifically relevant to the area of EI will be made within the context of reliability and/or validity assessment.

Keywords

Emotional Intelligence Concurrent Validity Internal Consistency Reliability Classical Test Theory Factorial Validity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastasi, A. (1996). Psychological testing (7th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Angoff, W. H. (1988). Validity: An evolving concept. In H. Wainer & H. Braun (Eds.), Test Validity (pp. 9–13). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elrbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Baugh, F. (2002). Correcting effect sizes for score reliability: A reminder that measurement and substantive issues are linked inextricably. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 254–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block, J. (2000). Three tasks for personality psychology. In L. R. Bergman, R. B. Cairns, L. G. Nilsson, & L. Nystedt (Eds.). Developmental science and the holistic approach, (pp. 155–164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
  7. Borsboom, D. (2005). Measuring the mind: Conceptual issues in contemporary psychometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Borsboom, D., & Mellenbergh, G. J. (2002). True scores, latent variables, and constructs: A comment on Schmidt and Hunter. Intelligence, 30, 505–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003).  Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1147–1158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brennan, R. (2001). An essay on the history and future of reliability from the perspective of replications. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brody, N. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth (book review). Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 109–111.Google Scholar
  12. Brownell, W. A. (1933). On the accuracy with which reliability may be measured by correlating test halves. Journal of Experimental Education, 1, 204–215.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cattell, R. B., & Warburton, F. W. (1967). Objective personality and motivation tests: A theoretical introduction and practical compendium. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods. Multivariate Behavior Research, 18, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Marchi, M., & Velez, C. N. (1990). Problems in the measurement of latent variables in structural equations causal modeling. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is Coefficient Alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied psychology, 78, 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cronbach, L. J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  21. Fan, X. (2003). Two approaches for correcting correlation attenuation caused by measurement error: Implications for research practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 915–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gignac, G. E. (2006). Testing jingle-jangle fallacies in a crowded market of over-expansive constructs: The case of emotional intelligence. In C. Stough, D. Saklofske, & K. Hansen (Eds.), Research on emotional intelligence: International symposium 2005 (pp. 3–13). Melbourne: Tertiary Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gignac, G. E. (2007). Working memory and fluid intelligence are both identical to g?! Reanalyses and critical evaluation. Psychological Science, 49, 187–207.Google Scholar
  24. Gignac, G. E., Bates, T. C., & Lang, K. (2007). Implications relevant to CFA model misfit, reliability, and the five factor model as measured by the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1051–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gignac, G. E., Palmer, B., & Stough, C. (2007). A confirmatory factor analytic investigation of the TAS-20: Corroboration of a five-factor model and suggestions for improvement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 247–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, S. B., Lissitz, R. W., & Mulaik, S. A. (1977). Limitations of coefficient alpha as an index of test unidimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 827–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 427–439.Google Scholar
  28. Guin, R. M. (1977). Content validity – The source of my discontent. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sorebom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future – A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  30. Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. A. (Eds.). (1997). What if there were no significance tests? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 58, 78–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15, 446–455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Landy, F. J. (2005). Some historical and scientific issues related to research on emotional intelligence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 411–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  36. Marsh, H. W., & Byrne, B. W. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod self-concept data: Between-group and within-group invariance constraints. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 313–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Matarazzo, J. D., & Herman, D. O. (1984). Base rate data for the WAIS-R: Test–retest stability and VIQ–PIQ differences. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 6, 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mayer, J. D, Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27, 267–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3, 97–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCrae, R. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 263–276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McDonald, R. P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical and Mathematical Psychology, 23, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGrath, R. E. (2005). Conceptual complexity and construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 112–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Muchinsky P. M. (1996). The correction for attenuation. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Novick, M. R., & Lewis, C. L. (1967). Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite measurements. Psychometrika, 32, 1–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  49. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Parker, J. D. A., Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J., Endler, N. S., & Schmitz, P. (1993). Factorial validity of the twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale. European Journal of Personality, 7, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  52. Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s alpha. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Raykov, T. (2001). Bias in coefficient alpha for fixed congeneric measures with correlated errors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 25(1), 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reuterberg, S. E., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (1992). Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability: Testing measurement model assumptions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 795–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1999). Theory testing and measurement error. Intelligence, 27, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Rowley, G. L. (1989). Generalizability theory. American Psychologist, 44, 922–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sireci, S. G. (1998). Gathering and analyzing content validity data. Educational Assessment, 5(4), 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson, B., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2000). Psychometrics and datametrics: The test is not reliable. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 174–195.Google Scholar
  62. Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2003). The problems with “well-fitting” models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 578–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Werts, C. E., & Watley, D. J. (1968). Analyzing school effects: How to use the same data to support different hypotheses. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 585–598.Google Scholar
  64. Zeidner, M., Matthews, G., & Roberts, R. D. (2001). Slow down, you move too fast: Emotional intelligence remains an “elusive” construct. Emotion, 1, 265–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychology, University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia
  2. 2.Director of Research & DevelopmentGenos Pty LtdAustralia

Personalised recommendations