An analysis of the relationships between various models and measures of emotional intelligence

Since Salovey and Mayer's (1990) seminal article on emotional intelligence(EI), the construct has received wide spread interest and attention. A number of different models and measures of EI have been developed and a growing body of research in the area is emerging. However, relatively few independent studies have examined the psychometric properties of existing measures and many of the claims made by test authors concerning test reliability, factor structure and validity are yet to be substantiated. Furthermore, little is known about the relationships between existing measures and questions concerning how best to conceptualise and measure EI are at present unanswered. In the current study a population sample (n = 330) completed a battery of EI measures that were representative of the different approaches to the conceptualisation and measurement of EI including the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, Caruso & Sitarenios, 2003), the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i Bar-On, 1997), the Trait Meta Mood Scale (TMMS Salovey et al., 1995), the EI scale developed by Schutte et al., 1998) and the Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker & Taylor, 1994). The reliability and factor structure of each of these measures were examined in turn. The results show that the internal reliability of these measures of EI have improved markedly over earlier tests, specifically, those examined by Davies, Stankov and Roberts (1998). All the measures examined in the current series of studies yielded internal reliability coefficients above a = .80 at the full-scale level, and between a = .80 and a = .90 at the subscale level. Both exploratory and onfirmatory factor analytic methodologies were employed in the series of studies reported in the thesis in order to assess the factor structure of the measures examined. With the exception of the Bar-On EQ-i, (Bar-On, 1997) the findings of these factor analyses were consistent with the underlying theories of the various measures examined and their respective previous research findings. The factor analytic results showed evidence for the four abilities purported to be measured by the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2003), the three components of the TMMS (Salovey et al., 1995) and the TAS-20 (Bagby et al., 1994), and the four factors of the scale by Schutte et al., (1998) as previously found by Petrides and Furnham (2000). The dimensional structure of the EQ- i was not found to be consistent with the underlying theory it has been purported to measure or the factor analytic results of Bar-On (1997a). It was concluded that further factor analytic research findings are needed in order to clarify the dimensional structure of the EQ- i. In general, the factor structure of the different EI measures examined were found to be robust and consistent with their respective underlying theories. Following examination of the internal reliability and factor structure of each of the five tests in turn, a final factor analytic study was conducted in order to examine the relationships and dimensional communality amongst them. From a systematic review of the variables (by definition) assessed by these different measures a five-factor taxonomic model for EI was hypothesised involving; (1) the capacity to perceive and express ones's own emotions; (2) the capacity to perceive and understand the emotions of others; (3) the capacity to utilise or reason with emotions in thought; (4) the capacity to effectively manage one's own emotions; and (5) the capacity to effectively manage the emotions of others. Confirmatory factor analysis via structural equation modelling was then used to assess whether this model (and a range of alternatives) provided a statistically significant fit with the data including; (a) a three-factor model representing the original model of EI conceptualised by Salovey and Mayer (1990); (b) a five-factor method variance 'test' model where each factor represented one of the tests in the battery; (c) a two factor model representing self-report and ability measured EI. None of the models assessed were found to provide an acceptable fit with the data according to standard model fit statistics, however, the hypothesised five-factor taxonomic model identified in the review was found to be the best fitting model in comparison to the three-factor model and both the five-factor and two-factor method variance models. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted and interpreted as providing further partial support to the hypothesised model. This finding suggests that there is some common variance shared between the various models and measures of EI,and that the hypothesised five-factor model may better represent the different approaches to EI (as a definition of the construct), than the theoretical distinctions that have been made between them (e.g., trait and ability EI, Petrides & Furnham, 2001). However, the correlation between self-report and ability measured EI (r = .39 as found with the two- factor method variance model), suggests that these two approaches to the measurement of EI share only 15% common variance. It is argued that the hypothesised model of EI may not have provided a statistically significant fit with the present data as variables assessing the ability to express emotions were not adequately represented (i.e., too few items assess this common facet of the construct); and variables assessing the ability to utilise or reason with emotions in thought are not adequately reliable. Further limitations of the current study and recommendatio ns for future research are discussed. Given that the five dimensions of the hypothesised model can be systematically identified from a cross section of EI tests, and that partial support for this model was found by the current study, it was concluded that the hypothesised model is representative of the dimensional communality amongst models and measures of EI and therefore provides a taxonomic model of EI. It is concluded that this model of EI should be assessed by future research along with other theoretic ally justified taxonomies for EI, and the relatively goodness of fit should similarly be examined in order to substantiate whether the taxonomic model identified by the current study best describes the communality amongst different models and measures of the construct. While not distracting from more specific models and measures of EI, it is argued that the taxonomic model of EI established by the current study is useful in that it provides a common definition and understanding about the nature of the cons truct as well as a model upon which to base comprehensive measures of the construct. Based on the findings of the current study it is argued that EI can be commonly defined as a conceptually related set of abilities to do with one's own and others emotions, specifically; the ability to perceive and express one's own emotions; the ability to perceive and understand the emotions of others; the ability to allow emotions to direct one's reasoning; the ability to manage one's own emotions; and the ability to managethe emotions of others.