Desktop version

Home arrow Psychology

  • Increase font
  • Decrease font

<<   CONTENTS   >>

Emotional Analysis Test

The Emotional Analysis Test (Kulenovic, Balenovic, & Busko, 2000) is intended to measure a component of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model - the understanding of emotions. The test has 25 items, and the subjects need to distinguish a blend of emotions in a complex emotional state. The results obtained on TAE have shown that: (a) the reliability and homogeneity measures of TAE are satisfactory; (b) according to expectations, the results in TAE are in low but significant correlation with the measure of traditional cognitive abilities; (c) performance on TAE is unrelated to non-cognitive factors of El; (d) abilities measured by TAE contribute to the explanation of school achievement; and (e) results on TAE cannot predict self-reported conflicts within the school environment. It is concluded that TAE probably represents a measure of the abilities of El (e.g., understanding of emotions), which should be the subject of further empirical inquiry (Kulenovic et al., 2000).

Vocabulary of Emotion Test

The Vocabulary of Emotion Test (VET) was developed within the Mayer and Salovey conceptualization of El and represents a measure of ability from the understanding of emotions branch. A first version of the test consisted of 102 adjectives describing various emotional states and moods. The first adjective is the target word, followed by six adjectives with similar meaning. A subject must choose one adjective (out of six), which is closest in meaning to the target word. It is important to emphasize that this test has a correct answer, based on a solution from a Croatian dictionary (Anic, 1994). The test has been used in various research studies and had shown satisfying psychometric properties, with reliability coefficient a = .91 (Taksic, Harambasic, & Velemir, 2004b) and 44 percent of unique variance over and above various tests of standard intelligence.

Mohoric, Taksic, and Duran (2010) compared different scoring methods for El tests, using results from the VET test. In order to compare different scoring methods, five different types of “correct answers” were obtained for every participant according to: (1) consensus proportion criterion, (2) consensus mode criterion, (3) expert proportion criterion, (4) expert mode criterion, and (5) the Croatian Dictionary (Anic, 1994). When using the consensus method, each of the respondent’s answers was scored against the proportion of the sample that endorsed the same answer. For example, if the same alternative was chosen by 50 percent of the sample, the individual’s score would be augmented by the proportion of .50. The respondent’s total raw score was the sum of those proportions across all the 102 items of the test. The second consensus method used was mode: the category chosen by the largest proportion of the sample was scored as correct (and got 1 point), and all other responses were scored as zero. The total raw score was the sum of all the correct answers. Besides the consensus method, an expert scoring method was also used. In this method the correct answer is also determined according to a consensus, not a consensus of the whole sample but rather a consensus among experts. So, if 70 percent of experts chose A as the correct answer and 30 percent of them chose C, then answer A got a proportion of .70 and C got a proportion of .30 (proportion method). Each of the respondent’s scores was then evaluated against the criterion formed by the proportional responding of an expert group (in this case, the ten university teachers). So, if participants chose A on that particular item, they got a proportion of .70, if they chose C then they got a proportion of .30, and if they chose answers В and D, they did not get any points. Since most experts (mode method) consistently chose the answer that was the same as the one from the Dictionary or the correct one, consequently it was not mentioned in the further analysis.

In general, in the consensus scoring method authors used method proportion and mode, and in the expert scoring method only proportion was displayed. Reliability coefficients for different scoring methods of VET were also calculated. Reliability of VET was satisfying for three different scoring methods (correct answer, expert proportion, and consensus mode) and was rather low for the consensus proportion method (Mohoric et al., 2010).

The VET additionally has a shorter version, consisting of 35 items and with decent psychometric properties (reliabilities from .88 to .92). In research it is also used in combination with El tests measuring other branches from the M-S model (Babic Cikes, 2013: Babic Cikes & Busko, 2015; Busko & Babic Cikes, 2013).

<<   CONTENTS   >>

Related topics