Desktop version

Home arrow Psychology

  • Increase font
  • Decrease font


<<   CONTENTS   >>

Conceptual and measurement perspectives

The second perspective for organizing the chapters applies to studies that address theoretical, conceptual, and measurement issues in El. This includes topics of how El relates to similar constructs and theories, whether El is conceptualized as a trait or an ability, and from these models how El is measured. Three chapters examined El in Slovakia as it corresponds to related theories. Kaliska and Nabelkova (Chapter 5) found no relation of El to general intellectual ability and no effect of IQ level on El and social intelligence. Heinzova and Kaliska (Chapter 6) examined El and Gardner’s multiple intelligence model and found correspondence between global trait El and interpersonal intelligence. Birknerova, Zbihlejova, and Frankovsky (Chapter 7) compared El with measures of social intelligence and conclude that the models are indeed distinct types of intelligences. Together these studies add to existing literature that delineates El as a related but distinct construct (Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2009).

An examination of the chapters in Table 14.1 illustrates that the predominant El model in most of these studies was trait-based. However, if one considers the countries (which would count the six chapters from Slovakia as one country) the break down between trait and ability models is equal. One study (Liubertiene, Chapter 11) used a measure from the competency model based on Goleman and another (Taksic, Mohoric, and Cosic Pilepic, Chapter 4) described the development of their own competency measure. The issue of measurement is closely linked to theoretical conceptualizations in that the available measures set the limits of El research and application. The availability of the TEIQue through being translated into 27 languages (in addition to the ease of self-report administration) allows for more trait-based El research. By contrast the absence of MSCEIT translations in many languages likely limits research on the ability El model. An interesting study by Altaras Dimitrijevic and Jolic Marjanovic (Chapter 3 in this volume) included both trait and ability El models with these respective measures. They found psychometric patterns in their Serbian samples that parallel findings from other countries, thus creating an argument for etic (universal) stability of both El models across cultures. The Serbian MSCEIT was more closely aligned with IQ measures while the Serbian TEIQue more closely corresponded with the Big Five personality models that support their conceptualizations as abilities and traits respectively. Additionally, the utility of both measures was supported with incremental validity above intellectual and personality measures. Once ability measures are more readily available in other Eastern European countries it will be interesting to discover if future comparative studies find patterns similar to the Serbian study.

For this reason the study by Sergienko, Khlevnaya, Migun, and Osipenko (Chapter 2) from Russia is notable for the presentation of the Emotional Intelligence Test (EIT), which is a Russian-language measure that is based on the structure of the MSCEIT but is not a translation of it. This study advanced the field of El by addressing the need for culture-specific measures rather than English-based tests that are transplanted. A test constructed in a native language avoids the challenges of cultural bias from translated test structures and hopefully begins to capture nuanced elements of culture-based emotion abilities. The results are promising in that this measure expands research on El ability models in Russia and also may lead the way for other countries.

Taksic et al. (Chapter 4) also addressed this important need for culture- specific El measures as their chapter provided a review of several El measures created in Croatia, including self-report and performance formats. The Emotional Skills and Competence Questionnaire (ESCQ; Taksic, 1998) may be one of the first ever El measures developed in Eastern Europe. Other Croatian measures based on performance tasks are ability measures and tend to correspond to single components of the Mayer and Salovey (1997) model.

The work by Taksic and colleagues has advanced the El field in Croatia and the region with the development of culture-specific measures as well as the creation of abilities measures.

In Chapter 12, Martyniak and Pellitteri listed several measures available in Poland that are translations from other El measures (such as the Schutte, the Trait Meta Mood Scale, and the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale) or represent self-report and ability measures designed in Polish. These tools are part of a growing trend that opens up the El field in Poland to embrace both trait and ability models.

Lastly Kaliska and Nabelkova (Chapter 5) expanded the El field in Eastern Europe with the validation of adolescent versions of the long and short forms of the TEIQue. This work advanced the field, not with new tests but with adaptation for younger ages. Such tools open up research opportunities for a wider range of the population and allow for longitudinal studies on the role of El in youth development.

 
<<   CONTENTS   >>

Related topics