بررسی هوش هیجانی : قابلیت اطمینان و اعتبار پرسشنامه هوش هیجانی (EQ-I) بار-اُن در دانشجویان دانشگاه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|1763||2000||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 28, Issue 4, 1 April 2000, Pages 797–812
The study examined reliability and validity of a new measure of emotional (i.e. non-cognitive) intelligence, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997, in a sample of 243 university students. Results indicated that the EQ-i domain and component scales had good item homogeneity and internal consistency. Scores were not unduly affected by response styles or biases. The EQ-i scales had a meaningful pattern of convergent validities with respect to measures of normal personality, depression, somatic symptomatology, intensity of affective experience and alexithymia. The reliability and validity results for men and women were very similar. Overall, the results suggested that the EQ-i is a promising measure of emotional intelligence. We recommend strategies for further validation of the EQ-i, as well as the construct of emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence (EI) is a relatively new term for a construct that is aimed at complementing the traditional view of intelligence by emphasizing the emotional, personal, and social contributions to intelligent behavior (Gardner, 1983, Mayer & Salovey, 1993, Mayer & Salovey, 1995, Wechsler, 1940, Wechsler, 1943 and Wechsler, 1958). Recently, the concept was popularized by Goleman (Goleman, 1995) and researchers undertook efforts to develop self-report measures of emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 1997 and Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden & Dornheim, 1998). One of the most active researchers in the area is Bar-On, whose work culminated in the publication of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997). The EQ-i is a 133-item self-report inventory. Items are declarative statements phrased in the first-person singular. Respondents are asked to indicate the degree to which the statement accurately describes them on a 5-point scale (1=not true of me, 5=true of me). Items are summed to yield a total score, which reflects overall emotional intelligence; scores on 5 higher-order composite dimensions (Intrapersonal intelligence, Interpersonal intelligence, Adaptability, Stress management, and General mood) and scores on 15 lower-order component scales (see Table 1). Raw scores on scales are adjusted according to correction factors and then transformed into standard scores (M=100, S.D.=15). Standard scores for North American respondents are based on a large, diverse normative sample of adults from various settings (N=3,831).The development of the EQ-i took place over many years, starting with the development of a conceptual framework and leading to the construction and refinement of scale items. Validity scales and correction indexes were added over time to improve measurement. A substantial body of research, summarized in the EQ-i manual, indicates that the scales have generally good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Factor analyses also provide some support for the inventory's hypothesized structure. Finally, the convergent and discriminant validity of the EQ-i has been evaluated in a number of ways. Many studies examined correlations between the EQ-i and various self-report inventories, including the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Cattell, Eber & Tatsouka, 1970), the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) and the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen & Kaemmer, 1989). In general, EQ-i total scores are correlated positively with measures of emotional stability and negatively with measures of neuroticism and psychopathology. Other studies have examined correlations between the EQ-i and peer ratings of adjustment or compared the EQ-i scores of criterion groups (e.g. young business leaders versus unemployed youth; prisoners versus community residents) and support the conclusion that EQ-i scores are related to general psychosocial adjustment. The aim of the present paper was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the EQ-i in a sample of university students in the context of a larger program of research examining the association between emotion and personality. We were interested in assessing the relationship of the EQ-i dimensions with both normal personality and psychopathology. We expected that high EQ-i subjects would show high positive affectivity scores (as measured by the NEO Five Factor Inventory–Extraversion scale; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and low negative affectivity scores (as measured by the NEO-FFI Neuroticism scale as well as the Beck Depression Inventory; Beck & Steer, 1987). We also measured somatic symptomatology (assessed by the Somatization scale of the Revised Symptom Checklist-90, SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1983), the increase of somatic symptoms under stress and intensity of affective experience (as measured by the Affect Intensity Measure, AIM; Larsen & Diener, 1986). We regarded all three indexes as indicators of failure to cope with affect and expected that high EQ-i subjects would show less psychosomatic problems overall or under stress as well as less overall affective intensity. Finally, the construct of alexithymia is conceptually nearly identical with the EQ-i Intrapersonal composite scale. Consequently, we assessed the relationship between the EQ-i and alexithymia, as measured by both the self-report Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker & Taylor, 1994a and Bagby, Taylor & Parker, 1994b) and two interview-based observer rating scales (the Beth Israel Questionnaire, BIQ; Sifneos, 1973) and the Structured Interview for Alexithymia, SIFA; Dawda, 1997). We expected to find negative correlations between alexithymia and the Intrapersonal EQ.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The present study provided support for the reliability and validity of a new measure of emotional intelligence, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997). The inventory had good structural properties. The correlations among the EQ composite scales as well as the pattern of convergent and discriminant validities suggested that the EQ-i taps a fairly broad range of related emotional constructs. One potential concern was that the Interpersonal scale had relatively small correlations with the other EQ composite scales, as well as a markedly different pattern of convergent and discriminant validities. With minor exceptions, the EQ-i scales show a remarkably similar pattern of validity results for men and women, which provides preliminary evidence for a lack of gender bias. However, in order to address the issue of potential gender bias properly, future research should use more appropriate statistical approaches (e.g. testing for differential item function using item response theory methods or testing for differential validity using multiple regression analyses). We were unable to explain below-normal EQ-i scores in the present sample. These unexpected results and their implication for the adequacy of the current EQ-i norm needs to be further explored in future research. It is important to note, however, that the low EQ-i scores in this study should not have had much impact on the observed convergent/discriminant validity indexes. On the basis of the present results, we suggest that the EQ Total score may be a good overall index of emotional intelligence. We also suggest that the usefulness of the intermediate level EQ composite scales may be limited. First, the Interpersonal, Adaptation and Stress management EQ scales comprise subscales that show markedly different convergent/discriminant validity indexes. Using the Intrapersonal and General mood EQ scales is more appropriate. Second, when using any composite scales, one has to be aware of a great similarity in convergent/discriminant validity among the four of five EQ composite scales. Consequently, when assessing more specific aspects of emotional intelligence, we suggest that instead of the EQ composite scales the 15 EQ subscale scores, which are for the most part more internally consistent, be used. Our results also suggested that EQ-i scores were not unduly influenced by response biases. This general conclusion requires some elaboration, however. First, although the correction indexes were effective in controlling for positive impression management, they were less effective in controlling for negative impression management. In our study, as reported in the EQ-i manual, the negative impression index was correlated negatively with EQ-i scores. The EQ-i manual suggests that one possible remedy to this problem is to use a small subset of NI items that tap severe psychopathology. This subset, in contrast to the other NI items, has low correlations with EQ-i scores and thus may be a better measure of actual response bias. Future research should further concentrate on the validity of both the EQ-i and the construct of emotional intelligence. First, in order to assess the construct validity of emotional intelligence adequately, a multi-method approach should be used. The sole use of one self-report measure may lead to what Cook and Campbell (1979) termed mono-method bias, a validity bias which results from using one assessment method, as well as mono-operational bias, resulting from using a single instrument to assess an underlying construct. Since Cattell (1957), attention has been paid to the fact that observed and self-reported personality traits do not show perfect correspondence (Wiggins, 1973) and researchers have called for a multimethod approach to assessment to minimize measurement error and thus maximize construct validity (Nay, 1979). Especially when assessing emotional constructs, which by definition include non-verbal components, such assessment methodology as interview-based rating scales or peer-ratings may be necessary in conjunction with self-reports, particularly at the stage of construct validation. Second, the relationship between the construct of emotional intelligence and other related constructs needs to be clearly established. For example, a substantial amount of literature has accumulated on such constructs as alexithymia (Taylor, Bagby & Parker, 1997), psychological mindedness (McCallum & Piper, 1997), coping (Endler & Parker, 1994) and normal personality (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Future research is needed to establish the usefulness of emotional intelligence over and above these well-validated constructs. Both a clear conceptual delineation and further empirical research is required to clarify this issue. Multitrait–multimethod (Cook & Campbell, 1979) methodology is appropriate for the analysis of the relationship among multiple related constructs. Third, after clarifying the relationship among emotional intelligence and related constructs, the relative decision-making validity of emotional intelligence (as well as the EQ-i), in comparison to the existing well-validated constructs, needs to be further established. Potential areas of interest may be clinical applications (e.g. counseling) or personnel selection.