بررسی ساختار عاملی پرسشنامه هوش عاطفی بار-اُن با یک نمونه از جمعیت عمومی استرالیایی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|1766||2003||20 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||1 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 35, Issue 5, October 2003, Pages 1191–1210
It has been claimed that the dimensional structure of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Bar-On, 1997a) represents a hierarchical model of emotional and social intelligence describing a general factor, five-second order factors and 15 primary factors. However, there are several anomalies in the factor analytic methodology employed by Bar-On (1997a), and his interpretation of the results that render the dimensional structure of the EQ-i unclear. In contrast to claims by Bar-On, in the present study a series of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses found evidence for a general factor of emotional intelligence and six primary factors. Differences between the results reported by Bar-On (1997a) and those of the current study are attributed largely to the more appropriate factor analytic methodology employed. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Since Salovey and Mayer's conceptualisation of emotional intelligence (EI; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), a number of different models and measures have been developed (e.g. Bar-On, 1997a, Cooper and Sawaf, 1997, Goleman, 1995 and Mayer and Salovey, 1997). These alternative models and measures have been compared according to their theoretical structure (Mayer et al., 2000 and McCrae, 2000), and according to the way they measure EI (Mayer et al., 2000 and Petrides and Furnham, 2000). Models of EI have been placed into two general categories, ‘ability’ and ‘mixed’ (or personality) models of EI. Ability models have been identified as those that define EI as ‘intelligence’ in the traditional sense (e.g. Mayer & Salovey, 1997). That is, as a conceptually related set of mental abilities to do with emotions and the processing of emotional information, that are apart of, and contribute to, logical thought and intelligence in general. In comparison, mixed models of EI (e.g. Bar-On, 1997a) have been identified as those that define EI as a mixture of emotion-related competencies, personality traits and dispositions. Measures of EI similarly fall into two categories, self-report measures of EI, and performance-based (objective) measures. Self-report measures pertaining to ability models of EI (e.g. Trait-Meta Mood Scale, TMMS; Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995) are purported to assess individuals’ beliefs about emotional abilities rather than their actual capacity (Mayer, Caruso et al., 2000). Self-report measures pertaining to mixed models (e.g. the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory, Bar-On EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997a) have been described as embedded within the personality framework, and to assess cross-situational consistencies in behaviour (Petrides & Furnham, 2000). Performance-based measures of EI pertain to ability models (e.g. Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1999), and involve a series of emotion-related questions for which there are more and less correct answers according to consensual responses. The present paper examines the dimensional structure of one of the predominant mixed model self-report measures of EI, the Bar-On EQ-i, (Bar-On, 1997a), in an Australian general population sample.Bar-On's model of EI (1997a) involves an array of personal, emotional, and social abilities and skills thus constituting a mixed model. While Bar-On places this model under the banner of EI, it is a somewhat broader construct that he more generically refers to as “…emotional and social intelligence” (Bar-On 2000, p. 363). Bar-On purports to have identified 15 determinants of successful emotional functioning and positive psychological well-being from a review of the mental health literature, which have been operationally defined and conceptualised as the 15 components of his model. These components include: Emotional Self-Awareness (ES), the ability to recognise and to understand one's feelings; Assertiveness (AS), the ability to express feelings, beliefs and thoughts, and to defend one's rights in a non-destructive manner; Self-Regard (SR), the ability to respect and accept oneself; Self-Actualisation (SA), the ability to realise one's potential capacities; Independence (IN), the ability to be self-directed and self-controlled in one's thinking and actions and to be free of emotional dependency; Empathy (EM), the ability to be aware of, to understand, and to appreciate the feelings of others; Interpersonal Relationship (IR), the ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships; Social Responsibility (RE), the ability to demonstrate oneself as a cooperative contributing, and constructive member of one's social group; Problem Solving (PS), the ability to identify and define problems as well as to generate and implement potentially effective solutions; Reality Testing (RT), the ability to assess the correspondence between what is experienced and what objectively exists; Flexibility (FL), the ability to adjust one's emotions, thoughts, and behaviour to changing situations and conditions; Stress Tolerance (ST), the ability to withstand adverse events and stressful situations; Impulse Control (IC), the ability to resist or delay an impulse, drive or temptation to act; Happiness (HA), the ability to feel satisfied with one's life, to enjoy oneself and others, and to have fun; Optimism (OP), the ability to look at the brighter side of life and to maintain a positive attitude. These 15 components of Bar-On's model are described in greater detail in the EQ-i Technical Manual (Bar-On, 1997a). Within Bar-On's (1997a) model, the 15 components are theoretically arranged into five broader or major conceptual components. These include; Intrapersonal Emotional intelligence (RAeq), representing abilities, capabilities, competencies and skills pertaining to the inner self, i.e. the ES, AS, SR, SA and IN components; Interpersonal Emotional intelligence (EReq), representing interpersonal skills and functioning i.e. EM, IR, RE; Adaptability Emotional Intelligence (ADeq), representing how successfully one is able to cope with environmental demands by effectively sizing-up and dealing with problematic situations, comprising PS, RT and FL; Stress Management Emotional Intelligence (SMeq), representing the ability to manage and cope effectively with stress comprising the ST and IC components; and General Mood Emotional Intelligence (GMeq), representing the ability to enjoy life and maintain a positive disposition which comprises the HA and OP components. These five major components of EI are theoretically related to a general factor of EI thus constituting a hierarchical model comprising overall EI, five-composite components, and 15 specific components at the bottom of the hierarchy. Within this model, EI is defined as “…an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence one's ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and pressures” (Bar-On, 1997a, p. 16). The 15 components of the model are described as non-cognitive variables that “…resemble personality factors” (Bar-On, 1997b, p. 6). It is also proposed that the components of the model develop over time (with age), change throughout life, and can be improved through training and remedial programs.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Prior to conducting the factor analyses, the validity of participants’ responses were examined. Four of the participants’ responses were found to be invalid as per the Omission Rate criterion, and 15 participants’ responses were found to be invalid as per the inconsistency index criterion. These participants’ responses were removed from subsequent analyses. In order to facilitate comparisons among population samples the test publisher (MHS) converts raw scores to standard scores such that each scale score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Accordingly standardised means and standard deviations of the present sample are provided in Table 1.As shown in Table 1, the present sample scored slightly lower than the North American normative sample (M=100; S.D.=15) for the EQ Total score as well as the EQ composite scales however, the difference in average performance for all composite scales fall within one standard deviation and are therefore considered to be within the normal range according to the EQ-i Technical Manual.