ارزیابی روانسنجی تست هوش هیجانی مایر سالوی- کاروسو نسخه 2.0
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|73743||2005||21 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10600 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Intelligence, Volume 33, Issue 3, May–June 2005, Pages 285–305
There has been some debate recently over the scoring, reliability and factor structure of ability measures of emotional intelligence (EI). This study examined these three psychometric properties with the most recent ability test of EI, the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT V2.0; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, [Mayer, J. D., Salovey, & P., Caruso, (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J., Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). New York: Cambridge; Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R., (2000). The Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso emotional intelligence test: Technical manual. Toronto, ON: MHS]), with a sample (n=431) drawn from the general population. The reliability of the MSCEIT at the total scale, area and branch levels was found to be good, although the reliability of most of the subscales was relatively low. Consistent with previous findings, there was a high level of convergence between the alternative scoring methods (consensus and expert). However, unlike Mayer et al.'s [Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. 0. Emotion, 3, 97–105.] contentions, there was only partial support for their four-factor model of EI. A model with a general first-order factor of EI and a three first-order branch level factors was determined to be the best fitting model. There was no support for the Experiential Area level factor, nor was there support for the Facilitating Branch level factor. These results were replicated closely using the Mayer et al. [Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G., (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2. 0. Emotion, 3, 97–105.] data. The results are discussed in light of the close comparability of the two scoring methods. Furthermore, the fundamental limitations of the MSCEIT V2.0, with respect to the inadequate number of subscales theorized to measure each branch level factor are identified and discussed.