About the MSCEIT TM
The purpose of this page is to introduce the ability model of emotional intelligence and the MSCEIT as a measure of it. A full history of the field is available elsewhere (Mayer, 2001). A brief introduction, however, can suffice here. In 1990, Mayer and Salovey published two articles on emotional intelligence. The first article (Salovey & Mayer, 1990) reviewed literature throughout the disciplines of psychology and psychiatry, artificial intelligence, and other areas, and concluded that there might exist a human ability fairly called emotional intelligence. The idea was that some people reasoned with emotions better than others, and also, that some people’s reasoning was more enhanced by emotions than others. The companion article (Mayer, DiPaolo, & Salovey, 1990) presented a first ability model of emotional intelligence — a suggestion that emotional intelligence, measured as a true intelligence, might exist. Since that time, Mayer, Salovey, and their colleagues refined their model of emotional intelligence (see Mayer & Salovey, 1997), and expended considerable efforts toward developing a high-quality ability measure in the area. The newly developed Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is the result of this theoretical and empirical research.
MSCEIT IS BASED ON AN ABILITY MODEL OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
In this model, emotional intelligence is viewed as consisting of four separate components or branches. Here is a summary of this four-branch model of emotional intelligence:
Identify - the emotion(s) present
Use - use the emotion to help you think and solve problems
Understand - the causes of the emotion(s)
Manage - the emotions to obtain a positive result
Further reading on the ability model:
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Mayer, J.D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Implications for educators (pp. 3-31). New York: Basic Books.
Different approaches to emotional intelligence are discussed in:
Mayer, J.D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), The handbook of intelligence (pp. 396-420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
MEASURING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE WITH THE MSCEIT
Different definitional approaches to emotional intelligence have also led to different measurement approaches. Please consult our brief descriptions of some of these measurement approaches.
Also see Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000).
Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case for ability testing.
In R. Bar-On & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.). Handbook of emotional intelligence
(pp. 320-342). New York: Jossey-Bass.
The MSCEIT is an ability test of emotional intelligence designed for adult ages 17 years and older. Normative data are from a sample of 5,000 individuals.
The MSCEIT consists of 141 items that yield a total emotional intelligence score, two Area scores, and four Branch scores. The eight task-level scores are reported for research and qualitative use only.
The MSCEIT asks test takers to:
Identify the emotions expressed by a face or in designs.
Paper and Pencil - Via a re-usable color test booklet and
a one-time use answer sheet.
On-Line - The on-line version is scored automatically.
Testing time about 30 to 45 minutes.
The MSCEIT is available from the EI Skills Group.
Scoring the MSCEIT
The MSCEIT is objectively scored. One reason why this is the case is that emotions have evolved over time as a complex, adaptive signaling system.
Many theorists agree that basic emotions have universal
meaning - universal across cultures and even across certain species.
Consensus scoring is based upon the agreement of a large number of people. For example, if 70 percent of people felt that a photo was of a very happy person, then the best answer for the photo would be "happiness".
Consensus scoring "works" because of the evolutionary and
social basis of emotion and its expression. In addition, a low score on such
a test would be achieved by those people who are "off" or whose perceptions
of emotion are so unique as to cause them interpersonal problems.
Even though emotions convey information about social relationships, we have developed an alternative scoring method that relies upon expert judgment. In the expert method, emotions experts determine which test answers are better, and which are worse. While our earlier test employed just two raters, the MSCEIT's expert scoring method employs 21 members of the International Society for Research on Emotions (ISRE).
If the two scoring methods were to differ radically, we would be faced with a major scoring issue. Fortunately, the two methods yield very similar results, indicating that there are indeed better and worse answers on the MSCEIT.
In general, experts tend to agree more with each other,
and to diverge from the general consensus, in those areas of emotional
intelligence where the body of knowledge is better developed (i.e.,
perception and understanding).
Similar to Intelligence Tests?
Those of you familiar with the Wechsler scales of
intelligence will realize that some Wechsler subtests (e.g., Comprehension)
also utilize an expert scoring method.
Why Two Scoring Methods?
Multiple scoring methods have allowed us to determine
whether it is possible to create an ability test of emotional intelligence
that can be objectively scored. We need to demonstrate that there are
better, and worse, answers on such tests. Given the nature of emotional
information , we believe that there is adequate justification for both a
general consensus scoring method as well as an expert method. Over time,
however, it is likely that we will move to a single scoring method.
Internal consistency reliability for the MSCEIT V 2.0's normative sample are reported in the table below for both scoring methods.
Test - Retest
Brackett & Mayer (2001) found a test-retest reliability for the full-scale MSCEIT V2.0 of .86, based on a sample of 62 people.
If a test appears to measure what it is supposed to
measure, it has face validity. One study explicitly examined the face
validity of the MSCEIT in the workplace and concluded that "In general, the
MSCEIT has good face validity" Pusey (2000). We have additional information
on face validity of the MSCEIT for researchers as well as for test-takers.
If a test's items are systematically drawn from the areas
that the test is supposed to measure it is considered to have content
validity. Remember that the MSCEIT is operationalizing the ability model of
emotional intelligence. Therefore, the MSCEIT should measure the ability to
identify emotions in persons and objects; the ability to generate emotion
and use it to solve problems; the ability to understand emotional causes and
complexity; and, the ability to manage emotion to enhance growth?
Our factor analyses of the MSCEIT, based upon a sample of
1,985 test takers, are highly supportive of the four-branch model of
emotional intelligence. (Please ask us for a copy of our recent manuscript,
Modeling and Measuring Emotional Intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0.)
Discriminant Validity - If a test correlates at very high levels with other tests, then it may lack discriminant validity. This type of validity means that a test is measuring something relatively unique.
IQ - Salovey, Mayer, Caruso, and Lopes (in press), in a sample of 97 participants, found nonsignificant correlations close to zero between the MSCEIT V2.0 and (self-reported) Verbal and Math SAT scores, as well as r = .15 (ns) with the Vocabulary scale of the WAIS-III.
Emotionality -Salovey and colleagues (in press), found an intercorrelation between the MSCEIT and mood state of .08, ns, in a sample of 97 participants.
BarOn EQ-i - The correlation between the MSCEIT RV1.1 EIQ and the BarOn EQ-i was .13 (ns) in a sample of 130 ethnically diverse students (Pellettieri, 2001).
TMMS - The correlation between Trait Meta-Mood Scale (a scale of meta-experience of mood; see Mayer & Gaschke, 1988; Salovey et al., 1995) and the MSCEIT was .29 (p < .01) in a sample of 318 men and women (Gohm and Clore, 2001). Salovey and colleagues (in press), in a sample of 97 participants, found correlations of .01 to .16 (all nonsignificant) with the TMMS.
NEO Personality Inventory - Salovey and colleagues (in press), in a sample of 97 participants, correlated the MSCEIT V2.0 with the NEO PI and other scales. Its correlations were r = -.13 (ns) with Neuroticism, r = .04 (ns) with Extroversion, r = .33 (p < .05) with Agreeableness, r = -.23 (p < .05) with Openness, and r = .25 (p < .05) with Conscientiousness.
What does emotional intelligence, and the MSCEIT, predict? Contrary to the claims in the popular press, we are certain that emotional intelligence is not "twice as important as IQ". Indeed, we know of no psychological variable that is that powerful a predictor. The MSCEIT will likely predict important outcomes, but at levels that one usually obtains in psychological research.
There are a number of studies that are in the field, but those that have been completed suggest that the MSCEIT offers additional predictive validity for outcomes such as pro-social behavior, deviancy, and academic performance (see Mayer et al., 2002b).
We again remind researchers and practitioners that the
applied use of emotional intelligence tests must proceed with great caution.
The purpose of this page is to introduce certain background concepts regarding the MSCEIT. Additional information can be obtained from the MSCEIT publisher, in the MSCEIT Manual, through a series of articles, and also, on-line at www.emotionaliq.org . A list of references is also available.