Accumulating evidence suggests that effective communication and interpersonal sensitivity during interactions between doctors and patients impact therapeutic outcomes. There is an important need to identify predictors of these behaviors, because traditional tests used in medical admissions offer limited predictions of "bedside manners" in medical practice. This study examined whether emotional intelligence would predict the performance of 367 medical students in medical school courses on communication and interpersonal sensitivity. One of the dimensions of emotional intelligence, the ability to regulate emotions, predicted performance in courses on communication and interpersonal sensitivity over the next 3 years of medical school, over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness. Emotional intelligence did not predict performance on courses on medical subject domains. The results suggest that medical schools may better predict who will communicate effectively and show interpersonal sensitivity if they include measures of emotional intelligence in their admission systems.

emotion") were also identical across countries. These results show promise for the invariance of the WLEIS scores across different countries, yet warn of the non-invariance of the dimension "use of emotion". Reducing the motivationoriented nature of these items is in order to come to an exact model fit in cross-cultural comparisons.

To date, various measurement approaches have been proposed to assess emotional intelligence (EI). Recently, two new EI tests have been developed based on the situational judgment test (SJT) paradigm: the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (STEU) and the Situational Test of Emotion Management (STEM). Initial attempts have been made to examine the construct-related validity of these new tests; we extend these findings by placing the tests in a broad nomological network. To this end, 850 undergraduate students completed a personality inventory, a cognitive ability test, a self-report EI test, a performance-based EI measure, the STEU, and the STEM. The SJT-based EI tests were not strongly correlated with personality and fluid cognitive ability. Regarding their relation with existing EI measures, the tests did not capture the same construct as self-report EI measures, but corresponded rather to performance-based EI measures. Overall, these results lend support for the SJT paradigm for measuring EI as an ability.

There exist a variety of measurement instruments for assessing emotional intelligence (EI). One approach is the use of other reports wherein knowledgeable informants indicate how well the scale items describe the assessed person's behavior. In other reports, the same EI scales are typically used as in self-reports. However, it is not known whether the measurement structure underlying EI ratings is equivalent across self and other ratings. In this study, the measurement equivalence of an extant EI measure (Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale [WLEIS]) across self and other ratings was tested. Using multiple group confirmatory factor analysis, the authors conducted a sequence of increasingly more restrictive tests of equivalence across self and other ratings. The WLEIS was found to be configurally and metrically invariant across self and other ratings. However, there was no evidence for structural invariance between rater groups. Future research is needed to test the equivalence of other EI measures across self and other ratings. Keywords emotional intelligence, measurement invariance, confirmatory factor analysis, emotional intelligence assessmentSince the mid-1990s, emotional intelligence (EI) has been studied extensively and today there are a variety of measurement instruments available for assessing EI. An important distinction concerns the method of measurement (performance-based vs.

Abstract. There exists growing interest to assess applicants' emotional intelligence (EI) via self-report trait-based measures of EI as part of the selection process. However, some studies that experimentally manipulated applicant conditions have cautioned that in these conditions use of self-report measures for assessing EI might lead to considerably higher scores than current norm scores suggest. So far, no studies have scrutinized self-reported EI scores among a sample of actual job applicants. Therefore, this study compares the scores of actual applicants at a large ICT organization (n = 109) on a well-known self-report measure of EI to the scores of employees already working in the organization (n = 239). The current study is the first to show that applicants' scores on a self-report measure of EI during the selection process are indeed higher (d = 1.12) and have less variance (SD ratio = 0.86/1) than incumbents' scores. Finally, a meta-analytic combination of our results with those of earlier research showed that a score increase of about 1 SD in applicant conditions seems to be the rule, regardless of the type of setting, selfreport EI measure, and within-versus between-subjects design employed.