Construct Validation of the Test of Emotional Intelligence (TEMINT)

Blickle, Gerhard; Momm, Tassilo; Liu, Yongmei; Witzki, Alexander; Steinmayr, Ricarda

doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000075

Cited by 29 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Following this reasoning, different instruments for measuring EI have been developed in recent years, such as the Multi-Emotional Intelligence Scale (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999), the Situational Test of Emotional Understanding (MacCann & Roberts, 2008), and the Test of Emotional Intelligence (Blickle, Momm, Liu, Witzki, & Steinmayr, 2011). However, the EI performance test that is the most widely accepted in the research community is the one developed by Mayer and colleagues, known as the Mayer-SaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002;Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003), which was designed to assess the four-branch EI model (Mayer & Salovey, 1997).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.

Sánchez-García

Extremera

Fernández‐Berrocal

2016

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examined evidence regarding the reliability and validity of scores on the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Version 2.0 (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). In Study 1, we found a close convergence of the Spanish consensus scores and the general and expert consensus scores determined with Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and Sitarenios (2003) data. The MSCEIT also demonstrated adequate evidence of reliability of test scores as estimated by internal consistency and test-retest correlation after 12 weeks. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a 3-level higher factor model with 8 manifest variables (task scores), 4 first-level factors (corresponding to the 4-branch model of Mayer & Salovey [1997], with 2 tasks for each branch), 2 second-level factors (experiential and strategic areas, with 2 branches for each area), and 1 third-level factor (overall emotional intelligence [EI]), and multigroup analyses supported MSCEIT cross-gender invariance. Study 2 found evidence for the discriminant validity of scores on the MSCEIT subscales, which were differentially related to personality and self-reported EI. Study 3 provided evidence of the incremental validity of scores on the MSCEIT, which added significant variance to the prospective prediction of psychological well-being after controlling for personality traits. The psychometric properties of the Spanish MSCEIT are similar to those of the original English version, supporting its use for assessing emotional abilities in the Spanish population.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.

Sánchez-García

Extremera

Fernández‐Berrocal

2016

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The TEMINT sum score reflects the overall deviations from the actual ratings of the persons mentioned in the situations, with low sum scores indicating good performance in the test. The TEMINT has shown good psychometric properties in previous studies (Blickle et al, 2011;Schmidt-Atzert & Buehner, 2002). Internal consistency of the TEMINT in the present study was α = 0.77.…”

Section: Performance Testmentioning

confidence: 78%

No Evidence for the Involvement of Cognitive Immunisation in Updating Beliefs About the Self in Three Non-Clinical Samples

Kube

Glombiewski

2021

Cogn Ther Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cognitive immunisation against disconfirmatory evidence (i.e., devaluing expectation-disconfirming information through cognitive mechanisms) has recently been discussed as an obstacle to the revision of dysfunctional beliefs in mental disorders such as depression. Yet, it is unclear whether cognitive immunisation is also involved in belief updating in non-clinical samples. Methods Using a three-group modulation protocol (promotion vs. inhibition of cognitive immunisation vs. control group), we examined how cognitive immunisation influences belief updating in response to performance feedback in three non-clinical samples. In Experiments 1 (N = 99) and 2 (N = 93), participants received unexpectedly negative feedback, whereas participants from Experiment 3 (N = 118) received unexpectedly positive feedback. Depressive symptoms and dispositional optimism were examined as additional predictors of belief updating. Results In all experiments, participants adjusted their expectations in line with the feedback received, but this effect was not influenced by the cognitive immunisation manipulation. In Experiment 3, expectation change remained stable over 2 weeks. Depressive symptoms were associated with a reduced integration of positive feedback, but not with an increased sensitivity to negative feedback. Conclusions Whereas previous research has shown that cognitive immunisation contributes to persistent beliefs in clinical populations, the present findings suggest that it does not affect belief updating in non-clinical samples.

show abstract

“…High scores on a measure of social skill combined with a measure of wanting to get along with peers and supervisors predicted higher supervisors' ratings of an employee's cooperation, job performance, and promotion potential . High scores on these two measures predicted higher income and marketability of new employees after two years (Blickle, Momm, Liu, Witzki, & Steinmayr, 2011). High scores on a measure of social skill and a measure of achievement striving are associated with supervisory ratings of leadership emergence (Marinova, Moon, & Kamdar, 2013).…”

Section: -----------------------------------mentioning

confidence: 93%

The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences: Volume I: The Science of Personality and Individual Differences

Zeigler‐Hill¹,

Shackelford²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socioanalytic theory of personality provides a perspective on human nature based on insights from: Charles Darwin about human evolution; Sigmund Freud about unconscious motivation; and George Herbert Mead about the dynamics of social interaction. This chapter presents the basic assumptions of socioanalytic personality theory, reviews supporting empirical evidence and practical implications of the theory in the fields of leadership and faking in personnel selection. Finally, socioanalytic theory is positioned in the context of trait and clinical theories of personality. Socioanalytic theory differs from the other two theories of personality primarily by rejecting introspection as a valid source of data. In addition, trait theory has a "pure science" agenda with minimal concern for applications, whereas clinical theories and socioanalytic theory have an applied agenda-helping people improve their lives. people, groups that contain grandparents, parents, and children. They live in fixed territories which they must defend against other groups. They maintain morale and solidarity by gift giving and other forms of exchange, and by ritualized social interaction ─ which includes festivals and religious ceremonies. Some groups are egalitarian, some are authoritarian, but all have status hierarchies. Most believe that they are a special people and distrust foreigners. Finally, disputes inside the groups and warfare between the groups are constant. Groups with superior technology and social organization overwhelm, enslave, or destroy groups with inferior technology and social organization. Technology and social organization are the keys to group survival, which makes it important for the younger generation to learn the culture of its group. These themes reflect about 1,000,000 years of human experience and are the unconscious background for the development of individual personality. People lived in hunter gatherer groups until the invention of agriculture about 13,000 years ago; agriculture allowed much larger communities to develop. Modern industrial society is about 150 years old and has led to huge urban centers. Life in large cities is easier in some ways than life in a huntergatherer group ─ food, water, and electricity are generally available ─ but more difficult in other ways ─ we no longer know or trust our neighbors. We are adapted to living in conditions that no longer exist, and that explains much of the malaise of modern urban living ─ which Durkheim (1897) referred to as anomie. Basic motives Sociology, anthropology, and primate research contain three important generalizations about human nature (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989; Fardon, et al., 2012; Mead, 1934). The first is that people always live in groups; this suggests that they are inherently social, that at a deep and unconscious level, people need companionship and social acceptance (cf. Baumeister & Leary, 1995). These tendencies reflect the fact that group living has crucial survival implications ─ solitary primates and humans do not live very long. The second ...

show abstract

Construct Validation of the Test of Emotional Intelligence (TEMINT)

Cited by 29 publications

References 28 publications

The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.

The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test.

No Evidence for the Involvement of Cognitive Immunisation in Updating Beliefs About the Self in Three Non-Clinical Samples

The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences: Volume I: The Science of Personality and Individual Differences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About