Validating a Novel Emotional Intelligence Instrument for Resident Physicians

Abstract

To construct and validate a scale of emotional intelligence (EI) for the medical field, n = 80 resident physicians responded to a 69-item self-report measure during the pilot phase of development of the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Medicine (SEF:MED). Based on multiple-phase item and structural analyses, a final 36-item version was created based on data from n = 321 respondent residents. Initially exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the expected three-factor solution as did additional CFA from a second sample of n = 113 participants. Internal consistency reliabilities obtained from the original n = 321 residents for the three SEF:MED subscales of Interpersonal Skills (IS), Emotional Awareness (EA), and Emotional Management (EM) were 0.81, 0.82, and 0.84, respectively. Alphas for the second CFA data set were 0.89, 0.87, and 0.88 for IS, EM, and EA, respectively. In addition, the SEF:MED was validated by comparing it to related measures (i.e., the Profile of Emotional Competence (PEC) and the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel [MBI-HSS (MP)]); Correlation coefficients between the Total EI composite on the SEF:MED and the PEC global scales ranged from r = 0.64 to 0.68. Finally, correlation coefficients from the Total EI composite on the SEF:MED significantly related to the MBI-HSS (MP) Emotional Exhaustion (EE), Depersonalization (DP), and Personal Accomplishment (PA) scales (r = −0.50, −0.44, and 0.52, respectively). The SEF:MED may provide useful data to physicians and other medical professionals as they consider their own well-being and how it may affect care of their patients.

Development and validation of the Scale of Emotional Functioning: Education (SEF:ED)

“…This structure is consistent with various definitions of EI, which emphasizes the awareness of one's EI, the ability to use this awareness to help manage work place stressors, and the ability to build and maintain interpersonal relationships (Beierle et al, 2018). Importantly, this three‐factor structure is similar to the three‐factor structure of the MBI‐ES, and data shows the subscales of the SEF:MED and the SEF:ED are related to MBI scales (McCallum et al, 2022).…”

“…The SEF:ED includes six consistency pairs (12 items total) that were used to address consistency of responding, Research Question 1 . These pairs were identified based on content and modeled after the SEF:MED (McCallum et al, 2022). The consistency pairs were yoked items that were identified as having similar content; therefore, respondents were expected to provide the same rating on both items.…”

“…One retained item loaded at 0.27, but strengthened the reliability estimate of the subscale. The structure of the SEF:ED is similar to that of the SEF:MED (McCallum et al, 2022) in that each contains three subscales assessing similar subconstructs of EI. This structure is consistent with various definitions of EI, which emphasizes the awareness of one's EI, the ability to use this awareness to help manage work place stressors, and the ability to build and maintain interpersonal relationships (Beierle et al, 2018).…”

“…The SEF:ED was developed by a research Team led by the second author of this article; the Team focused on a number of projects aimed to create, validate, then use EI‐related instruments to investigate the relationship between EI and related constructs and the extent to which EI can be trained (Fast, 2021). The SEF:ED is the third EI instrument developed by the Team and was adapted in part from the first EI scale, Scale of Emotional Functioning: Medicine (SEF:MED; see Beierle, et al, 2018; Lewis et al, 2021; McCallum et al, 2022). The SEF:MED was developed from scrutiny of the EI literature and available EI instruments and three subscales were created: Emotional Awareness (EA), Emotional Management (EM), and Interpersonal Relationships (IR) respectively.…”

“…Depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment often co‐occur as stressors continue to operate within the work environment. According to Chan (2006) and others (e.g., McCallum et al, 2022; Mikolajczak et al, 2007), there is a relationship between EI and burnout, which is best characterized as an inverse one, that is, a person who has high EI is less likely to experience burnout and vice‐versa. EI is predictive of burnout and may even protect vulnerable workers against its ill effects (Chan, 2006; Zysberg et al, 2017).…”