IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0098827.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Is the Ability Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Good for? An Evaluation Using Item Response Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Marina Fiori
  • Jean-Philippe Antonietti
  • Moira Mikolajczak
  • Olivier Luminet
  • Michel Hansenne
  • Jérôme Rossier

Abstract

The ability approach has been indicated as promising for advancing research in emotional intelligence (EI). However, there is scarcity of tests measuring EI as a form of intelligence. The Mayer Salovey Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test, or MSCEIT, is among the few available and the most widespread measure of EI as an ability. This implies that conclusions about the value of EI as a meaningful construct and about its utility in predicting various outcomes mainly rely on the properties of this test. We tested whether individuals who have the highest probability of choosing the most correct response on any item of the test are also those who have the strongest EI ability. Results showed that this is not the case for most items: The answer indicated by experts as the most correct in several cases was not associated with the highest ability; furthermore, items appeared too easy to challenge individuals high in EI. Overall results suggest that the MSCEIT is best suited to discriminate persons at the low end of the trait. Results are discussed in light of applied and theoretical considerations.

Suggested Citation

  • Marina Fiori & Jean-Philippe Antonietti & Moira Mikolajczak & Olivier Luminet & Michel Hansenne & Jérôme Rossier, 2014. "What Is the Ability Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) Good for? An Evaluation Using Item Response Theory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0098827
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098827
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0098827
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0098827&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0098827?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0098827. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.