Cross-Cultural Research on the Reliability and Validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT)
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7276596 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jahanvash Karim (Université de Paul Cézane, France,), Robert Weisz (Université de Paul Cézane, France) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 44 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 374-404 |
| Publication date | 2010-08-02 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Cross-Cultural Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1069-3971 • E-ISSN: 1552-3578 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1069397110377603 |
| OpenAlex | W2020523949 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 50 |
Despite the rather large literature concerning emotional intelligence, the vast majority of studies concerning development and validation of emotional intelligence scales have been done in the Western countries. Hence, a major limitation in this literature is its decidedly Western focus. The aim of this research was to assess the psychometric properties of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) in a cross-cultural comparative context involving the collectivist Pakistani (Eastern culture) and the individualist French (Western culture) students. With the exception of significant mean differences on the MSCEIT scores between two cultures, the results concerning the validity of the MSCEIT generalized nicely across both cultures. The results from multisample analysis revealed that the MSCEIT has the property of factorial invariance across both cultures, including invariance of factor loadings, unique variances, and factor variance. For both Pakistani and French students, the MSCEIT scores were distinguishable from the Big Five personality dimensions, self-report emotional intelligence measures, and cognitive intelligence. Furthermore, in both cultures, the MSCEIT scores failed to demonstrate incremental validity against well-being measures, after controlling for cognitive intelligence and the Big Five personality dimensions. Finally, within each sample, females significantly scored higher than males on the MSCEIT total scores
Context (archaeology · Developmental psychology · Emotional intelligence · Incremental validity · Personality · Psychometrics · Test (biology · Test validity · Cognitive Abilities and Testing · Emotional Intelligence and Performance · Personality Traits and Psychology · Psychology · Social Psychology
Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence
Trait emotional intelligence
Target Articles
A critical evaluation of the emotional intelligence construct
Cognitive emotion regulation strategies and depressive symptoms
Emotional intelligence
On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence
Convergent, Discriminant, and Incremental Validity of Competing Measures of Emotional Intelligence
Sex Differences in Emotional Awareness
A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence and health
Emotional Intelligence
The Satisfaction With Life Scale
Comparing the Construct and Criterion-Related Validity of Ability-Based and Mixed-Model Measures of Emotional Intelligence
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect
Gender Differences in Judgments of Multiple Emotions From Facial Expressions
Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0
Exploring the validity of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) with established emotions measures
The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures
Relating emotional abilities to social functioning
Emotional intelligence
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures
Mapping the domain of expressivity
Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes
Human Abilities
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
American-Japanese Cultural Differences in the Recognition of Universal Facial Expressions
Cultural Influences on the Perception of Emotion
| Citations per year | 0.3 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2016 - 2023 (8) |
| Highly cited | No |