Test/C0Retest
In a sample of 99 employees, test /C0retest reliabilities over a four-month period ranged from .67 (Management
of own emotions) to .83 (Awareness of others’ emotions; Jordan & Lawrence, 2009 ). Over an eight-month period,
they ranged from .64 (Management of own emotions) to .80 (Awareness of own emotions), with a mean of .59.
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Convergent validity was assessed with the TMMS. The WEIP scores had small-to-moderate correlations
with mood Clarity ( r5.17/C0.25) and Repair ( r5.22/C0.28), and non-significant correlations with Attention to
moods ( r5.03/C0.08). Similar correlations with the TMMS were observed for the Spanish version. Concurrent
validity was demonstrated through correlations with the self-monitoring ( r52.09 to .40), perspective taking
(r527. To .43), personal distress ( r52.25 to 2.31), creative thinking ( r5.29 to .34), and emotional control
(r5.24 to .29).
Divergent/Discriminant
The WEIP correlated weakly ( r5.23) with cognitive ability in one study ( Sue-Chan & Latham,
2004 ). In another study, two subscales (ability to express one’s own emotions and ability to identify
others’ emotions) showed non-significant correlations of .04 and 2.02, respectively, with the Wonderlic
Personnel Test.
Construct/Factor Analytic
Confirmatory factor analyses supported the scale’s four-factor model across two organizational samples, rela-
tive to competing models that were also tested ( Jordan & Lawrence, 2009 ). Model fit indices were χ2
(98)5271.33,
p,.001, RMSEA 5.05, SRMR 5.05, CFI 5.95, IFI 5.95, NFI 5.92, NNFI 5.94 for the first sample and
χ2
(98)5151.54, p,.001, RMSEA 5.05, SRMR 5.06, CFI 5.95, IFI 5.95, NFI 5.87, NNFI 5.94 for the second
sample.
Criterion/Predictive
The WEIP scores correlated moderately with team playing behavior ( r5.32), course grades ( r5.26;Sue-Chan
& Latham, 2004 ), and a dominant conflict resolution style ( r5.35;Jordan & Troth, 2004 ) for individuals. They
also predicted integrative problem solving ( r5.45) for teams ( Jordan & Troth, 2004 ).
Location
Jordan, P.J., & Lawrence, S.A. (2009) Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the
Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile /C0Short Version (WEIP-S). Journal of Management & Organization, 15 ,
452/C0469.
Results and Comments
Individuals high in the total EI score sought collaborative solutions when presented with conflict ( Jordan &
Troth, 2002, 2004 ), and the ability to deal with own, but not others’ emotions predicted work collaboration
(Jordan & Troth, 2002 ). In another study, EI completely mediated the relationship between the Situational
Interview and team-playing behavior ( Sue-Chan & Latham, 2004 ). In this latter study, EI was assessed through
WEIP peer ratings, yielding a high level of internal consistency ( α5.93).
WORKGROUP EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
PROFILE /C0SHORT VERSION
The questions in this survey ask you about your attitudes and behaviors in relation to team members in your
work unit. While you are completing these questions, please think about the immediate work unit in which you work
most of the time.
Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about your feelings when working
with team members in your work unit.406 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION