received consistent empirical support in the literature (e.g., Freudenthaler & Neubauer, 2007; Martins, Ramalho,
& Morin, 2010 ) and provided the grounds for the distinction between two different EI constructs: trait EI and
ability EI.
Although the trait EI and ability EI labels are not mere substitutes for self-report and maximum-performance
measurement, it is the measurement methodology that lies at the heart of the distinction. In other words, the
differentiation between trait EI and ability EI is predicated mainly on the method used to measure the construct
and noton the elements (facets) that the various models are hypothesized to encompass. As such, it is unrelated
to the distinction between ‘mixed’ and ‘ability’ models of EI ( Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000 ), which is based on
whether a theoretical model ‘mixes’ cognitive abilities and personality traits.
Unlike the distinction between trait EI and ability EI, that between ‘mixed’ and ‘ability’ models pays no heed
to the most crucial aspect of construct operationalization (viz., the method of measurement) and explicitly
proposes that cognitive abilities may be measured via self-report (see Mayer et al., 2000 ), which is psychometri-
cally untenable. Research on self-estimates of intelligence has demonstrated that people tend to provide inflated
self-estimates of their abilities and that such estimates correlate only moderately with measured levels of the
same ability ( Visser et al., 2008 ). In short, the distinction between mixed versus ability models is at variance both
with established psychometric theory as well as with all available empirical evidence.
The trait EI and ability EI literatures have develope d relatively independently, with the former being
several times larger than the latter. Hundreds of studies have been conducted in the two fields and
several meta-analyses have been published (e.g., Dana & Newman, 2010; Martins et al., 2010 ). It would
be beyond the scope of this chapter to provide detailed coverage of all this research, although
many studies have been briefly summarized in the va lidity sections under each instrument below. More
details can be found in the various meta-analyses and in an overview chapter by Austin, Parker, Petrides,
and Saklofske (2008) .
MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
While numerous scales, mainly self-report measures, have appeared in the past 10 /C015 years, we have elected
to report on 13 of these that meet several criteria, including that the scale must fall clearly within the realm
described in EI models, have demonstrated reasonable psychometric properties, and proved useful in both
research and applied settings. We include both ability and trait EI measures. Workplace-oriented trait EI
measures will be described concisely.
Ability EI
1.Mayer/C0Salovey /C0Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test ( Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002 )
2.Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale ( Lane et al., 1990 )
3.Situational Test of Emotional Understanding/Management ( MacCann & Roberts, 2008 )
Trait EI
General
1.Trait Meta-Mood Scale ( Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995 )
2.Emotional Quotient Inventory ( Bar-On, 1997 ) and EQ-i 2.0 ( Multi-Health Systems, 2011 )
3.Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire ( Petrides, 2001, 2009 )
4.Assessing Emotions Scale ( Schutte et al., 1998 )
Workplace-oriented
1.Wong & Law Emotional Intelligence Scale ( Wong & Law, 2002 )
2.Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile ( Jordan, Ashkanasy, Ha ¨rtel, & Hooper, 2002 )
3.Multidimensional Emotional Intelligence Assessment ( Tett, Fox, & Wang, 2005 )
4.Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory ( Gignac, 2010 )382 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION