Inter-Rater
Twenty protocols scored independently by two trained raters led to high inter-rater reliability, r5.84 (Lane
et al., 1990 ). In Lane et al. (1996) , inter-rater reliabilities were high for the Self ( r5.98), Other ( r5.91), and total
(r5.92) scores. Similarly, Igarashi et al. (2011) reported acceptable levels of inter-rater reliability (Self 5.88,
Other5.87, total 5.90).
Reliability (LEAS-C)
Internal Consistency
For the LEAS-C, Cronbach alpha coefficients were .71 for Self scores, .64 for Other scores, and .66 for total
scores ( Bajgar et al., 2005 ). In the Dutch-speaking sample, alpha coefficients were .73 for Self, .73 for Other, and
.76 for total scores ( Veirman et al., 2011 ).
Inter-Rater
Inter-rater reliability was .93 for Self scores, .86 for Other scores, and .86 for total scores ( Bajgar et al., 2005 ).
Validity (LEAS)
Convergent/Concurrent
In the initial publication of the LEAS, scores were shown to correlate with other measures of cognitive-
developmental complexity: the Parental Descriptions Scale ( r5.35) and the Washington University Sentence
Completion Test of Ego Development ( r5.40;Lane et al., 1990 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
There was little correlation with emotion scales ( r5.08 to2.27). Further, the LEAS did not correlate with the
number of words used ( r5.12), suggesting that complexity does not simply reflect verbal productivity ( Lane
et al., 1990 ). The Japanese version correlated weakly with the Big Five ( r5.02/C0.20) and alexithymia ( r5.00/C0.05).
Validity (LEAS-C)
Convergent/Concurrent
Convergent validity for the LEAS-C as an objective assessment of emotion complexity in children was demon-
strated by a significant association with an emotion comprehension task and two verbal tasks. Also, as antici-
pated, the LEAS-C was more strongly associated with emotion comprehension than emotion expression ( Bajgar
et al., 2005 ). Convergent validity of the Dutch version was demonstrated with measures of ability EI, intelligence,
and personality ( Veirman et al., 2011 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
Discriminant validity was apparent from associations with measures of social and emotional impairment
(Veirman et al., 2011 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
For the LEAS-C ( Veirman et al., 2011 ), the one-factor structure showed acceptable to good fit in a CFA
(χ2(54)5102.23, χ2/df51.89; SRMR 5.05; RMSEA 5.05 CFI 5.91; BIC 59107.56). In addition, the evidence
showed that the self and other scores should be viewed as distinct, yet highly ( r5.79) correlated subfactors of
emotional awareness.
Criterion/Predictive
No criterion/predictive validity evidence is currently available.
Location
Lane, R.D., Quinlan, D.M., Schwartz, G.E., Walker, P.A., & Zeitlin, S.B. (1990). The levels of emotional
awareness scale: A cognitive-developmental measure of emotion. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55 , 124/C0134.
Bajgar, J., Ciarrochi, J., Lane, R., & Deane, F. (2005). Development of the Levels of Emotional Awareness
Scale for Children (LEAS-C). British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23 , 569/C0586.389 ABILITY EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION