Split-half coefficients for the area scores were .90 (.90) for Experiential EI and .88 (.86) for Strategic EI. The task
scores have lower levels of internal consistency, with Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from .64 (.62) to .88
(.87; Mayer et al., 2002 ).
Test/C0Retest
A test/C0retest reliability coefficient of r5.86 was found for a sample of 60 respondents over a three-week inter-
val ( Brackett & Mayer, 2003 ). Over an unspecified period, test /C0retest correlations ranged from .74 to .89 across
branch scores ( Mayer et al., 2002 ;N562).
Reliability (MSCEIT-YV)
Internal Consistency
Item homogeneity was reported for a sample of 50 U.S. students with an age range from 10 to 18 years
(M514.3, SD52.5). The Cronbach alpha coefficient was high ( α5.84 for total EI; Peters, Kanzler, & Rossen,
2009 ).
Validity (MSCEIT)
Convergent/Concurrent
Correlations of the MSCEIT with the STEM and STEU were .36 and .33 ( Austin, 2010 ). Correlations with
cognitive ability tend to be significant within a weak to moderate range (e.g., Livingstone & Day, 2005 ; Mayer
et al., 1999).
Divergent/Discriminant
Correlations with self-report measures of trait EI, such as the EQ-i ( r5.21) or AES ( r5.18;Brackett & Mayer,
2003 ), tend to be weak. Further, the MSCEIT scores are conceptually and empirically distinct from well-
established personality traits, showing small correlations ( r5.00 to .24) with general personality factors (for a
review, see Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004 ). Management and Emotional Understanding both exhibited a low
correlation with verbal ability ( r5.14), and Emotional Understanding also correlated weakly with problem solv-
ing ( r5.15). Total EI ability correlated weakly ( r5.05) with Raven’s progressive matrices ( Ciarrochi et al., 2000 ),
indicating that the construct does not simply reflect ‘g’.
Construct/Factor Analytic
The MSCEIT was developed and validated with respect to Mayer and Salovey’s (1997) ability EI model.
Empirically, when the branch scores were constrained to load on higher-order factors, the data failed to support
the four-factor model, χ2
(16)539.78, p,.05, RMSEA 5.10, CFI 5.91 (e.g., Fiori & Antonakis, 2011 ). A meta-
analytic structural equation modeling approach using the pooled data of more than 10,000 individuals showed
excellent model fit ( Fan, Jackson, Yang, Tang, & Zhang, 2010 ). However, the authors of this study proposed an
alternative three-factor solution for the MSCEIT, as the first two branches were highly correlated ( r5.90).
Criterion/Predictive
MSCEIT scores exhibited low to moderate correlations with life enthusiasm ( r5.22), tobacco and alcohol use
(r5.19), social deviance ( r52.27), and drug use ( r52.32;Mayer et al., 2004 ). MSCEIT scores have not demon-
strated incremental predictive validity when controlling for general intelligence and personality factors ( Brody,
2004 ).
Validity (MSCEIT-YV)
Two independent studies found that the MSCEIT-YV scores correlated moderately with the EQ-i-YV scores,
indicating that these instruments measure overlapping, but distinct constructs, as is the case with the adult ver-
sions ( Peters et al., 2009; Windingstad et al., 2011 ). Overall EI correlated with general cognitive ability ( r5.35)
and reading achievement ( r5.35), but was not significantly associated with mathematics ( r5.17). Further, over-
all EI correlated negatively with emotion-oriented coping ( r52.46) and the number of discipline referrals
(r5.35;Peters et al., 2009 ).386 14. MEASURES OF ABILITY AND TRAIT EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
III. EMOTION REGULATION