selects the most appropriate response to the situation (score range: 0 /C01); and (b) rate-the-extent, in which the
respondent rates different response options according to their effectiveness (response range: 1 /C06). The multiple-
choice option is scored according to expert weights, whereas an additional rate-the-extent option is scored based
on the distance of a response from the expert rating. The purpose of having these two response formats is to dis-
tinguish between test effects and construct effects. There are 44 items on the STEM, of which 18 focus on anger
content, 14 on sadness, and 12 are directed at fear content.
Sample
The initial investigation was carried out on two separate samples. The first sample consisted of 207
Psychology undergraduate students (140 women) with a mean age of 21.1 years (Median 519.0, SD55.6). Most
of the participants were of Anglo-Celtic and Asian backgrounds. Two-hundred participants completed the STEU,
resulting in a mean score of 0.60 ( SD50.13); one-hundred-twelve participants completed the STEM in multiple-
choice format, obtaining a mean score of .52 ( SD5.07), whereas 91 participants achieved a mean score of 2.57
(SD5.46) with the rate-the-extent method ( MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).
A non-student work sample of 149 participants (107 women) completed the same STEU as the first sample,
but a modified STEM which was reduced to 30 items and administered in multiple-choice format only. The age
range of this sample was 18 to 59 years with mean age of 35.33 years ( SD511.03). This sample had a mean STEU
score of .63 ( SD5.09) and a mean STEM score of .61 ( SD50.08). The comparable STEM mean in the first sample
(with 13 items removed) was .57 ( SD5.09;MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
The undergraduate student sample responses exhibited Cronbach alpha coefficients of .71 (STEU), .68 (STEM-
multiple choice), and .92 (STEM-rate the extent); the 30-item STEM (multiple-choice format) produced scores
with an alpha coefficient of .72 in this sample. The STEU and STEM (multiple-choice) scores in the work sample
exhibited alpha coefficients of .43 and .61, respectively. The Cronbach alpha was significantly lower in the work
sample than in the student sample ( MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).
Test/C0Retest
Over a 10-week period, test /C0retest correlations were .55 for the STEM and .66 for the STEU (MacCann, 2010).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
Correlations with measures of vocabulary ( r5.49, .41) and university grades ( r5.37, .16) indicated that the
STEU and STEM, respectively, measure a form of intelligence. In particular, the multiple-choice format seems to
represent ability, as the scores produced with this method were more strongly associated with vocabulary than
personality dimensions, whereas the opposite was true for rate-the-extent scores. STEU scores explained incre-
mental variance over vocabulary in STEM scores and in the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale stories sub-
test scores, which load highest on the general ability EI factor. A problematic pattern, however, was that both
STEM and STEU scores were more strongly associated with vocabulary than the stories test, indicating that these
measure verbal intelligence primarily, rather than specifically EI ( MacCann & Roberts, 2008 ).
Austin (2010) examined the STEU and STEM’s associations with intelligence, emotion perception, and ability
EI, as assessed with the MSCEIT. Only the STEU and MSCEIT (Understanding Emotions) were significantly asso-
ciated with intelligence and measures of emotion perception. Both the STEU and STEM scores correlated with
the MSCEIT total score and most branch scores, whereas neither was related to trait EI.
Divergent/Discriminant
Divergent validity was assessed by correlating the STEM and STEU with two trait EI measures ( Austin, 2010 ).
Correlations of the STEU with the TEIQue and AES were .03 and /C0.04, respectively. The STEM’s correlations
with these measures were .12 and .13. All four correlations were not statistically significant. Correlations with
personality were modest ( r5.02 to .24) and mostly non-significant.391 ABILITY EI MEASURES
III. EMOTION REGULATION