It will be helpful to understand the self-sustainability of the methods used to measure the EQ level. Most of the methods use self-report – the process of individual analysis and assessment of thoughts and actions by the respondent. This is a subjective assessment method that is widely used in psychology along with empathic listening, intuition, hermeneutics, introspection, and others. The process of self-report has its nuances, because often a person wants to show himself in a more favorable light, and this affects the information content and the test result. The result of the EQ diagnosis depends on how much a person understands his feelings, drives, whether he can observe and be aware of what is happening. If we assess knowledge of geography, it would be reasonable to form a questionnaire based on answers and facts, observing the specifics, excluding multivariance. For example, a question like “which city is the capital of Italy” will give a very cost-effective picture of a person’s level of knowledge. But “Evaluate how good you are in geography”, offering a ten-point scale, does not just suggest at least 10 answer options, but the respondent himself may fluctuate in states that will depend on the state of health, mood, the presence of problems at a particular moment or other factors, affecting self-esteem.
The question, the answer to which can be verified in fact, is more persistent and significant for assessing reality. Falsification and self-deception are minimized.
Taking into account the inaccuracies of subjective methods for assessing emotional intelligence, they still do not fail, moreover, the bet on such methods turns out to be justified, especially when practical goals are considered as a factor of that very indicator of “fidelity”. There is such a thing as High-stakes testing – such, as the delivery of which an important consequence depends, for example, a test for entering a university, obtaining a license for work, driving courses. Average rate – advanced training test; low rate – self-assessment test. There is now a push to move EQ testing to high stakes. And this entails the use of an advanced level of psychometry – a science that measures psychological qualities, abilities, attitudes. This area of research is associated with the objective measurement of a person’s experience, personal qualities, and achievements, including the ability to determine emotions, feelings, and states not only in himself but also in other people.
Item Response Theory (IRT) is an analytical model that is used in psychometrics as the most sophisticated measurement method compared to the traditional approach. This paradigm is based on the relationship between the data of individual respondents regarding test items and the degree of knowledge on the general indication of the questionnaire topic. Thus, the IRT takes into account the versatility of each element as a factor that influences the assessment in a large-scale context. In studies of the Rosenberg, Gray-Little, Williams, and Hancock (1997) Self-Assessment Scale, the IRT method determined that this parameter is useful for distinguishing people with low and moderate self-esteem, but is not accurate for indexing the level of high self-esteem. In another example, Raise and Henson (2000) demonstrate that one item on the NEO-PI anxiety subscale was four times more informative than the other items. These examples show that using the IRT approach to testing, it is possible to move to a new level of assessing psychological characteristics
Another model in the psychometric analysis is differential element functioning (DIF). DIF is a statistical parameter that displays the level to which an element can diagnose different factors of members of different subgroups. DIF analysis can show unpredictable behavior in the items of the questionnaire. The DIF model is displayed only if the respondents are representatives of different groups, but with the same true abilities and have a different probability of giving a certain answer.
By combining the traditional view of EQ measurement with more sophisticated psychometric methods, a new approach to test design and interpretation can be synthesized, and therefore significantly expand the range of data obtained in the field of sensibility and emotion.
1.The Science of Emotional IntelligenceCurrent Consensus and ControversiesMoshe Zeidner1, Richard D. Roberts2, and Gerald Matthews31University of Haifa, Israel,2Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ, USA,3University of Cincinnati, OH, USA
3. (article 129 Applied Multivariate Research, Volume 13, No. 2, 2010, 129-144 AN ITEM RESPONSE THEORY ANALYSIS OF THE SELF-MONITORING SCALE Edward Burkley1 Oklahoma State University