Psychometric properties of the Italian trait emotional ...

Download PDF
21 downloads 1659 Views 196KB Size Report
Comment
a Department of Education and Psychology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy b Department of Psychology, ... Available online 11 March 2016. This study examined the ..... L. (2009). EQ-iTM Emotional Quotient Inventory. Validazione e.
Personality and Individual Differences 96 (2016) 198–201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Short Communication

Psychometric properties of the Italian trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (I-TEIQue) Annamaria Di Fabio a,⁎, Donald H. Saklofske b, Paul F. Tremblay b a b

Department of Education and Psychology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy Department of Psychology, University of Western University, London, ON, Canada

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 22 December 2015 Received in revised form 4 March 2016 Accepted 5 March 2016 Available online 11 March 2016 Keywords: Emotional intelligence Assessment Factor structure Personality

a b s t r a c t This study examined the psychometric properties of Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) with a sample of 1154 Italian young adults. Results confirmed the four factor structure and reliability of the Italian TEIQue. The I-TEIQue and Emotional Quotient Inventory total scores were significantly correlated. In contrast to non-significant correlations with the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test showing these measures tap two different aspects of the same construct. Low to moderate positive correlations with the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ) supported the view that Trait EI overlaps with aspects of personality, but is configured as a distinct construct. Overall, the results support the structure of the TEIQue and its use in the Italian context. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Emotional intelligence (EI) has generated considerable interest as reflected in the different models, definitions and measures (Bar-On, 1997; Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, 2000; Petrides and Furnham, 2001; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Siegling, Saklofske, and Petrides, 2015; Stough, Saklofske, and Parker, 2009). The most widely recognized EI theoretical frameworks are the ability (AEI; Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Mayer and Salovey 1997) and the trait models (TEI; Petrides and Furnham, 2001; Bar-On, 1997). AEI focuses on the intelligence-emotion interface and employs measures reflecting typical or maximum performance. In contrast, TEI encompasses a constellation of individual self-perceptions and dispositions related to emotions, usually assessed by self-report measures. TEI is located at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Petrides, Pita, and Kokkinaki, 2007). Petrides and Furnham (2000, 2001) further specified the TEI construct by identifying fifteen EI facets: adaptability, assertiveness, expression of emotions, management of emotions, perception of emotions, emotion regulation, impulsivity, relational skills, self-esteem, self-motivation, social competence, stress management, empathy, happiness, and optimism. These facets comprise the basis

⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Education and Psychology (Psychology Section), University of Florence, Italy, via di San Salvi, 12, Complesso di San Salvi, Padiglione 26, 50135 Firenze. E-mail address: [email protected]fi.it (A. Di Fabio).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.009 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

for the 153 item self-report Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue; Petrides, 2009) further organized into four main dimensions: Well-being, Self-control, Emotionality, and Sociability. This four factor structure and reliability of the TEIQue has been replicated in different countries (Freudenthaler, Neubauer, Gabler, Scherl, and Rindermann, 2008; Gökçen, Furnham, Mavroveli, and Petrides, 2014; Jacobs, Sim, and Zimmermann, 2015; Jolic-Marjanovic and Altaras-Dimitrijevic, 2014; Martskvishvili, Arutinov, and Mestvirishvili, 2013; Mikolajczak, Luminet, Leroy, and Roy, 2007; Siegling, Saklofske, and Petrides, 2015), including two studies of Italian youth (Andrei, Smith, Surcinelli, Baldaro, & Saklofske, 2016; Di Fabio, 2013). This paper aims to verify the factor structure of the Italian version of the TEIQue (I-TEIQue; Di Fabio, 2013) with a much larger sample of youth and examines its relationship to both a non-cognitive EI measure assessed by the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997), ability EI measured by the Mayer–Salovey– Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, 2002) and personality measured by the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Borgogni, 1993). It is hypothesized that: H1. The (I-TEIQue) will replicate the four factor structure of the original version. H2. The I-TEIQue will demonstrate satisfactory internal consistency reliability. H3. The I-TEIQue will show substantial correlations with the Bar-On EQ-i and low correlations with MSCEIT.

A. Di Fabio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 96 (2016) 198–201

199

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Alpha coefficients, separately for the whole sample as well as for men and women. Whole sample

Male

Female

Facets

Whole sample M

SD

Male M

SD

M

Female SD

Alpha

Alpha

Alpha

Self-esteem Trait optimism Trait happiness Emotion regulation Stress management Impulsiveness (low) Emotion perception Emotion expression Trait empathy Relationships Assertiveness Social awareness Emotion management Adaptability Self-motivation

3.88 4.28 4.17 3.83 3.97 4.01 4.22 4.60 4.74 4.37 4.74 4.21 4.02 4.01 4.17

1.11 1.22 1.30 .77 .80 .80 1.06 1.05 1.00 1.32 1.26 .79 .62 .81 1.04

3.84 4.20 4.12 3.82 3.97 3.99 4.17 4.59 4.67 4.27 4.04 3.73 4.25 3.40 4.13

1.14 1.23 1.28 .77 .79 .81 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.28 .64 .96 .78 .80 .99

3.90 4.31 4.20 3.84 3.97 4.03 4.26 4.61 4.78 4.42 4.02 3.70 4.19 4.01 4.19

1.11 1.21 1.31 .77 .80 .79 1.07 1.04 1.41 1.34 .61 1.02 1.78 .82 1.06

.86 .79 .85 .80 .79 .71 .81 .82 .81 .84 .80 .79 .75 .84 .81

.87 .79 .84 .80 .78 .73 .81 .82 .80 .82 .81 .79 .76 .83 .79

.86 .79 .86 .81 .79 .72 .81 .82 .81 .84 .80 .80 .75 .83 .80

Factors Well-being Self-control Emotionality Sociability Global trait EI

4.08 3.92 6.31 3.96 3.38

1.90 .64 1.42 .60 .57

4.03 3.92 6.22 3.99 3.36

1.09 .66 1.40 .60 .57

4.11 3.94 6.35 3.95 3.39

1.08 .64 1.43 .61 .56

.93 .81 .92 .80 .96

.94 .82 .92 .80 .96

.93 .81 .92 .80 .95

H4. The I-TEIQue will show low to moderate positive correlations with the BFQ.

2. Material and methods 2.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 1154 Italian youth and young adults (female = 65.3%; mean age = 18.96 years, SD = 1.97) attending university (N = 277) or high school (N = 877). Students completed the ITEIQue (Di Fabio, 2013) and Italian versions of the EQ-i, MSCEIT, and BFQ (N = 921).

2.2. Measures The Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue; Petrides, 2009) is a 153 item self-report scale that assesses global EI, four factors and 15 facets described above. Items are responded to on a 7-point Likert scale. The TEIQue has been shown to have adequate psychometric properties in preliminary studies of Italian youth (Andrei, Smith, Surcinelli, Baldaro, and Saklofske, 2016a; Andrei, Siegling, Aloe, Baldaro, and Petrides, 2016b; Di Fabio, 2013). The I-TEIQue (Di Fabio, 2013) was employed here. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997) contains 133 items assessing five principle dimensions and total EI using a five-point Likert scale. Reliabilities are very adequate for the Italian version of the EQ-i ranging from α = .95) for

Fig. 1. CFA of the theoretical four-factor structure of the TEIQue (N = 1154). χ² (59) = 891.13; CFI = .92, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .07.

A. Di Fabio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 96 (2016) 198–201

.201⁎⁎ .221⁎⁎ .258⁎⁎ .191⁎ .252⁎⁎ .226⁎⁎ .328⁎⁎ .202⁎⁎ .199⁎ .266⁎⁎

.214⁎⁎ .196⁎ .176⁎ .197⁎ .224⁎⁎

.243⁎⁎ .198⁎ .211⁎⁎ .453⁎⁎ .297⁎⁎

.198⁎ .227⁎⁎ .192⁎ .238⁎⁎ .245⁎⁎

the total score to a range of .81 to .91 for the four factors (Franco and Tappatà, 2009). For the current study, reliability coefficients for the total score (α = .93), intrapersonal (α = .90), interpersonal (α = .81), adaptability (α = .80), stress management (α = .84), and general mood (α = .82) were all very satisfactory. The Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, 2002) is an ability based emotional intelligent measure comprised of 141 items and assesses several dimensions including a Total score. Of interest here are the two areas labeled Experiential Emotional Intelligence and Strategic Emotional Intelligence and the four core factors of perceiving emotions, facilitating thought, understanding emotions, and managing emotions. The Italian version (D'Amico and Curci, 2010) showed acceptable internal consistency reliabilities ranging from α = .90 for Perceiving Emotions, to α = .72 for Managing Emotions. In this study, reliabilities ranged from α = .91 for Perceiving Emotions to α = .74 for Managing Emotions. The Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ; Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Borgogni, 1993) contains 132 items assessing the five major trait personality factors using a 5-point Likert scale. This measure has demonstrated both good reliability and validity (Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Borgogni, 1993). The Cronbach's alpha coefficients based on the present sample were: .82 for Extraversion, .76 for Agreeableness, .83 for Conscientiousness, .91 for Emotional Stability, and .77 for Openness.

.139 .198 .009 .031 .076

Agreeableness

.086 .010 .052 .064 .032

2.3. Data analysis

.060 .216⁎ .001 .012 .083 .080 .157 .038 .050 .094 .415⁎⁎ .497⁎⁎ .516⁎⁎ .446⁎⁎ .648⁎⁎

.140 .159 .039 .096 .049

Reliability of the I-TEIQue was calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The dimensionality of the TEIQue based on the 15 subscales was assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and standard goodness-of-fit indexes including chi-square (χ2), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). A CFI cutoff value close to .95 and SRMR value of .08 and RMSEA of .06 are interpreted as evidence of a “relatively good fit” (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Several aspects of convergent validity were verified using the Pearson's r coefficient. 3. Results Cronbach's alpha coefficient indicated good to excellent internal consistency for the I-TEIQue total score (α = .96), well-being (α = .93), self-control (α = .81), emotionality (α = .92) and sociability (α = .80). Means, standard deviations, Alpha coefficients, separately for men, women and the whole sample are reported in Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) provided some support for the correlated four-factor model (see Fig. 1). The fit indices are: χ2 (59) = 891.13, CFI = .92, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .07. The I-TEIQue and EQ-i total scores were significantly and positively correlated and the correlations between the factor scores ranged from small to moderate with the majority being statistically significant (p b .05), thus supporting the concurrent validity of the I-TEIQue (see Table 2). Discriminant validity was observed between the I-TEIQue total and subscales scores and MSCEIT with all but one correlation being essentially 0 (see Table 2). Correlations between the I-TEIQue and BFQ personality factors are also reported in Table 2. Mainly small to moderate significant correlations were observed between EI and personality confirming that trait EI shares some overlap with major personality traits, but is also configured as a somewhat unique construct (Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts, 2002; Petrides, Vernon, Schermer, Ligthart, Boomsma, and Veselka, 2010; Saklofske, Austin, and Minski, 2003; Vernon, Villani, Schermer, and Petrides, 2008). Note. N = 921. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01.

.383⁎⁎ .432⁎⁎ .445⁎⁎ .149 .524⁎⁎ Well-being Sociability Emotionality Self-control TEIQue Tot

.490⁎⁎ .488⁎⁎ .577⁎⁎ .299⁎⁎ .659⁎⁎

.106 .055 .243⁎ .638⁎⁎ .399⁎⁎

212⁎ .155 .184 .171 .259⁎

.690⁎⁎ .447⁎⁎ .312⁎⁎ .268⁎⁎ .668⁎⁎

Facilitating thought Perceiving emotions Stress management Interpersonal Intrapersonal

Table 2 Correlations between TEIQue, Bar-On EQ-i, MSCEIT, BFQ.

Adaptability

General mood

Bar-On Tot

Understanding emotions

Managing emotions

MSCEIT tot

Energy

Conscientiousness

Emotional stability

Openness

200

4. Discussion The present study examined the psychometric properties of the ITEIQue in a large sample of Italian young adults, replicating preliminary

A. Di Fabio et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 96 (2016) 198–201

studies (Andrei, Smith, Surcinelli, Baldaro, and Saklofske, 2016a; Andrei, Siegling, Aloe, Baldaro, and Petrides, 2016b; Di Fabio, 2013). Results supported both the internal consistency and four factor structure of the I-TEIQue; indeed, the CFI values confirmed the four factor solution. The SRMR and RMSEA exceeded .05 but some researchers (Browne and Cudeck, 1993) argue that values of .08 also support good to mediocre fit, especially if the other indexes used to verify the model fit are acceptable (Kenny, Kaniskan and McCoach, 2015). Correlational results support the convergent and discriminant validity of the I-TEIQue. The I-TEIQue and EQ-i total scores were significantly correlated as were a number of the factors between each scale. In contrast, low and non-significant correlations between trait and ability EI replicate previous findings (e.g., Saklofske, Austin, and Minski, 2003) suggesting they tap two different aspects of the same construct (trait vs. ability features) or possibly two different constructs. Moreover, the two instruments use different procedures to assess EI (i.e., selfreport vs. performance). Low to moderate positive correlations between the I-TEIQue and BFQ were anticipated as shown in other studies (e.g., Saklofske, Austin, and Minski, 2003) examining personality — EI traits. Trait EI presents some overlap with personality, but is configured as a distinct (Matthews, Zeidner, and Roberts, 2002) albeit a compound constructs (Petrides, Pita, and Kokkinaki, 2007). Trait EI has shown incremental validity with respect to Big Five personality factors (Andrei, Mancini, Trombini, Baldaro, and Russo, 2014; Andrei, Siegling, Aloe, Baldaro, & Petrides, 2016; Pérez-González and Sanchez-Ruiz, 2014). One limitation of this study is that socially desirable responding was not examined as possibly contributing to the results (Johnson, Rosen, Chang, Djurdjevic, and Taing, 2012). This large scale study adds support to the psychometric bases of the Italian version of the TEIQue reported in previous smaller studies (Andrei, Smith, Surcinelli, Baldaro, and Saklofske, 2016a; Andrei, Siegling, Aloe, Baldaro, and Petrides, 2016b; Di Fabio, 2013). The ITEIQue may be used in research studies of youth that focus on the promotion of individual resources (Di Fabio and Kenny, 2012; Di Fabio and Saklofske, 2014a, 2014b) and evaluate primary prevention programs for grounded in trait EI theory and research (Di Fabio and Kenny, 2015). Finally these findings add to the more general literature on the robustness of the TEIQue as a measure of trait EI.

References Andrei, F., Siegling, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Baldaro, B., & Petrides, K. V. (2016b). The incremental validity of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue): A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment. Andrei, F., Smith, M. M., Surcinelli, P., Baldaro, B., & Saklofske, D. H. (2016a). The trait emotional intelligence questionnaire internal structure, convergent, criterion, and incremental validity in an Italian sample. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 49, 34–45 (doi: 0748175615596786). Andrei, F., Mancini, G., Trombini, E., Baldaro, B., & Russo, P. M. (2014). Testing the incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence: Evidence from an Italian sample of adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 24–29. Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Intelligence Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big Five Questionnaire (2nd ed.). Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. D'Amico, A., & Curci, A. (2010). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT). Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. Di Fabio, A. (2013). Trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue): un contributo alla validazione della versione italiana [trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue): A contribution to validation of the Italian version]. Counseling. Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 6(3), 87–98. Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence and perceived social support among Italian high school students. Journal of Career Development, 39, 461–475.

201

Di Fabio, A., & Kenny, M. E. (2015). The contributions of emotional intelligence and social support for adaptive career progress among Italian youth. Journal of Career Development, 42, 48–49. Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014a). Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 174–178. Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2014b). Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 19–23. Franco, M., & Tappatà, L. (2009). EQ-iTM Emotional Quotient Inventory. Validazione e taratura italiana. [EQ-iTM Emotional Quotient Inventory. Validation and italian adaptation. Firenze, Italy: Giunti O.S. Freudenthaler, H. H., Neubauer, A. C., Gabler, P., Scherl, W. G., & Rindermann, H. (2008). Testing and validating the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue) in a German-speaking sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 673–678. Gökçen, E., Furnham, A., Mavroveli, S., & Petrides, K. V. (2014). A cross-cultural investigation of trait emotional intelligence in Hong Kong and the UK. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 30–35. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Jacobs, I., Sim, C. W., & Zimmermann, J. (2015). The German TEIQue-SF: Factorial structure and relations to agentic and communal traits and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 189–194. Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Chang, C. D., Djurdjevic, E., & Taing, M. U. (2012). Human Resource Management review recommendations for improving the construct clarity of higher-order multidimensional constructs. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), 62–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.006. Jolic-Marjanovic, Z., & Altaras-Dimitrijevic, A. (2014). Reliability, construct and criterionrelated validity of the Serbian adaptation of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue). Psihologija, 47, 249–262. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. Martskvishvili, K., Arutinov, L., & Mestvirishvili, M. (2013). A psychometric investigation of the Georgian version of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 84–88. Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R. D. (2002). Emotional intelligence: Science and myth. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). CA Basic Books: New York. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence: The case of ability scales. In R. Bar-On, & J. D. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320–342). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. MSCEIT. User's manual. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Mikolajczak, M., Luminet, O., Leroy, C., & Roy, E. (2007). Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire: Factor structure, reliability, construct, and incremental validity in a French-speaking population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(3), 338–353. Pérez-González, J. C., & Sanchez-Ruiz, M. J. (2014). Trait emotional intelligence anchored within the big five, big two and big one frameworks. Personality and Individual Differences, 65, 53–58. Petrides, K. V. (2009). Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire. In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. Parker (Eds.), Advances in the assessment of emotional intelligence. New York: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-38788370-0_5. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313–320. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425–428. Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273–289. Petrides, K. V., Vernon, P. A., Schermer, J. A., Ligthart, L., Boomsma, D. I., & Veselka, L. (2010). Relationships between trait emotional intelligence and the big five in the Netherlands. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 906–910. Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., & Minski, P. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 707–721. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211. Siegling, A. B., Saklofske, D. H., & Petrides, K. V. (2015). Measures of ability and trait emotional intelligence. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychology constructs (pp. 381–414). San Diego: Elsevier/ Academic. Stough, C., Saklofske, D., & Parker, J. (2009). Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research and applications. New York, NY: Springer. Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Schermer, J. A., & Petrides, K. V. (2008). Phenotypic and genetic associations between the big five and trait emotional intelligence. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 11, 524–530.