Open Access Journal of Science

Research Article Open Access

Development and standardization of indigenized

emotional intelligence scale
Abstract Volume 2 Issue 6 - 2018

The coetaneous study was effectuated to develop and validate a chthonic self-report
Shruti Marwaha
measure of Emotional Intelligence. With a newfangled aim to develop a reliable Research Scholar, Department of Anthropology, Panjab
and valid measurement instrument of emotional intelligence based on mixed model, University, Chandigarh, India
the mixed model of emotional intelligence and literature on it were investigated,
and then an item pool with 60 items was developed. Fourteen experts of emotional Correspondence: Shruti Marwaha, Research Scholar,
intelligence examined 72 items. In order to make the expert’s judgments standardized, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh,
Lawshe Content Validity Ratio was used. As a result of the ratio analysis, 12 items India, Email
were discarded from initial draft of the scale. Data were collected from a sample of
1664 individuals including 874 men and 790 women recruited from different cities Received: June 26, 2018 | Published: November 16, 2018
of India for the exploratory factor analysis whose results indicated the scale includes
unidimensionality. Results indicated that the scale is reliable and valid instrument in
measuring emotional intelligence. Construct validity was supplemented by finding its
relationship with peer rating and correlation was found to be moderately positive. The
Scale is a promising measure with good items homogeneity, internal consistency and
a meaningful pattern of validity.

Keywords: emotional intelligence, validity, reliability, standardization, explain

success, educationalists, skills, environmental pressures, adaptability, stress
management, motivation, general mood, intelligence scale

Introduction human behavior. Bar-On (1997) developed EI model consisting

of intrapersonal capacity, interpersonal skills, adaptability, stress
Emotional intelligence (EI) has offered new paradigm for management, motivation, and general mood.
educationalists that try to explain success and adjustment to
environment. Concept of the EI first was developed by Mayer et The Bar-On model claims that the EI is a joint of interrelated
al.,1 However Goleman2 made it popularized and publicized. Large competencies, skills, and facilitators that influence how effectively
body of the research has proved that EI has positive impact on an individual understands and expresses him, recognize emotions
educational attainment, social adjustment, happiness, and academic in others, has good relationships with others, and fulfill social and
self-efficacy.3–10 however there are disagreements and conflicts environmental pressures.6 Goleman2 model is another model in
about definitions, qualities, and conceptualization of the EI. Those the mixed models. It has five sub-dimensions as self-awareness,
disagreements have stemmed from measurement paradigm of the EI.11 self- management, empathy, motivation and social skills. Trait
There are mainly three streams in EI: ability model, mixed models, model developed by Petrides et al.,13 is another approach to the
and trait model.11 Salovey and Mayer1 developers of the ability EI. Trait EI is a constellation of self-perception of the lower level
model, described as that EI is the capacity to recognize and manage of personality constructs. Trait EI includes 5 facets as adaptability,
emotions in ourselves and in others, process emotional information. low impulsiveness, self-esteem, self-motivation, stress management,
In the ability model, EI is assumed as capability of carrying out trait happiness, trait optimism, assertiveness, relationship skills,
accurate emotional reasoning.1 The ability model constructs emotion social competence, trait empathy, emotional expression, emotional
and reasoning under same phenomena. The model consists of four management, emotional perception, and emotional regulation.13 The
abilities (those accurately perceiving emotion, using emotion to difference between the EI models stems from way of measurement
facilitate thought, understanding emotion, and managing emotion).12 and assessment of the EI.11 The ability model deals with measurement
In the ability model, there is a close interaction among the skills. For and assessment of the EI in the same way as traditional intelligence
instance a child cannot be efficacious without perceiving emotion in standard test measures and assesses. The ability model measures and
herself.1 Mixed models, another approach to the EI, views the EI as an assesses through performance-based test because of the fact that the
integration of skills and qualities such as personality and motivational ability model deals with the EI as a single construct and standard
dispositions that are necessary to use the EI in real life. Proponents of intelligence type. According to the ability model, the EI is the capacity
the EI13 with a wide range of skills and competencies rather than to in reasoning with emotions. Therefore, the EI can be measured and
define it as a single construct. In other words, EI is explained through quantified through the way in which standard traditional intelligence is
broad definitions such as noncognitive capability, competency, skill measured. Participants’ response on the EI related tasks are measured
or emotionally intelligent behavior, and dispositions of personality.13 and assessed in accordance with such objectively right answer that
Bar-On8 describes the EI as cluster of noncognitive skills that are measurement and assessment of the EI capabilities through the
necessary to cope with effectively environmental demands. Bar- ability model does not include any bias or exaggerated evaluation of
On6 suggests that the EI is one of the main determinants of effective emotional capabilities.

Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com Open Access J Sci. 2018;2(6):350‒356. 350

© 2018 Marwaha. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.
 Copyright:
Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale ©2018 Marwaha 351

However, measurement and assessment in the ability model are objective thinking without being impressed with events, and objects
tough, not easy to administer due to the fact that expert panelists are begin to emerge among children. Moreover, Gender differences are
needed to assess which respond is true, make decision about what clear between early childhood and age of 8 in favor of female children
respond is right according to objective rules.14 There are several with respect to emotional intelligence skills. However, this difference
instruments aiming to measure the EI related skills through the ability disappears between 10 to 12 years because of more increase in male
model and performance based tasks. Salovey1 developed four branch children’s emotional intelligences.19 Therefore, during primary school
of the EI, and devised the Multi Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale process; age of 10 is a period in which both female and male children
(MEIS). However, it was not found satisfactory in terms of validity are equal in terms of emotional intelligence skills. When the literature
and reliability. Mayer et al.,1 developed the Mayer Salovey Caruso is closely investigated, it can be seen that emotional intelligence
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) to attenuate lengthy MEIS and scales for children and adolescents were designed in accordance
ameliorate psychometric properties of the MEIS. Construct validation with the Ability Model, the Bar-on Model, the Trait Emotional
of the MSCEIT via confirmatory factor analysis by Rossen, Kranzler Intelligence Model but there is no emotional intelligence scale which
revealed that the MSCEIT does not cover all constructs developed by originated from Goleman’s conceptualization of the EI. Therefore,
Mayer et al.,1 although Mayer et al.,1 founded that the MSCEIT has existing scale were grounded on such different models were there
good model fit indices. Furthermore, Fan, Jackson, Tang, & Zhang is no use in modifying them. Therefore, the present study aims to
(2010) suggested that three factor solution of the MSCEIT has the develop valid and reliable instrument of the EI based on Goleman’s
best fitting model (in press) designed the MSCEIT Youth Version for conceptualization of the EI.20
children and youth between the ages 10 and 18 years15 investigated the
MSCEIT-YV’s construct validity and criterion-related related validity Methodology
and concluded that it is a valid instrument in measuring emotional The aim of the present study is to develop a self-report emotional
intelligence based on the ability model. Similarly, Rivers, Brackett, intelligence for subjects of and above 10 years in age so as to
Reyes, Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey found that the MCEIT-YV produces measure and assess level of emotional learning. Item development,
valid results in measuring emotional intelligence among children aged content validity, structural validity, reliability, and validity analysis
from 10 to 13. Emotional Intelligence Scale for Children (EISC) was were orderly carried out in the development process. The present
developed by Sullivan through the ability model. However, internal study consists of two factor analysis as Exploratory Factor Analysis
consistency between subscales of the EISC varied low to moderate. discovering factor structures, internal consistency coefficients and
Freudenthaler and Neubauer Emotional Intelligence Performance Test Confirmatory Factor Analysis which investigates how well data fit
is another instrument use to assess emotional intelligence through into previously revealed factor structures.21
performance-based approach and the ability model in EI.16
Item generation
Emotional Accuracy Research Scale was developed by Mayer and
Geher17 in accordance with the ability model. Both of the scales do not The scale development process began with the creation of items
have any child or adolescent form. The mixed models make emotions to assess a construct under examination. This process was conducted
quantifiable through self-report. Self-assessment of emotions assumes inductively, by generating items first, from which scales were then
that participants are competent enough to evaluate how much they derived. Experts on the subject were typically asked to provide
have quality in emotions or their behaviors about the EI skills. In descriptions of their perception to describe emotional intelligence.
contrast to the ability model and performance based assessment, self- Responses were then classified into different categories by content
report of emotional responds may not have any objective criteria. analysis. From these categorized responses, items were then derived.
Therefore, it is easy to administer and evaluate. There are numerous For item development, basic guidelines were followed to ensure that
scales measuring the EI via self-report. Emotional Quotient Inventory the items are properly constructed. Statements are simple and as short
developed by is a self-report inventory with 133 items. Bar-On7 and the familiar language is used to target respondents.22
devised its youth version that measures the EI of children adolescents
who are aged between 7 and 18 years. Another seminal measurement Content adequacy assessment
instrument of the EI is Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire The items were pre-tested for content adequacy. Assuring content
(TEIQue) developed by Petrides13 adapted it to child and adolescent adequacy prior to final questionnaire development provides support23
characteristics by shortening its length and named as Trait Emotional for construct validity as it allows the deletion of items that may be
Intelligence Questionnaire- Adolescent Short Form (TEIQue-ASF). conceptually inconsistent. Experts in the content domain along with
The TEIQue-ASF consists of 30 items, two for each of the 15 facets of the naive respondents were presented with construct definitions
Trait Emotional Intelligence and measures global trait EI. Its internal without titles and are asked to match items with a corresponding
consistency reliability coefficient was found as 0.84. In addition to definition. An acceptable agreement index was determined prior to
that, Cooper and Petrides (2010) tested its psychometric construction administration of the items and definitions.
by using item-response theory and found that TEIQue-ASF has good
psychometric properties. However, the fact that the TEIQue and Questionnaire administration
TEIQue-ASF consist of too broad definitions and sub-dimensions, has
The retained items were then presented to an appropriate sample
drawn considerable criticism.18
with the objective of examining how well those items confirmed
In this present study, an emotional intelligence scale, which expectations regarding the properties of the new measure.24 The
measures emotional intelligence through self-report and are new items were administered with other established measures to
originated from Goleman2 conceptualization. Measuring emotional later assess the distinction or overlap among the proposed and
intelligence via self-report assumes that participants in the sample existing scales. In addition, data from existing measures was used for
have an insight about their social and emotional skill in depth and are preliminary examination of construct and criterion-related validity of
objective, consistent, and genuine in assessing those skills. Age of 10 the new scale.
is a period in which metacognitive awareness, abstract reasoning, and

Citation: Marwaha S. Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale. Open Access J Sci. 2018;2(6):350‒356.
DOI: 10.15406/oajs.2018.02.00110
 Copyright:
Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale ©2018 Marwaha 352

Item scaling likelihood of attaining statistical significance increases, which in

turn may distort the practical meaning of the results. In this study, a
Likert scales are the most commonly used in survey research significant sample of 1664 subjects was taken (Figure 3).35–37
using questionnaires.25 Likert scales include several “points” along
a continuum that define various amounts or levels of the measured
attribute or variable (e.g., agreement, frequency, importance etc.).

Sample size
The data was collected from an adequate sample size to
appropriately conduct subsequent analyses. Earlier recommendations
for item-to-response ratios ranged from 1:426–30 to at least 1:1031 for
each set of scales to be factor analyzed. Recent studies have found that
in most cases, a sample size of 150 observations should be sufficient
to obtain an accurate solution in exploratory factor analysis, as long
as item intercorrelations are reasonably strong.32,33 For confirmatory
factor analysis, we recommend a minimum sample size of 100 (cf.,).34
However, we suggest that a conservative approach be adopted. As the
number of items increases, it may be necessary to increase the number
of respondents. As sample size increases, (Figure 1) & (Figure 2) the Figure 1 Sampling.

Figure 2 Difference in Mean of female subjects in Test-1 and Test-2.

Figure 3 Difference in Mean of male subjects in Test-1 and Test-2.

Result and discussion scales), as well as the relationships among items and scales. As the
authors used the inductive approach, exploratory factor analysis was
Factor analysis used (Table 1).38,39
There are two basic types of factor analyses available for the scale Internal consistency assessment
development process. The first is termed exploratory and is commonly
used to reduce the set of observed variables to a smaller, more After unidimensionality of each scale has been established.33
parsimonious set of variables. The second type is called confirmatory Reliability was calculated by Cronbach’s alpha which tells how well
and is used to assess the quality of the factor structure by statistically the items measure the same construct (Table 2) & (Table 3). 40–44
testing the significance of the overall model (e.g., distinction among

Citation: Marwaha S. Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale. Open Access J Sci. 2018;2(6):350‒356.
DOI: 10.15406/oajs.2018.02.00110
 Copyright:
Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale ©2018 Marwaha 353

Table 1 The EQ-i Scales and the factors assessed by them Table 3 Value of Corrected-Item Correlation

The EI competencies and skills assessed by each Value of corrected- Value of corrected-
EQ-i Scales Item no Item no
scale Item correlation Item correlation

Intrapersonal Self-awareness and self-expression: 1 0.304 38 0.512

Self-Regard To accurately perceive, understand and accept oneself. 2 0.31 39 0.245

Emotional Self- 3 0.364 40 0.36

To be aware of and understand one’s emotions.
Awareness 4 0.356 41 0.19
To effectively and constructively express one’s emotions 5 0.361 42 0.32
Assertiveness
and oneself.
6 0.368 43 0.22
To be self-reliant and free of emotional dependency on
Independence 7 0.315 44 0.304
others.

Self- To strive to achieve personal goals and actualize one’s 8 0.33 45 0.31
Actualization potential.
9 0.26 46 0.364
Interpersonal Social awareness and interpersonal relationship: 10 0.18 47 0.28
Empathy To be aware of and understand how others feel. 11 0.316 48 0.329
Social To identify with one’s social group and cooperate with 12 0.319 49 0.29
Responsibility others.
13 0.318 50 0.31
Interpersonal To establish mutually satisfying relationships and relate
Relationship well with others. 14 0.35 51 0.23

Stress 15 0.52 52 0.52

Emotional management and regulation:
Management 16 0.514 53 0.56
Stress 17 0.45 54 0.48
To effectively and constructively manage emotions.
Tolerance
18 0.24 55 0.47
Impulse
To effectively and constructively control emotions. 19 0.524 56 0.345
Control

Adaptability Change management: 20 0.215 57 0.37

To objectively validate one’s feelings and thinking with 21 0.15 58 0.35

Reality-Testing
external reality. 22 0.52 59 0.33
To adapt and adjust one’s feelings and thinking to new 23 0.56 60 0.31
Flexibility
situations.
24 0.48 61 0.51
Problem- To effectively solve problems of a personal and
Solving interpersonal nature. 25 0.47 62 0.31

General Mood Self-motivation: 26 0.345 63 0.4

Optimism To be positive and look at the brighter side of life. 27 0.63 64 0.38

28 0.35 65 0.36
Happiness To feel content with oneself, others and life in general.
29 0.336 66 0.34
Table 2 EQ Scores and their Inference
30 0.35 67 0.64
EQ Scores Inference
31 0.58 68 0.6
50-70 Below Par
32 0.25 69 0.56
70-90 Below Average
33 0.304 70 0.52
90-110 Average 34 0.31 71 0.35
110-120 Above Average (Good) 35 0.364 72 0.32
120-140 Very Good 36 0.41

Above 140 Excellent 37 0.51

Citation: Marwaha S. Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale. Open Access J Sci. 2018;2(6):350‒356.
DOI: 10.15406/oajs.2018.02.00110
 Copyright:
Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale ©2018 Marwaha 354

Construct validation Replication

At this point, the new scale demonstrated content validity and It was then necessary to collect another set of data from an
internal consistency reliability, both of which provided supportive appropriate sample and repeat the scale-testing process with the new
evidence of construct validity. Further evidence of construct validity scales. The data from sources other than the respondent, such as
was accomplished by examining the extent to which the scales performance appraisals, peers were collected. These analyses ensured
correlated with other measures designed to assess similar constructs the researcher with the confidence that the finalized measures possess
(convergent validity) and to which they do not correlate with dissimilar reliability and validity and would be suitable for use in future research.
measures45 (discriminant validity) (Table 4) & (Table 5). Cronbach’s Alpha has been taken as a measure of reliability. It was
decided that a scale with an Alpha reliability of 0.70 or more would be
Table 4 Discarded item list
considered adequate reliability.46 This is conventionally accepted as a
Item No thumb rule for reliability. It was also decided that item must have a
minimum of 0.30 items to total correlation. To ascertain face validity
9, 10, 18, 20, 21, 32, 39, 41, 43, 47, 49, 51 and content validity it was decided that at least six psychologists and
Table 5 Retained item list
educationists agreed that item on face value belonged to the dimension
that it aimed to measure concurrent validity. It was also addressed by
Value of Corrected- Value of Corrected- having scores of respondents on certain criterion variables. This scale
Item No Item No has sufficient level of reliability and validity. The authors has reported
Item Correlation Item Correlation
the value of internal reliability (a=0.88), and content and face validity
1 0.304 46 0.364 is examined by asking from 10 specialists (Table 6) & (Table 7).47–55
2 0.31 48 0.329 Table 6 Difference in Mean, SD and SEM of male subjects in Test-1 and Test-2
3 0.364 50 0.31
4 0.356 52 0.52 Test Mean SD SEM T-Test Level of Sig

5 0.361 53 0.56 Test-1 108 5.21 2.35 13.01 NS

6 0.368 54 0.48
Test-2 109.6 5.2 2.15
7 0.315 55 0.47
Test-1 102 8.99 1.37 11.49 NS
8 0.33 56 0.345
11 0.316 57 0.37 Test-2 102 8.15 1.15
12 0.319 58 0.35
Test-1 102 10.02 1.83 9.67 NS
13 0.318 59 0.33
Test-2 101.6 10.1 0.35
14 0.35 60 0.31
15 0.52 61 0.51 Test-1 112 6.4 0.13 13.17 NS
16 0.514 62 0.31
Test-2 110.9 6.45 0.15
17 0.45 63 0.4
Test-1 104 8.17 0.95 15.82 NS
19 0.524 64 0.38
22 0.52 65 0.36 Test-2 105.1 8.07 0.96

23 0.56 66 0.34 Test-1 109 11.76 0.45 9.75 NS

24 0.48 67 0.64
Test-2 109.6 10.86 0.54
25 0.47 68 0.6
26 0.345 69 0.56 Test-1 121 6.69 2.54 14.64 NS

27 0.63 70 0.52 Test-2 121.4 7.15 2.65

28 0.35 71 0.35
Test-1 101 10.33 1.84 12.5 NS
29 0.336 72 0.32
30 0.35 Test-2 100.96 11.15 1.86

31 0.58 Test-1 116 8.14 1.42 7.22 NS

33 0.304
Test-2 115.8 7.96 1.44
34 0.31
Test-1 103 9 2.06 8.08 NS
35 0.364
36 0.41 Test-2 102.8 10.01 2.05
37 0.51
Test-1 108 9.89 2.59 15.18 NS
38 0.512
Test-2 107.5 9.76 2.49
40 0.36

Citation: Marwaha S. Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale. Open Access J Sci. 2018;2(6):350‒356.
DOI: 10.15406/oajs.2018.02.00110
 Copyright:
Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale ©2018 Marwaha 355

Table 7 Difference in Mean, SD and SEM of female subjects in Test-1 and References
Test-2
1. Salovey P, Mayer JD. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition,
 Test Mean SD SEM T-Test Level of sig and Personality. 1990;9:185–211.

10 Years Test-1 115 5.43 0.82 16.71 NS 2. Goleman D. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books. 1989. p. 1–7.
Test-2 116.5 5.12 0.8
3. Anastasi A. Psychological testing 6th edition. New York: Macmillan
11 Years Test-1 102 11 0.3 16.56 NS Publishing. 1988.

Test-2 1.1 10.56 0.24 4. Appelbaum SA. Psychological mindedness: Word, concept, and essence.
International Journal of Psycho-Analysis. 1973;54(1):35–46.
12 Years Test-1 100 11.9 2.54 13.77 NS
5. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW. Assessing construct validity in
Test-2 99.5 10.69 2.15 organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1991;36:421–
458.
13 Years Test-1 104 9.67 1.71 11.28 NS
6. Bar-On R. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Rationale,
Test-2 104.9 9.56 1.05
description, and summary of psychometric properties. In Glenn
14 Years Test-1 116 10.09 1.63 9.59 NS Geher editor. Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and
controversy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 2004. p. 111-
Test-2 115 10 101 142.
15 Years Test-1 114 4.92 1.06 9.34 NS 7. Bar-On R, Fund S. The impact of emotional and social intelligence on
self-perceived physical health. Unpublished manuscript. 2004.
Test-2 114.6 4.56 0.65
8. Bar-On R, Parker JDA. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory:
16 Years Test-1 121 10.47 0.98 9.8 NS
Youth Version (EQ-i:YV) Technical Manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-
Test-2 119.86 10.58 0.26 Health Systems, Inc. 2000.

17 Years Test-1 109 5.02 1.96 15.24 NS 9. Bechara A, Tranel D, Damasio R. Poor judgment in spite of high
intellect: Neurological evidence for emotional intelligence. In R Bar-
Test-2 108 5 1.9 On et al. editors. Handbook of emotional intelligence. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. 2000.
18 Years Test-1 114 7.78 0.99 11.99 NS
10. Bem DJ, Allen A. On predicting some of the people some of the time:
Test-2 114.2 8 0.86 The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological
19 Years Test-1 118 5.37 0.59 15.93 NS Review. 1974;81(6):506–520.

Test-2 117.5 6.1 0.45 11. Matthews G, Roberts RD, Zeidner M. Development of emotional
intelligence: A skeptical – but not dismissive – perspective. Human
20 Years Test-1 101 4.48 1.64 12.33 NS Development. 2003;46:109–114.

Test-2 100.56 5.2 1.66 12. Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bums JM editor. (1978). Leadership. New York:
Conclusion Harper and Row. 1989.

Shelling the nut, Results indicated that the scale is reliable and 13. Petrides KV, Furnham A. On the dimensional structure of emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences. 2002;29:313–320.
valid instrument in measuring emotional intelligence. Construct
validity was supplemented by finding its relationship with peer rating 14. Boyatzis RE, Sala F. The Emotional Competency Inventory (ECI). In
and correlation was found to be moderately positive. The Scale is a Glenn Geher editor. Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground
promising measure with good items homogeneity, internal consistency and controversy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 2004.
and a meaningful pattern of validity. In recapitulation, the study came 15. Boyatzis RE, Goleman D, HayGroup. The Emotional Competence
out with significant results as the correlation coefficient was found Inventory (ECI). Boston: HayGroup. 2001.
to be significantly high witnessing the high reliability and validity of
16. Brackett MA, Salovey P. Measuring emotional intelligence with the
the test.
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). In Glenn
Geher editor. Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and
Acknowledgements controversy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 2004.
Authors express indebtedness to the Almighty, who is the apostle 17. Geher G. Measuring emotional intelligence: Common ground and
of strength. Genuine thanks are expressed to all the authors/ researches controversy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. 2004.
whose work is referred for making the present study a real success.
18. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the
Immense thanks are expressed to the subjects and their parents who
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 1959;56:81–105.
had reportedly facilitated the research process. Authors are inevitably
grateful to all those directly as well as indirectly involved in the 19. Carmines EG, Mclver J. Analyzing models with unobserved variables:
auspicious research work. Analysis of covariance structures. In G Bohmstedt et al. editors. Social
measurement: Current issues. Beverly Hills: Sage. 1981.
Conflict of interest 20. Cattell RB, Eber HW, Tatsuoka MM. Handbook for the Sixteen
Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, Illinois: Institute
The auhtor declares there is no conflict of interest.
for Personality and Ability Testing. 1970.

Citation: Marwaha S. Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale. Open Access J Sci. 2018;2(6):350‒356.
DOI: 10.15406/oajs.2018.02.00110
 Copyright:
Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale ©2018 Marwaha 356

21. Chapin FS. Preliminary standardization of a social impact scale. 40. Lane RD. Levels of emotional awareness: Neurological, psychological
American Sociological Review. 1942;7:214–225. and social perspectives. In R Bar-On et al., editors. Handbook of
emotional intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2000.
22. Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. 1979. p. 64–73. 41. Lane RD, Schwartz GE. Levels of emotional awareness: A cognitive-
developmental theory and its application to psychopathology. American
23. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Journal of Psychiatry. 1987;144(2):133–143.
York: Academic. 1969. p. 1–579.
42. MacLean PD. Psychosomatic disease and the visceral brain: Recent
24. Cook JD, Hepworth SJ, Wail TD. The experience of work. San Diego: developments bearing on the Papez theory of emotion. Psychosomatic
Academic Press. 1981. Medicine. 1949;11338–353.
25. Darwin C. The expression of the emotions in man and animals. Chicago: 43. Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional
University of Chicago Press. 1965. Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems,
26. Davies M, Stankov L, Roberts RD. Emotional intelligence: In search Inc. 2002.
of an elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 44. Moss FA, Hunt T, Omwake KT. Social intelligence test. Washington,
1988;75(4):989–1015. DC: Center for Psychological Service. 1927.
27. Doll EA. A generic scale of social maturity. American Journal of 45. Parker JDA, Creque RE, Barnhart DL, et al. Academic achievement
Orthopsychiatry. 1935;5(2):180–188. in high school: Does emotional intelligence matter? Personality and
28. Duncan J. An adaptive coding model of neural function in the prefrontal Individual Differences. 2004;37:1321–1330.
cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2001;2:820–829. 46. Plake BS, Impara JC. Supplement to the thirteenth mental measurement
29. Dunkley J. The psychological well-being of coronary heart disease yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute for Mental Measurement. Press.
patients before and after an intervention program. Unpublished master’s 1999.
thesis. University of Pretoria, South Africa. 1996. 47. Ruderman M, Bar -On R. The impact of emotional intelligence on
30. Ford JK, MacCallum RC, Tait M. The application of exploratory factor leadership. 2003.
analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel 48. Ruesch J. The infantile personality; the core problem of psychosomatic
Psychology. 1986;39:291–314. medicine. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1948;10:134–144.
31. Freedman J. Key lessons from 35 years of social-emotional education: 49. Saarni C. Emotional competence: How emotions and relationships
How Self-Science builds self-awareness, positive relationships, and become integrated. Nebr Symp Motiv. 1990;36:115–182.
healthy decision-making. Perspectives in Education. 2003;21(4):69–80.
50. Shadbolt B, Barresi J, Craft P. Self-rated health as a predictor of survival
32. Gardner H. Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books. 1983. among patients with advanced cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology.
33. Gerbing DW, Anderson JC. An updated paradigm for scale development 2002;20(10):2514–2519.
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing 51. Shostrom EL. Personal Orientation Inventory: An Inventory for the
Research. 1988. p. 186–192. Measurement of Self-Actualization. San Diego, CA: Educational
34. Handley R. AFRS rates emotional intelligence. Air Force Recruiter Industrial Testing Service. 1974.
News. 1997. 52. Sifneos PE. Clinical observations on some patients suffering from a
35. Hater JJ. Bass BM. Superior’s evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions variety of psychosomatic diseases. Acta Medicina Psychosomatica.
of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied 1967;21:133–136.
Psychology. 1988;73(4):695–702. 53. Stone-McCown K, Jensen AL, Freedman JM. Self science: The emotional
36. Hedlund J, Sternberg RJ. Too many intelligence’s? Integrating social, intelligence curriculum. San Mateo, CA: Six Seconds. 1998.
emotional, and practical intelligence. In R Bar-On et al., editors. The 54. Van Rooy DL, Viswesvaran C. Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic
Handbook of Emotional Intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1900. investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of
37. Hunter JE, Hunter RF. Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job Vocational Behavior. 2004;65(1):71–95.
performance. Psychological Bulletin. 1984;76(1):72–93. 55. Van Rooy DL, Pluta P, Viswesvaran C. An evaluation of construct
38. Kaplan HI, Sadock BJ. Synopsis of Psychiatry 6th edition. Baltimore, validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence. Manuscript
MD: Williams & Wilkins. 1991. submitted for publication. 2004.

39. Krivoy E, Weyl Ben-Arush M, Bar-On R. Comparing the emotional

intelligence of adolescent cancer survivors with a matched sample
from the normative population. Medical & Pediatric Oncology.
2000;35(3):382.

Citation: Marwaha S. Development and standardization of indigenized emotional intelligence scale. Open Access J Sci. 2018;2(6):350‒356.
DOI: 10.15406/oajs.2018.02.00110