Psychometric Evaluation of Global Emotional Intelligence Test (GEIT)

Psychometric evaluation of the
Global Emotional Intelligence Test
(GEIT)
Student Name: Student ID:
Subject Name: Subject ID:
Due Date:

Abstract
A prologue to the hypothesis and psychometric properties of the Global trait emotional
intelligence (GTEI) score had been examined. Analysis for the need of conceptualizing the
expanding number of false intelligences as identity characteristics, as opposed to as
intellectual capacities was conducted. The research work has a reasonable and replicable
factor structure involving four unmistakable, yet interrelated, measurements. Self-Awareness
(SA), Self-Management (SM), Social Awareness (SocA) and Relationship Management
(RM) factors are four attractive psycho-metric attributes and had been used to obtain Global
Emotional Intelligence Test (GEIT) scores. This experiment centres prevalently around the
validity and reliability of GEIT scores. In spite of the fact that there are concrete
psychometric focal points of the TEIQue over the plenty of self-report EI surveys, the most
noteworthy is the hypothesis that backs it. The essentials of attribute EI hypothesis were
produced in Petrides (Petrides and Furnham, 2001) and the most recent rundown was given in
Petrides, Furnham, and Mavroveli (2007). Examinations researched the connection between
total GEIT scores, and between big five scores. The consequences of these investigations
demonstrated that higher passionate insight was related with naturally positive state of mind
and higher confidence.
Table of Contents

Psychometric evaluation of the.............................................................................................................1
Global Emotional Intelligence Test (GEIT)..............................................................................................1
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................2
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4
Method..................................................................................................................................................5
Participants........................................................................................................................................6
Design................................................................................................................................................6
Procedure..........................................................................................................................................6
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................................7
Results...................................................................................................................................................8
Discussion............................................................................................................................................10
Reference............................................................................................................................................12
Appendix.............................................................................................................................................13

Introduction
Enthusiastic insight (EI) has been proposed both as a vital expansion to the scene of human
individual contrasts and as a key determinant of genuine results, for instance accomplishment
in work and individual connections. The possibility that individuals vary in their enthusiastic
aptitudes is an engaging one which has pulled in much late open consideration Research on
the psychometrics of EI is however still in its beginning periods, leaving various uncertain
research issues which should be tended to.
The most fitting technique for estimating EI is presently a zone of debate. EI has been
described by a few specialists as an intellectual capacity including the psychological handling
of passionate data which ought to be estimated by capacity composes tests. An elective way
to deal with EI suggests that it is a dispositional propensity which can along these lines be
estimated without anyone else's input report survey. The principle supporters of the capacity
and dispositional approaches are Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey (2000). It is important to deal
with the relations between trait EI and its putative outcomes. For example it is frequently
proposed that the high interpersonal skills associated with EI should also be associated with
career success and evidence for associations between EI and occupational success have been
reported by Bar-On (2000).
Academic progress in students might also be expected to be related to EI since emotional and
social skills in dealing with a university environment could contribute to overall achievement.
Schutte et al. (1998) reported that trait EI was positively related to grade point average but
this finding was not replicated in a larger study by Newsome, Day, and Catano (2000). Other
proposed outcomes of particular interest in the present study include success in social and
personal relationships and general measures of life quality. The general expectation is that
those aspects of emotional intelligence associated with intra-personal and interpersonal

emotional facility would be expected to lead to positive associations with happiness/life
satisfaction and quality and extent of social interactions and negative associations with
loneliness. Because mood regulation is a subcomponent of EI, it would be expected to be
negatively associated with measures of depression. There are some findings in this area but
further work is required. Trait EI has been found to be positively correlated with life
satisfaction (Martinez-Pons, 1997).
A progression of investigations of attribute EI have discovered direct and sometimes
extensive connections between's these measures and identity qualities. Attribute EI measures
for the most part indicate expansive critical correlations with Extraversion (E) and
Neuroticism (N) with positive and negative signs, individually, while littler huge positive
connections with Openness (O), Agreeableness (An) and Conscientiousness (C) have
likewise been discovered (Dawda and Hart, 2000; Petrides and Furnham, 2001; Schutte et al.,
1998). One approach to evaluate the issue of the uniqueness of attribute EI is to analyze its
incremental legitimacy in the expectation of life results, i.e. its capacity to anticipate out-
comes when the influences of identity are controlled for. There are as of now not very many
outcomes here yet attribute EI has been appeared to have incremental legitimacy in the
forecast of life (Palmer et al., 2014).
Methodology

Stage-I: Participants
To estimate the psychometric properties of an online emotional intelligence questionnaire
with forty questions, 326 participants were enrolled by Qualtrics, a professional examining
association who spends significant time in surveying research. They were enlisted from
existing on the web boards possessed by Qualtrics, from the individuals who have concurred
in the past to sociological surveying research. Participants were informed about the
experiment procedure and allowed to leave at any stage of the conducted workshop
conducted by the ethical committee of the university. 287 participants mostly in the age
bracket of 20 years were finally selected with 68 male and 214 females after the workshop
session. Ethical form designed by ethical committee was provided to the participants and was
returned by putting their signature. There was no control group for this study as no
hypothetical testing was done.
Stage-II: Design
Emotional Intelligence (EI) questionnaire, titled the Global Emotional Intelligence test –
GEIT (http://globalleadershipfoundation.com/geit/eitest.html) was used to assess the EI
scores. University laboratory was used for the purpose of conducting the test. The
investigator collected the answers from online survey and organised according to the GEIT40
components.
Stage-III: Procedure
Sample matching and sorting were done in few stages, starting with distinguishing some
objective populace with a characterized set of qualities. In the present examination, the
parameters such as age, sexual orientation were distinguished. Second, utilizing their online
answers a separation work was then ascertained based on the numerical score separation of
every individual. The questionnaire asked to respond to the questions related to emotional
intelligence, personality traits and self-esteem. The examinees were guided for the content of

the questionnaire distressing them and the Monash University counsellors were available for
assistance.
Stage-IV: Participant’s demographic
Sample data was categorised demographically in two sections based on gender with 24.1 %
male and 74.6 female participants. Average age was 21.84 years (S.D =3.76 years) and was
considered as a categorical variable.
Table 1: Participant Demographic Statistics
Age Range 19-48
Mean Age for all Participants 21.84
Standard Deviation for all Participants 3.76
Total Number of Participants (N) 287
Split By Sex
Mean Age for all Women 21.54
Standard Deviation for all Women 2.95
Total Number of Women (N) 282
Mean Age for all Men 22.42
Standard Deviation for all Men 4.64
Total Number of Men (N) 68
Results & Findings
Examination of Data
Frequency Analysis
Five GEI scores were more than 90% valid and excess validity was cross checked. GEI
question numbers (components) 4, 8, 9, 12, 20, 27, 37 did not differentiated between the
people as validity scores were equally distributed.

The average global total EI score was 27.18 (S.D was 4.99), TEIQue was 146.66 (S.D was
20.61), BFI extraversion was 25 (S.D was 6.81), BFI agreeableness was 34.48 (S.D was
5.94), BFI conscientiousness was 31.42 (S.D was 6.15), BFI neuroticism was 25.35 (S.D was
6.06) and BFI openness was 35.03 (S.D 5.94).
Table 2: Descriptive values for GEI & BFI scores
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
GEIT_Total 287 2.00 38.00 27.1847 4.98992
TEIQue 287 91.00 200.00 146.6620 20.61436
BFI_Extraversion 287 10.00 40.00 25.0000 6.81063
BFI_Agreeableness 287 11.00 45.00 34.4843 5.94429
BFI_Conscientiousness 287 15.00 45.00 31.4216 6.15760
BFI_Neuroticism 287 9.00 38.00 25.3519 6.06418
BFI_Openness 287 20.00 50.00 35.0314 5.94577
Valid N (listwise) 287
GEIT_Tot
al TEIQue BFI_Extr
aversion BFI_Agr
eeablen
ess
BFI_Con
scientio
usness
BFI_Neu
roticism BFI_Ope
nness Valid N
(listwise)
M
e
a
n
27.1847 146.662 25 34.4843 31.4216 25.3519 35.0314 NaN
10
30
50
70
90
110
130
150
Comparison of GEIT total with Big Five
Mean Scores
Figure 1: Mean scores of different scales