MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060119761 · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_05

The Assessment of Emotional Intelligence: A Comparison of Performance-Based and Self-Report Methodologies

2006· article· en· W2060119761 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEmotional intelligenceConvergent validityCoping (psychology)Test (biology)Test validityDevelopmental psychologyPsychometricsSocial psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed the patterns of convergent validity for the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002), a performance-based measure of emotional intelligence (EI) that entails presenting problems thought to have correct responses, and a self-report measure of EI (Schutte et al., 1998). The relations between EI and demographic characteristics of a diverse community sample (N = 223) concurred with previous research. However, the performance-based and self-report scales were not related to one another. Only self-reported EI scores showed a consistent pattern of relations with self-reported coping styles and depressive affect, whereas the performance-based measure demonstrated stronger relations with age, education, and receiving psychotherapy. We discuss implications for the validity of these measures and their utility.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it