MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138162896 · doi:10.1080/00223891.2015.1013219

Incremental Validity of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Short Form (TEIQue–SF)

2015· article· en· W2138162896 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyEmotional intelligenceIncremental validityTraitConstruct validityCoping (psychology)Criterion validityDevelopmental psychologyTest validityClinical psychologyPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the incremental validity of the adult short form of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue-SF) in predicting 7 construct-relevant criteria beyond the variance explained by the Five-factor model and coping strategies. Additionally, the relative contributions of the questionnaire's 4 subscales were assessed. Two samples of Canadian university students completed the TEIQue-SF, along with measures of the Big Five, coping strategies (Sample 1 only), and emotion-laden criteria. The TEIQue-SF showed consistent incremental effects beyond the Big Five or the Big Five and coping strategies, predicting all 7 criteria examined across the 2 samples. Furthermore, 2 of the 4 TEIQue-SF subscales accounted for the measure's incremental validity. Although the findings provide good support for the validity and utility of the TEIQue-SF, directions for further research are emphasized.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.239 · 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