Emotional intelligence : an investigation of discriminant and concurrent validity / Andrea Kohan.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotional intelligence (El) is a popularized concept, but one also being \nempirically examined for its validity as a construct of intelligence. Research has focused on determining its status as a unique ability that is distinct from personality and associated with adaptability. Data thus far equivocally support the conceptualization of El as an aspect of intelligence, and point to limitations of selfreport measures designed to assess it The purpose of this study was to contribute information to the area by examining the discriminant and concurrent validity of two \nrelatively new self-report measures of El. Specifically, the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQi; Bar-On, 1997a) and the Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS; Schutte et al., 1998) were examined in relation to the five-factor model (FFM) of personality and burnout, an index of response to demands in the workplace. University students, police officers and retail managers completed the El and personality measures, and the two types of workers also completed self-report measures of potential work demands, work resources, and burnout. Factor solutions revealed a lack of independence between El measures and FFM domains, except for two EIS factors, which corresponded to two theoretical aspects of El: emotional appraisal and emotional utilization. Concurrent analyses showed that El played a minimal moderating role in the experience of burnout. Collectively, the data provide controvertible evidence for the existence of unique EIS factors, but highlight the merit of further inquiry using these two measures of El. Other findings lent support to the \nimportance of (1) work demands to burnout over and above personality, (2) the mediating effects of cynicism in the experience of burnout, and (3) considering workers? perceptions of the organization as resources against burnout
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".