Assessing Emotional Intelligence
In addition to publishing the SEI assessment, we use and recommend several valid and valuable measures of emotional intelligence. This overview will help you decide which emotional intelligence test to use, and how to get it.
What is your primary purpose in using an assessment?
Are you looking to a baseline for growth? Clear feedback? Self-reflection? A brief introduction? An in-depth tool for putting EQ into action? An objective assessment? Different tools meet different needs, so start by considering your priority. We are happy to recommend an assessment based on your needs, please contact Six Seconds.
Here’s a rundown of several assessments. All are statistically reliable measures, and each measures slightly (or significantly) different aspects of EQ. Whatever emotional intelligence test you use, please purchase it from EQStore.com (and support Six Seconds!) †
Test | Purpose | Versions & Price |
MSCEIT®“Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test” |
Description: The only ability measure of EQ, the MSCEIT requires you to actually use your abilities and emotion knowledge in taking the test. For example, there are questions where you look at faces and identify what emotions are present. It helps you understand the actual intelligence behind emotions: Perceiving, using, understanding, and managing feelings.
Purpose: We recommend this emotional intelligence test for people who want a substantive understanding of the way they process emotions and for academic researchers. We use it for advanced practitioner training and for some coaching. Other colleagues use it in training. Pros: Highly objective, very rigorous, truly measures unique dimension of emotional awareness & processing. Cons: Unusual (some people even find it strange or hard to see the relevance to work & life), fairly time consuming. Validity: MSCEIT has outstanding psychometric properties and is very well researched. Even after controlling for personality, it predicts important workplace and life outcomes – while the claims are modest (ie, R2 ranging from .07-.35) the research is rigorous and meets high academic standards. MSCEIT is a Level B tool (certification required)* Versions: There is an adult version, 2 reports available (with or without numerical scores). Youth Version in research. History: First developed as the MEIS in approximately 1995, this tool was commercially published around 2002 and there appears to be little ongoing validation by the publisher, but the tool is used extensively in serious academic research. |
Online or paper
Order assessment + debrief from Six Seconds Wholesale: $50, MHS.com Many more details (outside link)
|
SEI®Six Seconds Emotional Intelligence Test |
Description: Focused on self-development, the SEI is the only emotional intelligence test based on Six Seconds’ EQ-in-action model: Know Yourself, Choose Yourself, Give Yourself. The test measures 8 fundamental skills in these three areas, such as emotional literacy, navigating emotions, intrinsic motivation, and empathy. The SEI also includes an assessment of current effectiveness and puts the EQ scores in the context of performance results. Development Report and Leader’s Development Guide come with over 20 pages of interpretation and actionable, substantive development suggestions. The SEI assessment and reports are available in several languages.
Purpose: The SEI is built for learning; it’s easy to use with a practical, actionable model. We use the SEI in our training programs (e.g., EQ Leadership, Selling with EQ, EQ Team) and for 1:1 coaching as well as to assist hiring and for performance management. Because of the development focus, SEI is ideal for helping people to learn and apply emotional intelligence. It is ideal for structuring a blended learning program where EQ is an ingredient of performance (e.g., , “skills for people performance” or “human side of sales” or “you as the driver of change”) Pros: Actionable, clear model – cohesive. Puts EQ in the context of important life and work outcomes (e.g., factors including relationships, influence, effectiveness are built into the assessment). Extensive range of tools, programs, books, in same model. Cons: Relatively new (2005) so not as well known as other tools. Not created by academics so few academic research articles published with it. Validity: The global norm group is over 25,000 including respondents from over 30 countries. The SEI has excellent psychometric properties including Chronbach Alphas ranging from .73 – .84, and it strongly predicts self-reported outcomes such as effectiveness (R2=.501) and quality of life (R2=.435). The SEI has a highly sophisticated scoring algorithm including self-correcting indices (positive impression and answer style) and a consistency scale. SEI is a Level B tool (certification required). * Versions: Adult self-report assessment with Strengths Report (3 top scales), Development Report (all audiences), Leadership Report (organizational leaders), Leader’s Development Guide (custom workbook available with Leadership Report), Group Report, Comparison Group Report. 360 (multirater) using same model. Youth Version using same model, YV offers full model including 5 important outcomes (e.g., achievement, health, relationships). History: The SEI was first published in 2005. There are regular, ongoing research updates. The current version is 3.2. |
Online and paper
Retail $10-$45 (order options) Wholesale: $8-$30 (by report & volume) Details: |
SEI Brain Brief |
Description: Designed as an entry-point to emotional intelligence, the Brain Brief Profile offers an easy “hook” to begin talking about using emotions & cognition together. The 1-page profile gives users insight into how their brain functions.
Purpose: The Brain Brief is designed for training. It’s well suited to use with large groups. It is a “Level A” assessment so no certification is required to be able to administer the tool, there is a free online tutorial. Validity: The Brain Brief uses the full SEI assessment with a very large norm base (over 50,000) and has strong psychometric properties. History: The BBP was published in January, 2013. |
Retail: $10 Wholesale: $8 and lower based on volume |
ESCI®“Emotional and Social Competency Inventory” by HayGroup |
Description: Using Goleman’s 4-quadrant model (awareness of self and others, management of self and others), the ECSI emotional intelligence test measures a spectrum of critical competencies shown to affect workplace performance. The ECSI is a “multi-rater” so the test-taker receives feedback from several people.
Purpose: Members of Six Seconds’ Network have used this test for professional and personal development for coaching leaders to explore their competencies as leaders as perceived by their team members. It is often used by large organizations in developing a competency model for organizational development. Validity: The ECSI is a competency profile, not a psychometric assessment. The competency model is based on the extensive Hay database. Certification is required to administer the ESCI. History: The ESCI is the latest version of the original ECI by Richard Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman. |
Online
Retail: $225 including PDF report Wholesale: haygroup.com |
Genosby Ben Palmer |
According to the Genos web site, “Genos EI measures the behaviors underpinning and supporting exceptional interpersonal relationships, and our expanding suite of EI products and methodologies has applications in three distinct phases: assess, develop, and apply.”
There are two reports as well as a multi-rater and team version. |
See genosinternational.com |
EQ-i 2.0®“Emotional Quotient Inventory” |
Description: The original EQ-i, by Reuven Bar-On, focused on “emotionally intelligent behavior.” It was one of the most widely-used assessments in research. Multi-Health Systems, the publisher of the tool, created EQ-i 2.0 as a “brand new assessment tool” with a revised psychometric model: Self-perception, Self-expression, Interpersonal, Decision-making, Stress management. Purpose: We have used the original EQ-i test to help people understand their behavior and to look for trends in groups (e.g., what skills help people succeed in this job?). Pros: Widely known, numerous practitioners. Backed by significant test publisher. Several related resources (books, programs) available. Cons: Model is a list of various skills & attributes vs a structured cohesive model. High correlation with personality. Focuses as much on prosocial behavior as emotional awareness & processes. The EQ-i 2.0 model seems to have clarified some inconsistencies in the earlier version, but there is not a clear logic to how the elements fit together. New EQ-i 2.0 norm base of 5,000 in North America only. Validity: The original EQ-i had a strong factor structure and a very large normative sample. MHS reports that the new EQ-i 2.0 . It used a complex scoring algorithm with a self-correcting positive impression index and a consistency scale. The EQ-i predicted important work and life outcomes (job performance, leadership, sales, learning, university retention), but these studies do not control for personality and EQ-i has about a .7 correlation with a “Big 5” personality assessment. EQ-i is a Level B tool (certification required)* Verisons: Adult self-report with leadership or workplace reports. 360/multirater version also available. History: The EQi was first developed by Reuven Bar-On in the 1990s as a measure of social-emotional functioning, then published as an EQ assessment by MHS around 1995. The original EQi was the first commercial tool and the market and was been used extensively, it is no longer available. The EQ-i received its first major research update in 2011 where the structure and method of the tool was significantly changed and relabeled EQ-i 2.0. |
Online, paper, 360 Wholesale: $55, MHS.com |
EQ Map®by Essi Systems |
Description: With a much broader perspective, the EQ Map frames emotional intelligence in a workplace context. The paper version of the EQ Map emotional intelligence test is self-scored, so you can do it completely on your own; it has questions along the lines of, “How well do you recognize emotions in people?” The 14 main scales include emotional awareness, emotional expression, resilience, outlook, trust, and personal power. It also has four outcome scales to show the benefit of increasing the first 14. The EQ Map includes an interpretation guide booklet. There is an online version now, but we are not familiar with this version.
Purpose: We recommend EQ Map for people interested in developing their own abilities and for workplace teams seeking more effective ways of working together. One advantage is that the EQ Map is self-scored, so it offers the confidentiality and convenience of a “do it yourself” process that can be used on-site in training. Pros: Paper version is easy to use. Casts a wide net to explore a range of concepts related to EQ. Cons: The paper version is easily manipulated to get the scores you want; the wide range of scales may make it less focused & actionable. Validity: EQ Map is normed and has a good factor structure. Because the paper version is self-scored, there is not a complex scoring alogrithm and there are no self-correcting indices. This is a Level A tool (general public). Versions: Paper and online. History: The EQ Map was first published as a free self-assessment in the book, Executive EQ by Cooper and Sawaf, around 1995. Essi Systems produced a commercial version around the same time. Around 2009 the online version was released. Unclear if any research updates have been provided. |
Self-scoring booklet or online
Price: $110 See essisystems.com |
Other Tools:
There are several other tools that we have not used, but have heard about. In addition, here are some related tools published by Six Seconds and others that are not purported to be measures of emotional intelligence, but are linked to emotional intelligence or are used together with EQ tools.
Test | Purpose | Price |
VSVital Signs™ by Six Seconds |
Description: Vital Signs quickly and accurately measure the drivers of organizational performance. There is an individual leader 360, a team measure, and an organizational climate assessment.
Unlike the other tests, OVS and TVS are designed to assess a group or an organization — not simply creating a meaningless average of group EQ. The results show the context in which individuals perform. The tests measures five factors: Trust, Motivation, Change, Teamwork, and Execution. These factors statistically predict over 60% of variation in the performance outcomes, which are also measured: Retention, Productivity, Customer Focus, and Future Success Purpose: We use these tools to accelerate change. The measures focus leadership strategy, gain buy-in, and guide and measure programs. It takes each person about 15 minutes to complete. Pros: Simple, clear business logic. Fast. Cons: These are not “EQ tests” — they are measures of climate and the key drivers of performance. Validity: These tools are validated based on an international norm group representing approximately 60 organizations of varying sizes. The sales are standardized with 100 as the median score with sd=15. Cronbach Alphas on scales range from .63 to .93. Versions: The Leadership Vital Signs (LVS) is an individual leadership 360 using the VS model. Team Vital Signs (TVS) is for a team or workgroup up to approximate 20 individuals, and the Organizational Vital Signs (OVS) provides comparisons of numerous sites, departments, levels, etc. History: The OVS was developed starting in 2001, and first commercially available in 2002. It was significantly updated in 2006 and again in 2011 based on ongoing, active research. |
Online and paper Retail: LVS: $150 + debrief TVS: $990 + debrief OVS: $5,000 Wholesale: 30-50% off |
EI360by IHHP |
The Institute of Health and Human Potential near Toronto, Canada, produced this EI360 tool based on their model of Self-Awareness, Emotional Management, Emotional Connection, and Personal Leadership. | see ihhp.com |
Personality | There are numerous other measures of personality (e.g., DISC, MBTI); as these are not measures of emotional intelligence, we have not included them in this discussion. |
Background:
To be an informed consumer, you should know that it’s possible to make a “statistically reliable” test in a few months. However, a valuable test requires a serious, ongoing investment in research.
The most valuable measures:
- Test something that matters (ie, higher scores predict higher performance in the world).
- Make sense (ie., there is a logic to the way the test is organized — it “hangs together”).
- Test what they say they do (ie., if they’re labelled “emotional intelligence” actually focus on emotions and thinking).
- Are consistent (ie, five different people with similar skills or traits score in similar ways).
- Are easy enough for test-takers to understand so it’s not confusing.
* Levels are used to classify a psychometric assessment to reduce the risk of psychological harm from misuse.
- Level C tools are restricted to licensed psychological professionals.
- Level B tools can only be administered by someone with Master’s level training in assessment or a special Certification. Care must be taken with Level B tools to ensure that test-takers have access to a qualified person to debrief the feedback.
- Level A tools do not require special certification and can be administered by anyone.
Disclosure re Bias / Conflict of Interest:
This review was created by Joshua Freedman who is a co-author of the SEI, the SEI360 and the Vital Signs tools. He has taken EQ Map Certification and used that tool for over 5 years, is EQ-i Certified and used over 250 EQ-i assessments in training, coaching and research, is MSCEIT Certified, used MSCEIT in training, and co-presented MSCEIT certification training
† Income generated by the sale of these assessments, and from the sale of assessments published by Six Seconds, is used to support Six Seconds’ non-profit work spreading EQ to schools and families around the world (more about Six Seconds’ mission)
- Enhance Emotional Literacy - July 13, 2023
- Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions: Feelings Wheel - March 13, 2022
- Technology Loneliness: EQ Tips from Daniel Goleman - October 24, 2020
Thanks for the informative and interesting analysis. It is rally helpful and appreciable.
Hi Joshua,
Thanks for the analysis, which is very informative and helpful. A client of mine is using TalentSmart tool and they questioned about its effectiveness in comparison to others. As it is not listed above, can you advise some ideas about its psychometric validity and applicability in leadership/ talent development? Thanks.
Hang
Hello,
Thank you for answering the questions on this thread as they have been helpful. I am looking for a research tool for measuring EI in school building leaders that is free, any recommendations? I see your organization offers grants.
Hi Mr. Delgado – what I’d suggest is that either you use a robust assessment (and request a grant or get other funding to do that) or do thoughtful self-reflection questions. I would not recommend using a free “assessment” that doesn’t really add robust feedback because it trivializes this important topic (it becomes like a Cosmo magazine quiz). Meaningful reflection questions could be by self, pair or small group discussions around questions such as:
What have you learned in your life and work thus far about emotions… and what is important for you to learn?
What’s supporting and blocking you from tuning into your own emotions?
When you find yourself reacting on autopilot (rather than responding on purpose), what are some “hot buttons” that push you into reaction, and what are your frequent reactions?
If you could pause and interrupt those reactions… what advice would you give yourself?
etc.
Hello Josh
I appreciate the great article you have share with the readers.
I’m looking for a couple of recommendations for EQ/EI assessment for technical people/engineers/manufacturing personnel/scientific and healthcare personnel with a 360 components.
Also, is there an EQ/EI assessment that deals with the person’s body language/interfacing with people on a team that is also included in the score for EQ/EI ?
We are also looking for a couple of recommendations for IQ assessment for technical/scientific personnel/healthcare personnel.
Hi Sean, I don’t think there is a ‘body language’ construct meaningfully measured in a questionnaire, but a lot of the assessments get at how people are coming across to others (“are you communicating what you mean to be?”). I’ll shoot you an email with examples of the two 360 tools we publish.
Hello.
I am interested in using one of the assessments to conduct a study for my dissertation concerning new teachers and the EQ needed to remain in the profession.
Thank you for getting back with me.
Mindy Duckworth, Ed. S
Hi Mindy! We will get in touch 🙂 Thank you!
Hello Josh,
Thank you for this very informative discussion. I was asked to evaluate EQ programs for a client company that is currently using the Talent Smart program. As it is not listed in the tools you described can you give me an idea of it’s psychometric validity and applicability in employee development?
Hi Vera, unfortunately TalentSmart asked us to remove the description of their tools from this index, and rather than waste energy arguing, we did that. Perhaps that’s answer enough for you, but I’ll also email you.
Hi Josh. I want a tool that provides insight about the participant that we can provide to our client (and also the candidate) as part of selection process for Executive Recruitment. This may be for both a specific vacancy of just an adhoc approach of a fantastic candidate we have interviewed. Happy to get certified for the right assessment.
Oh dear, I’m sorry I didn’t see this before Jo. We have a great tool for interviewing (BDP), and then going deeper (LR). I see you’re in Australia – I’ll email you and cc our Regional Network Director for your region.
hi josh,
hope my message finds you in good health. I’m searching for EI test on community exposed to high altitude .I searched online like Paul ,Dienal but confused which one should i choose for research .kindly contact me on my email address.
thanks
Hi Sadaf – I think I emailed you already, but just in case: My suggestion is to consider your goal in the measure. For example, SEI is amazing for developing EQ. MSCEIT is outstanding for an objective metric — so it depends on WHY you want to measure.
🙂
It was highly appreciated as i have to rank my clients in these type of tests
This was very helpful.
I just did an EQ test as part of a recruitment process.
It was the Genos self testing one.
How do these tests validate answers? For example, I could answer every question that I am ‘ALWAYS’ am aware of my moods etc, but how does the assessor know if I really am self aware?
And – in that quiz, about 4 questions referred to models I have never heard of, eg “Do I use the XXX-YYY model of conflict escalation”, or do I use the AAA-BBB pyramid model of emotional engagement.”.
Were these trick questions? I googled and couldn’t find any reference to those models. Maybe I was meant to answer ‘Never’ for those questions, as I’d never heard of them, so couldn’t be consciously using those models – was it a test of honesty?
It can be very exhausting to do these tests in a recruitment situation, not having any wrap around support, or opportunity to de-brief afterwards.
Your thoughts?
Thanks
Liz
Hi Liz,
There are several “tricks” used in a good psychometric tool. In a basic “quiz” with just a few questions (like under 30), you can get whatever score you want. More sophisticated tests calculate time for completion, randomness, answer style, consistency… and include reverse-scored items and items that are just testing for thoughtful appraisal. Most will show the assessor if the test-taker has just answered all 5s or otherwise not taken the test carefully.
Re the “models” — a well-constructed test will not use nomenclature or uncommon terms. So, either those were trick questions, or, it was not a well-constructed tool. 🙂
Your last point is extremely important and I hope everyone who reads this pays close attention. The context of the use of a tool defines the value created. When we teach people to use the SEI in selection (recruitment) we emphasize how to set it up and debrief it in a way that creates value. It’s tricky in hiring, but ideally, both the candidate and the company will get value from the process… even if the candidate isn’t selected!
I JUST WANT A EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE QUESTIONNAIRE WITH RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
Hi Christin, well, all the ones above have that. If you want a tool focused on USING emotional intelligence, then the SEI is perfect: http://www.6seconds.org/tools/sei — but the answer of “which is best” depends on your goals… so if you’d like, explain what you are trying to achieve and I’ll be glad to make a recommendation!
Wonderful article–timely and needed. I would like to measure EI for admissions to graduate program and study a cohort over their program length ~ 6 years. could you email me directly to discuss
hello joshua,
After reading all the above discussions which were very helpful in answering some of my queries I have some basic queriers Can you suggest me an EI tool which can help me measure EI among college students . plz can u make available Bar On EQ(i-s) i.e shorter version of the original Bar On EQ(i) 133 point scale.
Hi Ripudaman, you’d have to contact the publisher of that tool for help. The SEI is great for college students, though, with just 77 items. There is also a SEI Youth Version for people under 18. You can request it for free/discounted used in research here: http://6seconds.org/tools/grants
Best of luck with your research!
Thanks a lot for spareing time in answering my query.It is very informative n helpful to me.Thanks once again
Dear Josh,
Many thanks for your time and effort for very crisp comparison of various EI measurement tools.
May I request you to suggest a validated and dependable tool for ‘cost free’ to use with interpretation guide please.
Thanks with regards,
Vipul
Hi Vipul – here’s the cost-free option: http://6seconds.org/tools/grants
🙂
Hello Mr.Joshua,
This is an interesting thread of discussions to go through in our web research, as we are doing an MBA graduation project on EQ area in context to Middle east ( especially Oman) perspective. Our research topic is “Application of Emotional Intelligence measures in identifying and promoting potential leaders / managers in few oman’s leading organizations”.
We have reviewed the SEI, EQ-i20, LVS and OVS tools, which we found interesting to our research.Could you please throw some light on the most appropriate or apt tool our research ?
Thanking you,
Hasan
Hi Hasan – sounds like a great topic. The SEI questionnaire is available in Arabic, if that’s important. Why don’t you email me a little more about your study — who’s the sample population, and how you’re envisioning the process to work. For example, do you want to measure their EQ scores, and also some different measure of their performance? Could be interesting to use both SEI & LVS, so you could see which EQ competencies are key to which aspects of leadership performance (as evaluated by supervisors, peers, subordinates)…
[email protected]
🙂
This has been extremely helpful as I work to identify the right certification for me and my clients, thank you!
since when SEI-YV is commercially available.
The SEI-Youth Version was published June 2007 – please let us know if we can provide more detail for you.
I am currently a graduate student studying Industrial/Organizational Psychology. I am conducting my thesis on Emotional Intelligence and how it relates to leadership in organizations. I am wanting to use 1 or 2 EQ inventories to identify skills and abilities in potential leaders, and am wondering if anyone has any advice on which assessments would be useful/feasible in my situation. I was interested in the ESCI, but am not certified in administering it, and do not know if this measure would be attainable for my research purposes. This issue has led me to look at other assessments, specifically a self-report measure ( I know this may not be the ideal source ) that can be administered to multiple employees at multiple work sites. The EQ-i 2.0 seems like a potential option, but I have not looked into this assessment much at this point. I truly appreciate any input or help anyone may have for me. Thank you so much for your consideration and thoughts!
HI Benjamin:
I’d be happy to discuss some of your options re. EQ Assessments. As you know from following this conversation, I am the Director of Education for Six Seconds, and I’d be happy to discuss some of your options for self-report assessments. Our grants program supports researchers who use our measures: the SEI, SEI-YV, SEI-360, and the Vital Signs tools.
Our SEI self-report EQ assessment is highly validated across the globe with a norm sample of over 75,000 and growing. The most widely used SEI report is our Leadership Report, an online assessment that takes about 20 minutes to complete. It is possible, with certification, to receive individual scores on each assessment taken. It is also possible, without certification, to receive group scores. Several options exist for certification, if you choose that route.
I would very much like to discuss the assessment with you. I will email you to select some times, if you’d like to chat.
Thanks, Susan
Hi there,
I’m looking for a performance measure of social-emotional intelligence that isn’t too time-consuming to administer for my doctoral research. I was quite interested in the comprehensive coverage of the MSCEIT but cannot use it due to its long administration time. Would you have any recommendations around similar (but shorter) ability/performance measures of social-emotional intelligence that I could use? Any help/guidance would be much appreciated.
Hi V – sorry to say, no. I don’t think there is a well validated, short ability test. The nature of “ability tests” is they are seriously complicated to construct, and by definition each task in an ability test needs to be highly focused. So if you want to have a meaningful ability-based measure of something as complex/multi-faceted as EQ, you’ll need a long test. To my mind, even the MSCEIT only touches on a small sampling of the abilities that are needed to use emotions intelligently. So, if you need to administer in less time, I’d suggest you use a self-report, or, consider creating a behavioral rubric where you score participants based on a few key ingredients you observe as they do a task (just for example, how many emotion words they use in a 3-minute conversation about a challenge) — this would not, of course, be a comprehensive measure of EI, but it would give you SOME kind of objective data in a short time…
Thanks so much for your feedback. It does seem to be quite difficult finding a comprehensive test that won’t make it difficult for me to get research participants. What would be your recommendation for a self report measure of social and emotional intelligence? My only concern with those is that we know respondents’ abilities don’t necessarily correspond with their actual abilities….that’s why I was hoping to use a performance/ ability measure.
Apologies, I meant respondents’ perceiveced social and emotional abilities do not necessarily correspond with their actual abilities.
That’s true. And, I’m not sure how much that matters: I’d suggest there’s a difference between ability, in the sense measured by MSCEIT, and competency or skill — and a further difference with actual behavior. The ability tests are trying to measure something like “capacity” — like the raw processing power. Layered on top is competency — the learned capabilities for using this capacity. What’s intriguing is that neither capacity nor competency necessarily dictates actual performance. EG, a child with high mathematical IQ is not, necessarily, good at solving algebra problems. A self report measures something in between, and is tied somehow to self-concept (because it’s a self-report) — and I suspect this is, across a good sample population, closely linked to how people perform in the real world.
Thanks for that insightful reply Joshua. You really raised some thought-provoking points for me that have eased my decision-making with regards to finding the ‘right’ test to use. Human beings are just so complex and if I can just capture one level of that complexity (even by just measuring their self-perceived social-emotional competencies) then the findings would still be interesting. Now its just about selecting a psychometrically sound (self-report) measure of social and emotional intelligence….are you able to provide any recommendations?
HI V:
As the Director of Education for Six Seconds, I am happy to connect with you to discuss your research options. We administer a grants program and offer assistance to doctoral students who wish to use our EQ assessments.
If you would like to talk further, please contact me. Thanks and best of luck with your research.
Susan
Hi Susan, thanks so much for your reply and your willingness to discuss my research. Your grants program as well as your assistance to doctoral students sound like wonderfu resources for those in my position. Do you have access to a sound measure of social and emotional intelligence that you would recommend I use?
Looking forward to hearing back from you.
HI V:
I am happy to follow up with you re. choice of a validated self-report such as our Six Seconds EQ Assessment, the SEI, and other research questions.
I sent you an email to connect on some available times.
Warmly, Susan
My organization would like for me to facilitate an EQ trainnig and would like for me to administer an assessment as part of the training. We do not have a large budget nor will they reimburse me for certification. I’d love recommendations on EQ assessments that are decently reliable and valid that I can administer without having to be certified.
Thanks,
Missy (HRBP)
Hi Missy – I suggest the “Brain Brief Profile” which is fabulous for training, low cost, and does not require a special certification. Most of the tools that don’t require cert are very “light weight,” but the BBP uses the full questionnaire and scoring algorithm of the SEI, including a huge global norm base (over 50,000 people). To learn more about the Brain Brief Profile, check out: http://6seconds.org/brain
With a purchase of 10 BBPs, we offer a free online tutorial for the BBP that includes PPT for an intro workshop, and other applications. Info on this starter kit: http://6seconds.org/newstore/products/brain-brief-profile-starter-kit/
🙂
Excellent, valuable and most certainly a difficult undertaking. Many thanks!!!
I Had a discussion with co-author Jean Greaves of Talentsmart a few years ago and she really hit hard on the point that 27 was enough questions to get accurate results, but had come up against a lot of resistance from our complexity-loving world that more were needed.
I have a strong bias for using this as a 360 degree tool. After teaching it for over 5 years, it was pretty apparent to me that the 360 was by far the most accurate and valuable. Students seeing their own scores consistently higher than their peers really had an eye opening experience.
Were you able to discern whether or not there was a significant difference in assessment results? (Maybe you did and I missed it.
Again, thank you for this valuable undertaking.
Sincerely
Marty
Which kind of tools is more suitable for evaluating the emotional intelligence of undergraduate students.
Hi Mahnaz –
It’s hard to say without knowing your goals. If you want to raise awareness, most any of these will work. If you are going deep into the science of emotional intelligence, use the MSCEIT. If you are looking to provide tools and a framework for them to use their EQ skills, use the SEI… if you’d like, contact me with more details and I can provide more recommendations.
– Josh
Thanks Josh
your efforts have made it really easy to learn usage of different tests in simple words. As i am working on my MBA research report it is about assessing the emotional intelligence of different companies and whether that plays any roll in career advancement or not ? here still i wanna know if you interested in this? and how 6 seconds can help ?
Thanks for valuable information shared.
Gul Kohyar
Hi Gul, that sounds like a great project. We’ve found that the SEI is predictive of career advancement – so I think it would be good tool for this kind of study.
For people who want to use any of Six Seconds’ tools in research, we have a grant application where you can request: http://6seconds.org/education/grants/
Warmly,
– Josh
Hi, I am looking for an online EI test/assessment for a government client. The students are participating in a Supervisor development program and they are participating in a EI course. The test will supplement the in-class training. What is the best assessment for this organization? Thanks.
Hi D – you might like to look at some of the case studies of how we’ve designed programs like this — http://6seconds.org/tag/case-study/ — generally for this kind of development program we use the SEI because of the practicality of the model as a framework for learning and for putting emotional intelligence into action.
Thanks for asking,
– Josh
Hi Josh,
I just wanted to mention that the ECI distributed by the Hay Group is not only based on Dan Goleman’s model but in fact developed by Dan Goleman and Richard Boyatzis in conjunction with Hay Group.
We also have a more recent edition called the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (ESCI). More information on this tool is available at http://www.haygroup.com/leadershipandtalentondemand/ourproducts/item_details.aspx?itemid=58&type=1&t=2
Validity and reliability information is available for both the ECI and the ESCI.
Thanks,
Michelle
Thank you Michelle – either I can correct it — or better, if you’d like to offer a suggestion for revising that whole description, including a quick overview on the validity and reliability, I’d be glad to have your input.
Warmly,
– Josh
Josh,
Thank you so much for providing this thorough analysis. I am in the process of designing my doctoral dissertation which will test for a correlation between the EI of public school building administrators and the Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of teachers in their respective buildings. Simply defined, OCB is a person’s willingness to volunteer above and beyond what is written in the employment contract.
My original intention was to use the EQi, but a colleague highly recommended Six Seconds. If I were to use the SEI as the measure of principal EI (provided my committee would accept it as a valid measure), would you have any interest in my study?
Hi Edward –
It sounds like a valuable project and I’m certainly interested in exploring that with you. As you probably know, education is a core part of our mission, and so we’re glad to support projects in this space. I’ll email you directly,
🙂
– J
WOW!! I am very interested in determining EQ with educational leaders and their staff. As one knows , personality and emotional traits play a big part in successful outcomes. Let me know your findings. Thanks.
Hi Brenda – there is some research on this on http://6seconds.org/case — in the free ebook: A Case for Emotional Intelligence in our Schools.
Enjoy!
– Josh
Josh,
I haven’t got a chance to really immerse myself to understand in detail but the first glance shows really detail comparison and information. This will give me a chance to try out a couple of other tools that I have just known them by name and get more appreciation of each tool. I’ll need to find some time on this but I can see the value of this article.
THANKS,
shabbir
Thanks Josh for the comparison of the models. I was wondering about the use of one of these for my work around studying transition issues (eg adults/youth moving to a new country/new school) I was thinking the Emotional Quotient Inventory could be suitable because it measures “how easy is it for you to adapt to new situations”. Maybe the SEI could work as well because I use the 6 Seconds model in my counselling of parents/students with transition issues so it is a good fit.
Interested in your opinion.
Regards
Ian
Hi Ian,
were you able to find answer to your question. I am an adult immigrant and trying to find answers for the same type of questions.
Thank you for a clear, succinct comparison of these several models. I probably will not be the first to tell you that MHS has just released the 2.0 version of the EQ-i. It has some interesting changes in the overall model even as it retains most of the factors. The report resulting from the assessment looks much different and has added some interesting features. I’d like to hear your perspective on this.
Hi Barbara –
I’ve seen it, and I’m glad they’ve made the update, I’d say it was overdue. However, it’s also a big change, and for people who were choosing EQ-i because of its large base may have concerns that now it’s like starting over. Have you tried it yet? In my experience, there were a couple of problems with the previous version:
– No cogent model. There’s a LIST but it doesn’t “click together” — I think the 2.0 is a step toward this, at least in how they visually present it, but I’m not sure if there is compelling logic to the model yet.
– Answer style. I am unsure if the 2.0 now has an answer style correction — this is a big problem for this type of assessment, people have biases about the way they use a Likert scale, and I don’t think that’s reflective of EQ, so the test should check and correct for this bias. Do you know if EQ-i 2.0 now has an AS correction?
– Scale consistency. I often found that a client would score high in PART of a scale, it was as if two concepts were combined into one scale — as I understand it, that’s improved now.
They changed the design of the report, and it seems better to me. I was surprised they did not go further in this to create something with a lot less words. We’ve had pretty consistent feedback, esp from senior leaders, that assessment feedback should be presented in a crisp manner that can be accessed in moments.
Thanks for bringing this up!
– Josh
Thank you so much for this timely article. I was just asked for this info from a company interested in assessments and this sums it all up very nicely!
Great to hear from you Julie – glad to help.
Hi Josh,
Thanks for this comparison tool. It’s very helpful and handy. I commend you for taking to the time to do so. As you have indicated, it is important to use the tool that will do what you are expecting.
Bob Brooks
Hi Bob –
Since you are someone who has used these tools in a serious organization, it would be great to hear more of your perspective. It seems there are often many “wants” in this kind of program, and when it comes time to select a tool you’ve got to prioritize. I believe you chose to use the SEI because of the practicality (ie, a way for fairly “concrete” or “quantitative” or “action oriented” people to get this without needing a whole long orientation) and because of the substance (ie, wanting a tool that could really make a difference). Is that fair?
Warmly,
– Josh
Josh: Great job in analyzing these various assessments. Answers lots of questions about which assessments to choose. Thanks
Thank you Frank – I am glad it’s useful!