Construct Development and Scale Creation - Research Paper Example

? Construct Development and Scale Creation: Emotional Intelligence College Part I: Construct Development and Scale CreationThe psychological construct sought to be measured is emotional intelligence (EI). This construct has been defined similarly in various literatures. Song, Law and Wong (2004) defined emotional intelligence as “the ability to monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (p. 483). Similarly, Mayer, Salovey and Caruso (2008) define EI as “the ability to engage in sophisticated information processing about one’s own and others’ emotions and the ability to use this information as a guide to thinking and behavior” (p. 503). In a latter study, Wood, Parker and Keefer (2011) defined EI as “a constellation of abilities, competencies and dispositions related to perceiving, understanding, and managing emotions of self and others” (p. 763). Based on these definitions, EI involves recognizing, understanding, using and dealing with one’s emotions and that of other people in order to guide thinking and actions. The studies (Song et al., 2004; Mayer et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2011) used numerous factors to measure EI, which can be grouped into understanding and perceiving one’s emotions, understanding and perceiving other people’s emotions, using emotions for goal achievement and regulating one’s emotions. From each group, five items were selected as shown below. EI Constructs Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) I have good understanding of my own emotions. I know the differences in the emotions that I am feeling. I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me. I can express my feelings very well. I have good control of my emotions. The appropriate method of scaling is ordinal, which involves the ordering of variables (Jackson, 2008). Measuring EI involves the determination of the scores for each individual respondent on each item in the instrument. A higher or lower score indicates individual rating for each item. The total score determines the extent of EI of each respondent. Higher scores mean greater emotional intelligence and vice versa. A score of 5 is assigned to “strongly agree” and a score of 1 is assigned to “strongly disagree”. The items were organized into a self-report instrument. Measuring the EI of the respondents involves the collection of numerical data, which makes the investigation quantitative. As such, a self-report instrument is more appropriate than the qualitative method of interviewing. Part II: Analysis and Justification Instrument Development The instrument would be distributed to marketing and sales students. People in this group will work in a field that deals directly with people. Effectiveness in this field is determined by knowledge and acquired practical skills, which encompasses the ability to understand one’s emotions, understand other people’s emotions, and use these understanding to communicate with people well in order to send a message and draw the desired response. This ability is encompassed by the construct EI. The targeted population comprise of enrolled full-time or part-time students enrolled in undergraduate and graduate marketing and sales courses. Year level, degree level, gender, and ethnic background also characterize the population. Given a population of 2000 university students enrolled in marketing and sales, the instrument will be given to a sample of 696 randomly selected students. This number was derived by using a 95% confidence level and 3% confidence interval (Ardilly & Tilly, 2006). The size of the sample supports a lower margin of error and higher confidence level. The instrument would be generalized to students and practitioners in fields that deal directly with people. Nevertheless, the instrument can also be used in broader settings. Measures of Reliability To determine the consistency with which the instrument measures EI, the test-retest and internal consistency would be used to determine reliability. The test-retest will involve giving the same instrument to the same respondents two times (Jackson, 2008). The first time would be three weeks from the start semester, when the students have already settled into their routine schedule. The second time would be three weeks prior to the end of the semester, before students start to focus on the upcoming break. This would allow for a 1 month interval between the test and retest. Although, students may have faced different people and experiences in 1 month, the state of mind of respondents and conditions in the two time periods are more or less comparable. After completing the retest, the scores in the test and retest will be compared using correlation analysis. The correlation coefficient will determine the degree of reliability (Jackson, 2008). A correlation coefficient of .8 is targeted to indicate strong correlation. A strong correlation means that the scores in the two time periods are similar and consistent. This means that the instrument consistently measures EI. Measuring for internal consistency requires respondents to answer the instrument once. Chronbach’s alpha can be used to determine internal consistency (Jackson, 2008). The alpha value for all items in the instrument can be determined. The targeted overall alpha is .7, which is the acceptable value but achieving a higher value is best. The alpha values for each question can also be determined to show the changes in the overall alpha value if the question were removed. For each item, the total alpha value should be low, to indicate that if these questions were removed, then the overall alpha value would not fall below .7. Any item that would cause the overall alpha value to decrease when removed will not be removed. Any item that would cause the overall alpha value to increase when removed will be removed. The test-retest and internal consistency can be used as alternatives, by selecting one or the other. However, both will be used to test the validity of the instrument. The test-retest will be administered to the sample of 696 respondents. The results of the initial test can be tested for internal consistency. The scores of the initial test will be compared with the scores in the retest. The results of the test-retest and internal consistency test will be analyzed and interpreted to support a conclusion on the reliability of the instrument. Establishing Validity The items in the instrument were selected from the components or elements of EI derived from the definitions used in three studies of EI. Song et al. (2004) measured EI in terms of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Mayer et al. (2008) classified the components of EI into management of emotions for goal achievement, understanding emotions, using emotions to facilitate thinking, and accurate perception of one’s emotions and other’s emotions. Parker et al. (2011) measured EI by using several items to determine intrapersonal abilities, interpersonal abilities, adaptability, and stress management. Overall, the items used in the Song et al. (2004) and Parker et al. (2011) fall under the categories of understanding and perceiving one’s emotions, understanding and perceiving other people’s emotions, using emotions for goal achievement and regulating emotions, with these categories also coinciding with the classifications identified by Mayer et al. (2008). As such, the five items elected were taken from all the categories. The first two items came from the first category to cover understanding and perceiving one’s emotions. The third item came from the second category and focused on understanding other people’s emotions. The fourth item came from the third category and focused on expression of emotions. The fifth item came from the fourth category of regulating emotions. As such, the items reflect all of the categories identified in the three studies. These categories represent the components of EI. Item selection will be evaluated by using content validity. This test is done by showing that the items in the instrument form part of the construct that is being measured (Jackson, 2008). In applying deduction, the general construct being measured is emotional intelligence. According to three studies, EI has a number of components. EI is a string of abilities, which are the ability to understand and perceive one’s emotions, the ability to understand and perceive other people’s emotions, the ability to use emotions for goal achievement, and the ability to regulate emotions. All of these abilities constitute EI. As such, a person needs to fair well in all of these abilities to be considered as having a strong EI. In measuring EI, the items contained in the instrument should reflect these four abilities. The five items selected represented all of the four abilities, with two items representing the ability to understand and perceive one’s emotions. The second item only covered the ability to understand other people’s emotion and did not explicitly include the ability to perceive other people’s emotions. Expression of emotions is used to reflect the use of emotions for goal achievement. Being able to express one’s emotions is a goal in itself as well as a means to various goals. Regulation of emotions is represented by the item on the ability to control one’s emotions. As such, all of the items included in the instrument represented the abilities constituting EI. With the five items belonging to the construct being measured, then the items passed the content validity test. References Ardilly, P., & Tilly, Y. (2006). Sampling methods. New York: Springer. Jackson, S. (2008). Research methods: A modular approach. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence. American Psychologist, 63(6), 503-517. Song, L. J., Law, K. S., & Wong, C. S. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 483-496. Wood, L. M., Parker, J. D., & Keefer, K. V. (2011). Towards a brief multidimensional assessment of emotional intelligence: Psychometric properties of the emotional quotient inventory-short form. Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 767-777. Read More