How to select the right EI assessment

Running head: INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 1

Integrative Project

Jeremy D. Passer

Capella University

A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements of

PSY5201 – Integrative Project for Master's Degree in Psychology

Spring, 2011

Crystal, MN 55427

Email: [email protected]

Instructor: Carolyn King, PhD.

INTEGRATIVE PROJECT 2

Abstract

The use of emotional intelligence (EI) in the field of Industrial and Organizational Psychology

has many supporters and detractors. On one hand are peer-reviewed articles that find EI useful

in practice, while on the other hand many of those same articles often described one or more

models and assessments of EI to be invalid and/or unreliable. Practitioners who are new to EI

and want to incorporate its use in their practice need help to determine which models and

assessments of EI are most useful. By adding process consultation and outcome-based

consulting to the decision making process of selecting the best fit EI model and EI assessment,

practitioners can add value to their clients by having a focus on their outcomes. Reflection on

the professional knowledge and skills finalize the discussion of how I-O practitioners can most

effectively use EI and EI assessments.

Keywords: emotional intelligence, practitioner, process consultation, outcome-based consulting


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Description of Emotional Intelligence in I-O Psychology………….................. 4

Why Significant to I-O Psychology?.................................................................. 5

Literature Review……………………………………………………………… 5

Genesis of EI…………………………………………………………............... 6

Current Models………………………………………………………………… 6

MSCEIT 2.0…………………………………………………………............... 7

EQ-i, EQ-i 2.0. ………………………………………………………… 8

ECI 2.0…………………………………………………………………. 9

Usability………………………………………………………………............... 10

Best Practices and Standards…………………………………………............... 13

Psychometrics…………………………………………………………... 13

Where are the practitioners’ voices?........................................................ 14

Adding Value to the Field……………………………………………................ 15

Application…………………………………………………………………….. 17

Introduction to the Application………………………………………………… 17

Other Options to Apply EI?................................................................................. 18

Consulting psychology can help……………………………………….. 18

Purpose of the Application…………………………………………………….. 19

Description and Elements of the Application………………………………….. 20

Process Consultation…………………………………………………… 20

Outcome Based Consultation…………………………………………... 21

Using the Applications..………………………………………………………... 22

Target Population………………………………………………………………. 23

Potential Contributions of the Application to Area of Specialization …………. 23

Implementation of the Specific Application ……………………….………….. 24


Evaluation of Application……………………………………………………… 24

Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model……………………………………………….. 25

Reaction and Learning…………………………………………………. 25

Behavior and Results…………………………………………............... 26

Reflecting on Professional Knowledge and Skill………………………………. 26

Information, Skills, and Professional Attributes……………………….............. 26

Theoretical Orientation………………………………………………………… 28

Characteristics of the Culturally Skilled Practitioner………………………….. 30

Multiculturalism………………………………………………............... 30

Reflecting on Personal Beliefs and Values…………………………………….. 31

Facing Ethical Dilemmas………………………………………………………. 32

Strengths of Professional Competencies……………………………………….. 33

References……………………………………………………………………… 35

Description of Emotional Intelligence in I-O Psychology

Industrial and Organizational Psychology is the science of human behaviors in the

workplace. The construct of emotional intelligence (EI) and EI assessments are tools that

provide I-O psychologist’s both professional and career opportunities by helping organizations,

groups, and individuals meet and exceed their goals. Applications of EI have become important

for organization in helping them to predict leadership behavior and improve organizational

performance (Stein, Papadogiannis, Yip, & Sitarenios, 2008). Opportunities to use EI have even

been developed for enhancing athletic performance in sport athletes, while also being important

to the health considerations of those athletes and other individuals (Meyer & Fletcher, 2007;


Perlini & Halverson, 2006). The flow of EI into organization and industry is significant because

it has, or at least has been an attempt to; implement a different psychological construct other than

personality and cognitive abilities for enhancing performance, while also being able to shown

evidence of incremental validity over those traditional I-O assessments (Joseph & Newman,

2010).

Determining if there is a demand for EI and EI assessment in the marketplace can be

ascertained by queries of internet search engines, searches of professional peer-reviewed

journals, and government references. Type in the keywords, “emotional intelligence consultant”

in any internet search engine and you will notice that there are pages and pages of results. One

organization’s website claims it has clients for their EI consulting practice with the likes of

Hewlett Packard, Home Depot, ING, and many other prominent companies (The InnerWork Co,

2009). While MHS, the company that publishes the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i and

now the newer version EQ-i 2.0) assessment states in many of its marketing materials that their

client list includes the US Air Force, the Center for Creative Leadership, and American Express

as organizations that have used and seen a return of their investments when utilizing EI

assessments for various purposes (2009). A visit to the government database of O*Net or the

Department of Labor’s website also confirms that the work of I-O psychologists, irrespective of

EI, will experience high demand for their services over the next 10 years (O*Net Online, 2010).

These data points show that I-O psychologists who plan on using EI and EI assessments have

clearly found their niche in the marketplace for individuals, groups, and organizations.

Why Significant to I-O Psychology?


One of the most important ways I-O psychologists can differentiate themselves in the

marketplace from traditional business consultants or other competitors is their education in the

scientific method of hypothesis testing, data collection, analysis, and reporting. In addition, I-O

psychology training requires an in-depth ability to conduct research using peer-reviewed articles,

which are either qualitatively or quantitatively measured, requiring a strong understand of

statistics and research methods; something not typically associated with a business background

in accounting or HR. These skills are in addition to the training I-O psychologists have in social

psychology, lifespan development, psychology of consulting, learning theories, and general

knowledge of the history of psychology as a science dating back to at least as early as the Greek

Philosophers, until its separation from philosophy in the 1800’s, to today, where the study of

psychology is a well know and respected science by most. Lastly, the requirement to purchase,

score, administer, and provide feedback of assessments typically requires Master’s level courses

in statistics, research methods, and assessments and measurement in the workplace. Next will be

an opportunity to review just some of the current and past literature on EI and EI assessment.

Literature Review

Genesis of EI

While the common public perception of EI is that it originated in 1995 with Goleman

when he published his book, Emotional Intelligence; the psychological inquiry into social and

emotional competencies dates back much earlier. In fact it was Charles Darwin’s exploration

into The Expression of the Emotions in Man and in Animals (1872/1965) which first provided

evidence that emotions are important to survival in humans (Bar-On, 2006). Thorndike’s (1920)

research on intelligence, Doll’s (1935) examination of social maturity, and Wechsler’s (1958)

research on general intelligence are frequently cited by current researchers of EI as important to


the understanding and construct applicability of EI as it is known today (Bar-On, 2006; Joesph

& Newman, 2010; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Cronbach’s 1960 statement that “social

intelligence remains undefined and unmeasured” (p. 319) may have deterred some from defining

and measuring non-cognitive abilities, but Applebaum (1973) continued to dig into this arena by

building a model of psychological mindedness, while Lane & Schwartz (1987) researched

emotional awareness in relation to cognitive development (Bar-On, 2006). There have been

others of course not mentioned, but the purpose here is not a historical perspective of EI, but

readers of this paper should have knowledge of those who were important to getting EI to where

it is today. The most current popular models of EI and their related EI assessments will be

examined next.

Current Models

The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations (2010) lists ten

unique assessments currently available to measure EI and emotional-social intelligence (ESI).

However, most peer-reviewed articles on EI and ESI point to three (sometimes four)

models/assessments that are currently most widely accepted and used (Bar-On, 2006; Cherniss,

2010; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Salovey, Mayer, Caruso, & Lopes, 2003; Sharma, Biswal,

Deller, & Marndal, 2009). These models and corresponding assessments are: The Bar-On

model of social and emotional intelligence as measured by the EQ-i (now EQ-i 2.0), the Salovey-

Mayer ability model as measured by the Mayer-Salovey-Carouso Emotional Intelligence Test, or

MSCEIT, the Goleman model, measured by the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI), and

Trait Emotional Intelligence as measured by the TEIQue (Cherniss, 2010). This paper will only

be looking at the three mostly widely used models and assessments, the EQ-i, MSCEIT, and the

ECI.


MSCEIT

The MSCEIT is an “ability” measure of emotional intelligence (Salovey et al, 2003). The

authors of the MSCEIT define EI as,

the ability to access and generate felling to facilitate cognitive activities; the ability to

understand affect-laden information and use emotionally relevant knowledge; and the

ability to manage one’s own emotions and the emotions of others to promote emotional

and intellectual growth, well-being, and adaptive social relations (Salovey et al, 2003, p.

251-252).

Key to this ability model is the measurement of EI as something that is either right or wrong

when scoring results of the assessment. How can you have a correct answer on an ability

measure of EI? The MSCEIT uses three reference points to determine correct answers.

Consensus scoring based on if answers match the majority of a normative sample group

response, expert scoring which compares answer to those of experts who also answered the

question(s), and target-based scoring where the answers have been confirmed (for example, if

trying to determine the emotion of someone in a photograph, the person in the photograph was

asked how they felt) (Salovey et al, 2003). The model is based on four main constructs of EI;

perceiving emotion in oneself and others, using emotions to facilitate through, understanding

emotion, and managing emotion (Salovey et al, 2003). The 141-item response MSCEIT has

been analyzed for reliability and validity using scoring results from general and expert correct

answers. Reliability measurement was examined at the full-test level, four-branch level, and

individual-subtest levels with α’s ranging between .62 at the subtest level of “Blends” under

expert scoring, and α .93 for total MSCEIT using expert scoring (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, &


Sitartenios, 2003). Factor analysis showed that it is indeed EI, and not personality or another

construct that was being represented by the MSCEIT model (Mayer et al, 2003).

EQ-i/EQ-i 2.0.

Reuven Bar-On developed the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), a self-reported

measure of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Unlike the MSCEIT which purports to measure

only EI, the EQ-i model examines ESI. Also, unlike the MSCEIT where answers are either right

or wrong; the EQ-i is scored on a five point Likert-like scale. Bar-On claims in 1988 he created

the term “emotional quotient” while working on his Ph.D., and did so thinking that the

knowledge and understanding of ESI would lead to psychological well-being (Bar-On, 2006).

Bar-On defines EI as; “emotional-social intelligence is a cross-section of interrelated emotional

and social competencies, skills, and facilitators that determine how effectively we understand

and express ourselves, understand others and relate with them, and cope with daily demands”

(2006, p.14). The newest model, EQ-i 2.0 includes a total EI score, five group composites, three

sub-groups for each of the five main groups, and an overall measurement of happiness (MHS,

2011). The composite group and sub-scales are as follows: self-perception (self-regard, self-

actualization, emotional self-awareness), self-expression (emotional expression, assertiveness,

independence), interpersonal (interpersonal relationships, empathy, social responsibility),

decision making (problem solving, reality testing, impulse control), and stress management

(flexibility, stress tolerance, optimism) (MHS, 2011). While the current psychometric properties

of the EQ-i 2.0 are not yet available from their technical guide, one can assume they only

improve the reliability and validity of the EQ-i. In the original EQ-i, internal consistency

was .97, and factor analysis was comparable with the MSCEIT and ECI (Bar-On, 2006). The

EQ-i’s divergent construct validity was also statistically significant from cognitive intelligence


and personality (Bar-On, 2006). Bar-On states one of best features of the EQ-i assessment and

his model of ESI is that it is teachable and learnable (Bar-On, 2006).

ECI 2.0.

The ECI 2.0 assessment parallels with Goleman and Boyatzis model of EI. The ECI

technical manual defines EI as:

Emotional intelligence is the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of

others, for motivating ourselves and for managing emotions effectively in ourselves and

others. An emotional competence is a learned capacity based on emotional intelligence

that contributes to effective performance at work (Hay Group, 2005, p. 10).

A self-assessment with an option to be used as a multi-rater 360-degree view, the ECI’s main -

groupings and each main cluster sub-groups are: self-awareness (emotional awareness, accurate

self-assessment, self-confidence), self-management (emotional self-control, transparency,

adaptability, achievement, initiative, optimism), social awareness (empathy, organizational

awareness, service orientation), and relationship management (developing others, inspirational

leadership, change catalyst, influence, conflict management, teamwork & collaboration) (Hays

Group, 2005). Average internal consistency of the ECI model was α .63, while test-retest

reliabilities were not compiled (Hays Group, 2005). Construct validity studies indicated that the

ECI measures something different than personality assessments, while there was also strong

empirical evidence that the ECI does have a relationship to career success and student

performance (Hays Group, 2005).

As has been described now the three most commonly used and accept models of EI or

ESI are each tying to describe how non-cognitive abilities interact with people and their lives.

Perhaps surprisingly and depending on one’s previous knowledge of EI, it may be most


interesting to have seen that each assessment measures different variables and groupings, and

each model’s definition of EI/ESI are different. Yet perhaps this should not be a surprise

considering that psychologist still lack a consensus in defining general intelligence (Cherniss,

2010). Now that the three main models have been describe in general details, next are some of

the current applications of EI and EI assessments as found in peer-reviewed literature.

Usability

Each assessments creator(s) have lists of applications relevant to their assessments. Some

of the significantly correlations they say (peer reviewed documents were used to validate their

statements) exist to EI/ESI are with psychical health, psychological health, social interaction,

performance at school, performance in the workplace, self-actualization, well-being, and

substance abuse in teenagers (Bar-On, 2006; Salovey et al., 2003). Other literature is also

abundant EI/ESI applications and below are a few application that are available through a

comprehensive literature review of the subject.

A research study on hockey players in the National Hockey League (NHL) found they

have higher intrapersonal, stress management, and stress tolerance than the general population;

while their mood and intrapersonal competencies provided incremental validity on predicting the

success of a player’s career in the NHL (Perlini & Halverson, 2006). An I-O psychologist and

Organizational Development (OD) practitioner (Blattner & Bacigalupo, 2007) looked at how EI

might help executive leadership coaching and organizational development. They reported

through a qualitative case study how EI can be used to enhance team effectiveness and jump start

organizations that have become stagnant. To engage their clients’, the author’s had executives

and other leaders take an EI assessment. Although they did not specifically say they used

Goleman’s model and the ECI, they cited his cluster EI skills when discussion EI. Using a


process consultation (PC) model with their clients they were able to lead a 12-hour retreat that

exposed clients to the model of EI and how it could help them function more effectively. Many

breakthroughs occurred during the training, including building a consensus on how to make

decision for the organization and connecting thinking and feeling to enhance communication

between the organizations employees. Lastly, the client provided feedback to give a full 360

degree picture of the EI intervention and helped accentuate the findings that EI can add value to

organizations.

Leary, Reilly, and Brown (2009) examined if there were any correlations between the

EQ-i and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) in hopes of finding applications of using the

EQ-i model to help develop a deeper understanding of personal communication preferences for

groups and individuals within organizations. They found persons with a preference for

extraversion had higher overall EQ-i, intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, and general mood

scales, while introversion was negatively related to stress management, and feeling positive was

associated to higher interpersonal skills (Leary et al., 2009). In the final discussion, the author’s

found their results to be important because if extroversion and feeling preferences are most

related to EI, and if EI contributes to organizational goal attainment, then more attention ought to

be paid to those variables when trying to improve organizational effectiveness and goal

achievement.

Dries and Pepermans (2007) used the EQ-i as a proxy to help identify high potential

leaders. They made several hypotheses about the correlation of EI to job performance, career

commitment, and high potential status of future leaders. They made an interesting point that

organizations using “talent detection” competencies that look to past performance as their

baseline are ignoring that future challenges will not necessarily have the same factors or


competencies on which the leader of the past successfully relied upon. Dries and Pepermans

(2007) found EQ-i subscales of assertiveness, independence, optimism, flexibility, and social

responsibility are “covert” (p. 761) indicators of picking out high performance from the average

or low performance leader. Other conclusion were that using the EQ-i assessment could help

organization build their pipeline of leadership through the identification of high potential, not

just high performance employees.

Another confirmed research hypothesis looked into leadership and EI and confirmed that

EI has become an import consideration for organization by helping them to predict leadership

behavior, and improve organizational performance (Stein, Papadogiannis, Yip, & Sitarenios, G.,

2009). Stein et al. (2009) also concluded that EI as measured by the EQ-i was able differentiate

top-executives from lower performers and that empathy was higher in executive with higher

profits in their organization.

Not all research does support that EI can be developed in individuals. In 2009, research

found no improvement of EI scores (EQ-i) when using an executive leadership development

program (Muyia & Kacirek,2009). But, the design of the program did not actual examine if EI is

teachable using the Bar-On model, rather it simply pointed out the specific training program did

nothing to improve EI in participants. Leaving the possibility open that if other articles finding a

lack of value in EI for business are found to show EI is a weak in predicting business

performance; it might not be that case EI is not valid since it is not the dependent variable!

While lastly, a recent study (Sharma, Deller, Biswal, and Mandal, 2009) concluded EI constructs

can have different values in different cultures. Not exactly a surprising finding, however it is

important to know the limitation of EI when used cross-culturally. Now having gone over some

of the basic applications of EI and ESI and knowing that there are hundreds of other studies on


EI and ESI, how can anyone know what to look for to determine if the findings reported are

accurate, believable, and have been assessed using the best practice of I-O psychology?

Best Practices and Standards

Psychometrics.

The adherence to and use of the scientific method in I-O psychology is what helps to lend

it credibility in the marketplace and academia. Two important and best practices I-O

psychologists use to meet scientific standards are making sure psychological constructs like EI

and ESI, and assessments like the EQ-i, MSCEIT, and ECI are valid and reliable. Validity is the

correlation of test results in relation to the trait it seeks to measure (Kaplan and Saccuzzo 2009).

Validity is considered by some experts of test and measurement to be the prime objective in

developing and evaluating test (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999). There are four basic validity types:

Face validity, content-related, criterion, and construct related evidence (Kaplan & Saccuzzo,

2009). While validity deals with accuracy, reliability is about consistency. Reliability can also

be described as the magnitude of miscalculation in any assessment (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009).

In addition to reliability and validity, other standards and guideline exist and can help

practitioners make the right decision when working with EI and ESI.

For psychologist in the United States the most important guidelines for ethical conduct

were created by the American Psychological Association (APA). These guidelines can be found

on their website and cover ten different ethical standards ranging from therapy, to advertising

and other public statements, and assessments (APA, 2010). The APA ethical principles are a

detailed description of the ethical and moral principles expected and required of scholars,

scientists, and practitioners of psychology. Those who are not in alliance with this code could be

censured or expelled from the association; losing important credentials often necessary to legally


practice as a psychologist (per individual States laws). Of particular importance for this paper

are the groups of principles under Standard 9: Assessments (APA, 2010).

An even more comprehensive set of guidelines and Standards for educational and

psychologist testing was drafted by the APA, American Educational Research Association

(AERA), and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) that examines test

construction, evaluation, documentation, fairness in testing, and testing application (1999). The

Standards text provides the basic and advanced ethical and moral principles associated with

testing and assessments. These Standards are helpful in explaining the more important codes of

conduct and responsibilities of using assessments.

Where are the practitioners’ voices?

Cascio and Aguinis (2008) completed a comprehensive review of over 5,700 articles

published in respected I-O journals from 1963 to 2007 to uncover the research trends in I-O

psychology over the past 45 years. Their results uncovered many trends about methodology-

psychometrics issues, predictors of performance, work motivation and attitudes, performance

measurement, work outcomes, leader influences, and human factors of applied experimental

psychology. Specifically related to this paper was their discussion of a falling out of sorts

between I-O scientists and non-academic I-O psychologists (practitioners) authors; and with that

concerns that I-O psychology scientists may fail to provide external validity to their research and

unfortunately limit the influence they have over HRM practitioners, managers, stakeholders, and

policy makers who are most likely to benefit for such research. This falling off of research on

critical issue in I-O psychology between the academic (scientist) side and the practitioner side of

I-O psychology is vividly visible in the science published on EI and ESI. One scientist can argue


against a certain construct if their research shows the validity and reliability are weak, but when

the other side of the argument has science that show the construct and assessments are valid and

reliable as well, what and whom do practitioners in the margins trust and use to implement EI

into their practices?

Adding Value to the Field

Two simple ideas of how to apply EI and ESI when unsure of which definition or

assessment is the “right” one is to not limit oneself to one theoretical preference for a particular

EI assessment, and keeping an open mind about which assessment to use and when. But is it that

simple? Next are brief synopses of two recent articles that provide a glimpse of the struggles

within the I-O community on using EI and ESI.

Two Professors at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were looking for a new

model of EI that could be used by personnel psychologist in making staffing decisions (Joseph &

Newman, 2010). They wrote that current EI models are redundant with personality and

cognitive measure, which have more reliable and valid predictor criterion (Joseph & Newman,

2010). The Bar-On model of ESI is dismissed for its mixed model and is called a grab-bag of

variables that are anything not related to cognitive ability, while the MSCEIT is knocked down a

peg by pointing out that is only measures perception of emotion in others, not self. While they

felt ability-based EI (MSCEIT) models are better than mixed-models; they point out they have

limited criterion validity because of sex and race based sub-group differences. Lastly, they

recommend that if practitioners are going to use EI assessments that extreme caution be used

since ability models are hit or miss in their capacity to predict future job success, and that while


mixed-models are better generalized predictors; they lack more clearly cut theoretical structure

which include too many parts of cognitive, social, and personality psychology.

Another recent focal article trying to provide some guidance on to both scientist and

practitioners on EI was written by Cary Cherniss, PhD., Professor at Rutgers University. He

wrote the focal article for the Industrial and Organizational Psychologist publication

Perspectives on Science and Practice in aspirations of trying to find a common concept of EI.

Cherniss (2010) discussed the background of the controversy in EI, including issues with the

construct of EI itself and whether or not it includes too many descriptors that are better matched

to personality traits or social skills. Pros and cons of four different models were discussed,

including the EQ-i, MSCEIT, ECI, and the Trait Emotional Intelligence (TEIQue). Challenges

of measuring EI were discussed, EI applications to the workplace covered, and a final conclusion

made that a distinction should be made between social competence and emotional intelligence.

Ten response articles follow Cherniss’s work, none of them adding any new real-world research

to the mix, but they provide more proof in the pudding that EI and ESI are not an easy to apply in

practice with certainty. Yet, despite the elusiveness of a single construct for EI/ESI, the demand

for EI assessments continues to grow. Best practices using EI and ESI are overdue for those who

want to help individuals and organizations succeed-but face a paralysis of analysis from too

much contradictory and conflicting data on the subject.

Application

Introduction to the Application

After a thorough survey of the literature surrounding EI several themes have emerged.

One theme being no one can seem to agree on what EI is, yet most expert scientists and many


practitioners have entrenched opinions. Cherniss observed that the only options seem to be

dismissing EI as a construct completely, accepting that there are multitudes of definitions, or

picking one model and saying it is the best (2010). Also dubious is the perception in the

literature that one must either select the mixed-model of EI or the ability models (Cherniss, 2010;

Meyer & Fletcher, 2007; Salovey, Mayer, Caruso, & Lopes, 2003). Bar-On agues this debate is

meaningless, astutely pointing out that, “All models of human behaviors are influenced at least to

some extend by a (mixed) cross-section of bio-psycho-social predictors and facilitators including

biomedical predispositions and conditions, cognitive intelligence, personality, motivations and

environmental influences” (2006, p. 18). However, not one other source seems to even

acknowledge, let alone agree with his position. The last theme which appears in the literature is

that there are diametrically opposed motivation for scientists and scholar-practitioners involved

with EI. Scientists are determined to thoroughly examine EI through validity, reliability, and

psychometric tests and measurement until they prove EI is useful; while practitioners are already

applying EI successfully with individual and organizational performance (High Performing

Systems, 2009). Without a consensus among or within I-O psychology scientist or practitioners,

making a decision to use EI in any application is retarded by doubt and fear—a paralysis by

analysis takes grip of those yet to find their own voice in this scientific debate. Knowledge for

the sake of knowledge is useless in an academic vacuum; real-world results are important and

matter.

Other Options to Apply EI?

There can be no doubt that something other than intellectual ability and personality is

influencing the outcome of individual and organizational performance. While scientists may not

agree with any decision made through common sense and pure tacit knowledge, there cannot


logically be any arguments against the reality that emotions directly and indirectly affect

outcomes. The question for the practitioner who uses EI is how to most appropriately and

effectively implement EI interventions. To answer this will require applying principals outside of

I-O psychology by including the knowledge, skills, and abilities found in Consulting

Psychology.

Consulting psychology can help.

Division 14, the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologist (SIOP) represents

one the 54 divisions in the APA (APA, 2011). To think that the recommendations and best-

practices in SIOP can alone settle the challenges of implementing EI and EI assessments

programs for individual and organizations is wishful thinking at best, egotistical at worst. To

help solve the puzzle of determining a best practice or practices with EI, fusing together the

knowledge of Division 14, SIOP, with Division 13, the Society of Consulting Psychology (SCP)

may aid in clearing up the confusion. Consulting psychologist (CP) use empirical based

evidence to help their clients in issue of human behavior at work (APA, 2007). Training to be

able to complete such tasks involves a strong understand of psychological concepts like life span

development, learning and cognition, industrial and organizational, and leadership psychology.

It also requires self-awareness, professional and ethical standards, knowledge of business

regulations, technology, research methods and statistics (APA, 2007). Psychology consultants

are also trained to ask themselves if they have the skills necessary to complete the job (Robinson

& Gross, 1985). Leveraging the best of both I-O and CP will assist in finding right combinations

of EI and EI assessment for I-O practitioners (and one can also assume consulting psychologists

as well) who want maximize solutions for individuals and organizations which utilize EI.


Purpose of the Application

The purpose of this application is to provide guidelines and best practices when using EI

and EI assessment for practitioners of I-O psychology. EI applications need to be determined by

the expertise of the psychologist and the needs of the client. Finding a balance will be the key to

effective results. Keeping an open mind about which EI definition and assessment as dependent

upon the situation can be the driving impetus of bringing greater utility to EI applications. As

scientist, scholars, or practitioners, nothing ought to matter as much as the outcomes of the

research or application. No matter if the outcomes will influence the scientist directly through

research grants, prestige, or the practitioners’ pocket-book—outcomes for the individual and

organization must be why the construct of EI is used. Instead of EI being used to make

predictions about certain outcomes the focus should be on outcomes first, and then identify the

EI criteria or criterion to help understand the phenomenon (Kaplan, Cortina, & Ruark, 2010).

Keeping the end-result of improving the outcomes for individuals who experience emotions and

the organizations that employee the emotional employee can and must be the priority for

everyone involved with EI.

Description and Elements of the Application

In the next two sub-sections the background and use of two important consulting

psychology practices, process consultation (PC) and outcome-based consulting (OBC) will be

described. Using these two practices in conjunction with the information provided earlier about

the different platforms of EI and EI assessment will be what practitioners of I-O psychology can

rely upon to decided how to best proceed when using EI and EI assessments with their clients.

Process consultation.


Many psychology consultants rely on Schein’s Process Consultation Theory (Schein,

1990) when deciding on how they choose to actually engage with their clients as they complete

their consultation. To be sure one is competent to work as an organizational consultant; the

APA (2007) recommends knowledge of PC and ethical and professional standards as core skills

necessary to consult. Process consultation is an integrated approach to problem solving that

requires all the challenges of the organization be worked on together by both the consultant and

organization collaboratively. It is about trying to help organizations take ownership of their

challenges or deficiencies in a manner that does not allow the client to distance themselves from

the problems, while giving and teaching them empowerment to make the changes they need

(Schein, 1990). Process Consultation seeks to eliminate impressions of consultants as simply

subject matter experts, or doctor like, who when after hearing about symptoms make a

recommendation for the client to take that will fix the problems. But rather are there to help

clients define or redefine what their challenges are by helping them recognize and take

ownership of their problems to create long term solutions (Schein, 1990). Regarding the use of

EI, this makes perfect sense to incorporate because it recognizes the individuality of the client

and places the impendence of change onto the client themselves. Emotions are not typically (if

ever) changeable from the outside the owner of the emotions.

In order to bring about this kind of attitude or behavior the consultant must begin by

asking questions (Schein, 1990). One type of question that can help facilitate this PC approach is

called behavior description questioning. This type of questioning is used to help by having

clients answer questions about actual or similar situations they have faced in the past in order to

help the consultant understand how the client may act in a similar situation (Golembiewski,

2000). This process helps to prevent the consultant from bringing in their own prejudices about


the client and to start with a clear and pristine understanding of the client. Now because of the

complexities of most individuals and organizations—it is nearly impossible for any consultant to

create a solution that will be continued once he or she is gone, unless the client takes ownership

and has full buy-in of the solutions (Schein, 1990). In spite of having the goal of not having or

wanting to play the expert or doctor, it may be necessary to act out this role for the client, and

that is okay when necessary (Schein, 1990). Process Consultation is a symbiotic relationship that

will succeed if both the client and the consultant know that they do not have enough information

individually, but together can solve their challenges (Leong & Huang, 2008).

Outcome-based consulting.

Outcome-based consulting is concerned with the final result of the consultation.

Commonly, consultants are imagined as an individual or group that goes into another business,

collect data, tell the business what is wrong, and then provide a solution to be implemented.

Schaffer disagrees with this premise ardently and proposes that consultants focus on the end

results and creating a new paradigm in consultant behavior which is outcome driven and ends

with high impact consulting (1999). This paradigm shift is largely driven by goals, similarly to

what is recommended to help implement performance management strategies for consulting

themselves (Hedge and Borman, 2008). Schaffer’s purpose in this mental shift is to switch the

force of change from the consultant to the client, with a goal of improved and more reliable

results.

The formula for success in an OBC approach can be broken down into a fivefold model.

To be effective, consultants need to define the scope of the project with specific and measurable

goals, determine what the client is willing to following through on their part, piece meal larger

projects into smaller and more manageable steps, make the project a full collaboration between


consultant and business, and lastly give advice when needed by assessing what the client can or

cannot change on their own (Schaffer, 1999). Outcome-Based Consulting has not only been

suggested in consulting with businesses, but also in bringing in new leadership to organizations,

as well as helping new leaders emerge in their roles (Levin, 2010).

Using the Applications

For EI and EI assessments to be used effectively by practitioners some guidelines are

hereby suggested. First, as there is currently no perfect measure of IQ, be aware that there is no

perfect model of EI. Second, know and understand at a minimum the three most widely

recognized EI models and assessment (ECI, EQ-i, and MSCEIT), and continually monitor peer-

reviewed research on the topic, adding new and subtracting outdated concepts as science

improves the validity and reliability of current and emerging EI models and assessments. Keep

in mind that each new addition or subtraction will have pros and cons that need to be considering

as part of the final step, using PC and OBC. Belief in a particular model or EI assessment is

unimportant when considering how it will benefit the end user. By actively integrating PC and

OCB into the use of EI and EI assessments, overall effectiveness will be enhanced for the client

and the concern about which EI model or assessment is best will be put in its right place; behind

the needs of the client.

Target Population

The target population of those who can benefit from using EI assessments can vary from

large organizations to the individual seeking 1:1 consulting for personal development. In the

context of this particular application it is about providing guidance to those who would be the

practitioners to these groups a practical application and process which they can rely upon when

they choose to use EI. Therefore the target populations are I-O practitioners and others who may


be qualified to order, administer, score, and provide individuals or organizations feedback on

their EI assessment results. Even more specifically, it will be the goal of this project to have 10

current or soon to be practitioner of EI and EI assessments consider this application in the next

six months. While the entire population may not be enrolled with this application, implications

for whole profession are possible with time.

Potential Contributions of the Application to Area of Specialization

Organizations seeking to fulfill their goals will encounter barriers to actualizing their

results. No matter if a company is non-profit, for-profit, or a government entity, there are costs

associated with doing business and striving for organizational outcomes. Much of the friction in

operating a business which prevents outcomes from being delivered comes directly from costs

associated with people. Diminishing returns and/or marginal utility of employee performance is

experienced by organization via correlations between employee personality and job satisfaction

(Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002), employee stress and performance (Fried, Shirom, Gilboa, &

Cooper, 2008), and as show in the literature review and introduction, via EI. The contribution of

this paper will be guiding practitioners on how best to approach using EI assessment based on

desired outcomes of the client, and the unique circumstances of the client. Much of the current

literature on the subject of EI assessments is that you should or should not use assessments at

all. This all or nothing attitude does nothing to help end user of the product, the client. Simply

being pro EQ-i 2.0, ECI, or MSCEIT does not make the assessment necessarily fit the situation

at hand for the person, group, or organization. Using a PC or OBC in collaboration with EI and

EI assessment can and will bring about clear protocol that I-O practitioners can use when it has

been determined with the client that EI and EI assessment can help the client.

Implementation of the Specific Application


Having laid out the history, background, and current theoretical framework of EI and EI

assessment, their use will be guided by CP and OCB theories as previously described. The goal

will be having this article available on different web-based practitioner resources such as

www.eiconsortium.com, www.mhs.com, personal business websites, and user groups online

(such as Linked-In). It is proposed that in the next six-moths a target population of 10 current I-

O psychologists (either Masters of PhD educated) will be reeducated in choosing the appropriate

EI model and assessment based on the needs and desired outcomes of the clients rather than the

politics of the different EI camps in scientific literature.

Evaluation of Application

Evaluation of any research or training program is important because it allows for both a

critique of the efforts put forth, as well as where improvements and adjustments can be made for

future research or training. Change will be identified by both qualitative and quantitative data

that investigates both attitudes and opinions of those practitioners before and after reading the

application proposed. To investigate more fully if this method is effective; determine if there are

any unexpected outcomes; know if the work has a positive or negative effect, and identify

change in the I-O practitioners who participate, Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation will be

utilized.

Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model

Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model is frequently cited in peer reviewed as well as non-

scientific sources for its four criteria of evaluation training programs: reaction, learning,

behavior, and results (Arthur, Bennett, Edens, and Bell, 2003; London, 2007). Using all four

parts of the Kirkpatrick’s evaluation model would be the best approach here since it offers a full

http://www.mhs.com/

http://www.eiconsortium.com/


view of the entire reeducation process. Evaluation could even potentially be extended beyond

the practitioner to any clients of who are benefactors of the application describe in this paper.

Reaction and learning.

According to Kirkpatrick’s website (Kirkpatrick Partners, 2009) reaction asks if the

participants like the training, and learning asks if the participants gained the knowledge, skills,

and abilities which were expected to gained as outcomes of the training. These two parts of the

evaluation methods can be explored qualitative and quantitatively. Baseline measurement will be

taken before the reeducation to determine the participants current level of comfort with using EI

and EI assessment using a five-point Likert scale. After the 10 practitioners of I-O psychology

have read the application, they will be asked to describe their comfort with the use of EI

assessments by using a five-point Likert scale. Data will also be collected qualitatively by

asking for feedback from participants. These questions will ask, what did you learn from this

paper that has helped you to use EI assessments, what do you still have questions about, what

strengths did you see in this new approach, what are the weaknesses you see? The quantitative

data will be scored by comparing mean scores pre and post intervention, while the qualitative

data will be scrutinized by reviewing for common elements among responses in an attempt to

solidify the validity and reliability of the results. However, the small sample will initially limit

the applicability to the general EI community.

Behavior and results.

Behavior examines if the participants use what they learned in training on the job, and

results are the examination of if the expected outcomes have change since the intervention

(Kirkpatrick Partners, 2009). Behavior and results outcomes will also be measured by a simple


questionnaire asking readers of the paper to describe their comfort level with EI and EI

assessments pre and post reading, asking if they are now or will be willing to use the application

in their practices, and (eventually at a later data collection time) if clients have reports any

significant feedback that is either qualitatively or quantitatively different than previous efforts of

using EI models and assessment with knowledge of the application proposed here. Other

qualitative data will be acquired on behavioral changes by asking for feedback and criticism on if

the application increase confidence of I-O practitioners in their ability to integrate EI into their

practices. Based on the overall results of the evaluation, the application proposed here will be

refined again to continuously improve the recommendations of this application so EI

practitioners can be more successful using EI and EI assessments with their clients.

Reflecting on Professional Knowledge and Skill

Information, Skills, and Professional Attributes

The most important distinction I-O psychologists and psychology consultants have

compared to other business consultants is their training in the scientific method, and their

responsibility to follow the professions’ ethical guidelines and principals. This is critical to the

application of EI and EI assessments as having clients take EI assessments is not (at least should

not be) possible without a qualified psychology professional to purchase, administer, score, and

provide feedback of the assessment. Guidelines for ethical practices can be viewed on the

APA’s website link to their ethical standards (APA, 2010). An even more comprehensive set of

guidelines and “Standards” for educational and psychologist testing was drafted by the APA,

American Educational Research Association (AERA), and the National Council on Measurement

in Education (NCME) that examines test construction, evaluation, documentation, fairness in

testing, and testing application AERA, APA, NCME, 1999). Other ethical codes of conduct


exists that can be helpful as a resource to psychologist including the Belmont Report and its

principals of respect, beneficence, and justice whenever working with human participants

(Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979), to the following of the organization’s

code of conduct where psychologist is employed.

Psychological assessment like any of the one’s mention in this application at an

organizational level should begin with job or competence analysis (Cook & Cripps, 2005). This

provides a basis for the assessment and the foundation for its use (APA, 2010). Once the job or

competence analysis is completed--individual assessments should be selected and checked for

adverse action, if they are job related, if they have bias against women or minority groups,

whether they or will or will not cause harm to the applicants, or are intrusive beyond what is

necessary to determine if they match the criteria found during the job or competence analysis

(Cook & Cripps, 2005). Choosing an assessor who is trained in administering and interpreting

the results of the assessment (see APA code 9.07, “Assessment by Unqualified persons”) is also a

key process of ethical assessment planning (Cook & Cripps, 2005; APA, 2010). Having such an

ethical framework to work from in the planning stage of an assessment process helps to mitigate

risk, promotes accurate results, and is professionally important for psychologist because it helps

to build credibility in the use of assessments by psychologist. Without such credibility the use of

assessments that helps organizations and individuals could lack the credibility they need to be

trusted and used. These criteria are extremely important if using an assessment is related to

selection or promotions, and may be slightly less important if results will only be used for

professional development and kept confidential between psychologist and individual clients

within an organization.

Theoretical Orientation


As is hopefully apparent in reading the previous sections—one’s own theoretical

orientation should include the use of valid and reliable data and the awareness of the practical

needs, and outcomes that can be affected via that data. In proposing an application to a popular

and controversial psychological construct (EI), it is easy and difficult to take a stance on which

direction the construct should be used. As shown in the literature review section, there are a

committed psychology professional who can “prove” their side is correct (that being EI is a valid

construct or not) using psychometrics, deductive and inductive reasoning, and via

experimentation. If you have a preference for one side of the argument, than it becomes easy to

find data and research that support your side. However, what seems to happen in the research

already published is the argument for or against on view become completely blind to the other

sides position and findings. So, while it may be easy to pick a side, it is difficult to maintain any

sense of impartiality because to make your side look right requires that the opposing viewpoints

are minimized or ignored (as is Bar-On’s arguments for mixed-models). Yet, this is nothing

particular to psychology or social sciences, as even the natural sciences have their own

controversial theories and models. Stephen Hawking’s theories on the black holes was criticized

harshly by other scientist, as were many of most well-known scientist including Newton and

Einstein. Fortunately, in the end only the truth prevails. Now unlike natural sciences where

things either are or are not, the final truth of a psychological construct could be lie anywhere on

the polar extremes.

In another challenging spot when developing a theoretical viewpoint of using EI is to not

be hypocritical. Part of the challenges when working with EI are the clashing viewpoints of the

scientist and practitioner who both have solid positions in their arguments about validity and

reliability of the different EI models and assessments. To criticize scientists for being too


focused on finding a pure and perfect EI model, and then picking say the EQ-i over the MSCEIT

for an organizational intervention because data in your arguments says so, even though you can

find data that supports the exact opposite (and don’t share that) is to be hypocritical. It makes no

sense to take the practitioners perspective and use EI in your practice because the data you read

makes sense to you on one assessment, and then avoid or prefer one model over another because

of its psychometric properties—then you’d be actually validating the scientist viewpoint that

neither should be used until it has been conclusively proven that EI really describes EI, and not

personality or another construct. The only way to avoid this dilemma for the practitioner is to

use their tacit knowledge of experience. While qualitative in nature, and perhaps not at the level

of scientific rigor Wundt showed in his laboratory in Germany through introspection, it is almost

laughable that practitioners (and scientists) who use and study EI seem unwilling to take an

emotional stance that they have an intuitive feeling about the validity of one model over another.

All the nonsense about bashing or preferring one EI model or assessment over another, and

validating that argument with data which can be shown in the exact opposite magnitude of

someone who disagrees, is actualizing that intuition emotionally through the guise of scientific

debate. In the end, if different models and assessments can provide utility for individuals and

organizations, then they should be the final arbiter of which models and assessments live on.

Characteristics of the Culturally Skilled Practitioner

Multiculturalism.

There are certainly many reasons why a comprehensive understanding of

multiculturalism should be at the top of the list for I-O psychologists to be considered culturally

skilled. Human behavior is not the same across the globe and is increasingly heterogeneous in

all communities, and by default, workplaces and organizations that lay within those areas.


Culture is defined by Landy & Conte as “a system in which individual share meanings and

common ways of viewing events and objects” (2007, p. 28). Multiculturalism simply means that

there may be several or more ways of how workers interpret events in the workplace. Hopefully

more leaders and managers are recognizing the value (not just the legal requirements of having a

multicultural work environment) and the impact of being culturally aware can have on

performance, efficiently, and effectiveness of organizations. Historically, the most well know

and ground breaking work on multiculturalism was done by Dutch scientist, Geert Hofstede.

Hofstede’s theory of cultural difference examines the variance of cultures in their

preferences for power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and time

orientation (Hofstede, 2009). His cultural theories provide a solid way to navigate the terrain of

the cultural diversity found in many organizations. Power distance is the acceptance that power

is distributed unevenly (Hofstede, 2009). Individualism is when the individual is left to fend for

themself, or collectivism where the individual is taken care of by the group (family, ect.)

(Hofstede, 2009). Masculine and feminine culture refers to the gender roles typically accepted.

Masculine cultures are seen as tough and emphasize accomplishments and performance, while

feminine cultures focus on interpersonal relationships and communication (Landy & Conte,

2009). Uncertainty avoidance is a society’s acceptance of uncertainty and ambiguity (Hofstede,

2009). Societies that want certainty, have strict laws and rules to minimize uncomfortable

situations, while cultures more tolerant of uncertainty are more open to a variety of truths and

philosophic concepts as well as more willing to listen to alternative explanations (Hofstede,

2009). Lastly, long-term verse short term orientated culture is the degree in time which members

of the culture expect the fulfillment of their needs (Landy & Conte, 2007).


What do these differences mean to the practicing I-O psychologist? Cultural differences

will affect the way workers are driven by everything, from salary, hiring decisions, motivation,

leader motivation, compensation, decision making, and loyalty to employees/employers (Landy

& Conte, 2007). Job analyses are important when understand what task and responsibilities are

required by workers. Depending on the cultural the work is from, they may find the task(s) are

valid, or seemingly misplaced. There are a limitless amount of activities that take place at work

that can go wrong if the leader, manager, or even a co-worker do, say, or act that can offend,

confuse, or anger a co-worker because of cultural ignorance. Educating employees, managers,

and executives to be aware of these differences can help diffuse many issues that arise on the job.

I/O psychologist must too be aware of how their decision can impact different cultures; for

example, giving production groups more power in an organization whose workers come from a

culture with high power distance could make things worse. This and other erroneous actions can

be avoided by a high level understand of how multicultural influences human action in industry

and organizations. Add together awareness of employee EI and their cultural tendencies, a

recipe for more empathic and understand workforce sprouts into the air.

Reflecting on Personal Beliefs and Values

Diversity is one of the reasons for the unique cultural and individual expressions of

human beings. Because of the diversity of the human experience each individual has their own

beliefs, life experiences, attitudes, values, and basis that influence their everyday action,

thoughts, and manifestations. These human attributes effect each and every one; even the

scholar, practitioner, and scientist. To detecting bias in oneself requires cognizance of

preferences for common tendencies, thinking, and behaviors. This is where the community of

psychology plays a large role. Publishing one's work or idea in a peer-reviewed journal, a


Linked-In I-O group, or even tweeting one's idea is a full 360-degree method to receive valuable

feedback on potential and actual ethical biases. Many claim to bias free, but it is truly the

humble practitioner who says they can acknowledge they too have unrecognized biases. This is

the minimum awareness that should be striven for when reflecting upon a basic ethical

framework of values and beliefs. The convenient truth is there already is a guidebook in place to

facilitate an even strong allegiance to this awareness in the ethical guidelines of the APA. They

exist through careful examination and reflection by psychologist that attempting to dislodge the

current state of affairs for an individual, group, and organization may as likely cause harm as

good. In the next subsection are some real examples of how this might play out in actuality.

Facing Ethical Dilemmas

One ethical dilemma that has and will likely be encountered again is working with clients

who want to use EI assessments for purposes for other than which they were intended. For

instance, perhaps a client wants to use an EI assessment to validate firing an employee. This is

an unacceptable and misuse of an application, which is in violation of APA Ethical Standard

1.03 (Conflict between ethical and organizational demands), Standard 3.01 (unfair

discrimination), Standard 9.02 (use of assessments) and Principal A of the Ethics Code of

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, the principal to do no harm (APA, 2010; Lowman, 2006).

These types of misuses should have been addressed during contracting, but may require that the

I-O consultant simply must walk away from some jobs.

Other challenges that are particularly troubling have happened enough that they appear as

example of ethical dilemmas in a book on ethics of psychology in organizations, and are:

avoiding conflicts of interests and roles, (not) accurately reporting results, recoding data without

consent, misusing data obtained through a consulting engagement, having to avoid a dual


relationship with the employer and employees, pressure to implement psychological programs

too quickly, and failure to keep the confidentiality of employees using employee assistance

programs (Lowman, 2006). Maintaining an ethical practice may sometime interfere with the

business of psychology consulting. There are stories of many psychology consultants that have

walked away from job rather than practice unethically. There are also examples of those who

provided unethical services by misuse of their psychology work, having multiple relationships,

breaching confidentiality agreements, and even causing harm to employees or the organization

(Lowman, 2006). Reputation of a consultant may take month, years, even decades to build—it

only takes one mistake to ruin a reputation. The safest protocol to follow when working with

diverse client populations is to always adhere to the “Standards” published by the AREA, APA,

NCME (1999), and to stick closely to the APA’s Ethical Standards (2010). When situations

arise where doubt creeps into the mind of the consultant about a proper course of action to take;

wiser-more knowledgeable experts are only an email, text, or phone call away to help.

Strengths of Professional Competencies

As previously stated, I-O psychology is the study of human behavior at work that uses the

scientific method to guide its best practices. While not a perfect science, or one that can state

with 100% certainty the accuracy of its theories, models, and applications--having been training

in the science of psychology is a major strength of the I-O psychologist. I-O psychologists must

commit themselves to continuous improvement in their own knowledge, skills, abilities, and

continue to interact with fellow scientists, practitioners, and scholars to stay abreast of

developments; even if disagreements exist on what EI is or is not, and how (or if) it should be

used in practice. “I/O psychology is the scientific study of the workplace. Rigor and methods of

psychology are applied to issues of critical relevance to business, including talent management,


coaching, assessment, selection, training, organizational development, performance, and work-

life balance” (SIOP, 2011). This definition should serve to remind all that I-O psychology is

about using science to improve society through our expertise in human behaviors at the industrial

and organizational level. Until societies become static, staying engage with each other, despite

our different beliefs should considered it an honor to debate and challenge each other for the

desire to solve the challenges and riddles of all who work.

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National

Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for Educational and

Psychological Testing, Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

American Psychological Association (2007). Guidelines for education and training at the

doctoral and postdoctoral levels in consulting psychology/organizational


consulting psychology. American Psychologist, 62(9), 980-992. doi:10.1037/0003-

066X.62.9.980.

American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of

conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx

American Psychological Association. (2011). Divisions. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/about/division/index.aspx

Anshel, M., & Kang, M. (2007). Effect of an intervention on replacing negative habits with

positive routines for improving full engagement at work: A test of the disconnected

values model. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(2), 110-125.

doi:10.1037/1065-9293.59.2.110.

Appelbaum, S.A. (1973). Psychological mindedness: word, concept, and essence. International

Journal of Psych-Analysis, 54, 35-46.

Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P., & Bell, S. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations:

A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2),

234-245. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234.

Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence. Psicothema, 18, supl.,

13-25

Blattner, J., & Bacigalupo, A. (2007). Using emotional intelligence to develop executive

leadership and team and organizational development. Consulting Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, 59(3), 209-219. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.59.3.209

http://www.apa.org/about/division/index.aspx

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx


Cherniss, C. (2010). Emotional intelligence: Toward clarification of a concept. Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 3 (2), 110-126.

Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from

1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1062-

1081. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1062

Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations (2010). Measures of

emotional intelligence. Retrieved from

http://www.eiconsortium.org/measures/measures.html.

Cook, M., & Cripps, B. (2005). Psychological assessment in the workplace: A manager's guide.

New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 9780470861639.

Cronbach, L.J. (1960). Essentials of psychology testing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper &

Row.

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles

and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: OPRR

Reports.

Doll, E.A. (1935). A generic model of social maturity. American Journal of Orthopsychology, 5,

180-188.

Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2007). Using emotional intelligence to identify high potential: A

metacompetency perspective Emerald Group Publishing, Limited.

doi:10.1108/01437730710835470

http://www.eiconsortium.org/measures/measures.html


Fried, Y., Shirom, A., Gilboa, S., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). The mediating effects of job

satisfaction and propensity to leave on role stress-job performance relationships:

Combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. International Journal of

Stress Management, 15(4), 305-328. doi:10.1037/a0013932

Golembiewski, R. T. (2000). The interview as a consulting tool. Handbook of Organizational

Consultation Second Ed., 607–616. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more the IQ. New York, NY:

Bantam Books.

Grant, A. (2008, January). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational

synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93(1), 48-58. Retrieved August 17, 2009, doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48

Hay Group McClelland Center for Research and Innovation. (2005). Emotional Competence

Inventory (ECI) Technical Manual. Retrived from

http://www.eiconsortium.org/pdf/ECI_2_0_Technical_Manual_v2.pdf

Hedge, J., & Borman, W. (2008). Career and performance management with consultants. The I/O

consultant: Advice and insights for building a successful career (pp. 195-201).

Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11755-024.

High Performing Systems. (2009). The emotional intelligence community. Retrieved from

http://www.hpsys.com/Emotional_Intelligence.htm

http://www.hpsys.com/Emotional_Intelligence.htm


Hofstede, G (2009). A summary of my ideas about national culture differences. Retrieved from

http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/PAGE3.HTM

InnerWork Company, The. (2009). Innerwork clients. Retrieved from

http://www.innerworkcompany.com/clients.html

Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis

and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54-78.

doi:10.1037/a0017286

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job

satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530-541.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530

Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2009). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and

issues (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Kaplan, S., Cortina, J., & Ruark, G. (2010). Oops..We did it again: Industrial-organizational’s

focus on emotional intelligence instead of on its relationships to work outcomes.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3 (2), 171-177.

Kirkpatrick Partners (2009). The Kirkpatrick philosophy: The Kirkpatrick model. Retrieved

from: http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/OurPhilosophy/tabid/66/Default.aspx

Landy, J. & Conte, J. (2007). Work in the 21st Century: An introduction to industrial and

organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing. ISBN: 9781405144346.

http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/OurPhilosophy/tabid/66/Default.aspx

http://www.innerworkcompany.com/clients.html

http://stuwww.uvt.nl/~csmeets/PAGE3.HTM


Lane, R.D., & Schwartz, G.E. (1987). Levels of emotional awareness: a cognitive development

theory and its application to psychopathology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144,

133-143.

Leary, M., Reilly, M., & Brown, F. (2009). A study of personality preferences and emotional

intelligence. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/01437730910968697

Leong, F., & Huang, J. (2008). Applying the cultural accommodation model to diversity

consulting in organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,

60(2), 170-185. doi:10.1037/0736-9735.60.2.170

Levin, I. (2010). New leader assimilation process: Accelerating new role-related transitions.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(1), 56-72.

doi:10.1037/a0018630

London, M. (2007). Performance appraisal for groups: Models and methods for assessing group

processes and outcomes for development and evaluation. Consulting Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, 59(3), 175-188. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.59.3.175.

Lowman, R.L., (Ed.). (2006). The ethical practice of psychology in organizations (2nd ed.).

Green, OH: SIOP

Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., Salovey, P,. & Sitarenios, G. (2003). Measuring emotional

intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3(1), 97-105.


Meyer, B., & Fletcher, T. B. (2007). Emotional intelligence: A theoretical overview and

implications for research and professional practice in sport psychology. Journal of

Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1), 1-15. doi:10.1080/10413200601102904

MHS. (2009). Emotional intelligence and return on investment: Return on your EQ-i

investment. Retrieved from http://downloads.mhs.com/ei/MHS_Brief_ROI.pdf

MHS. (2011). The EQ-i 2.0 model. Retrieved from

http://catalyst.mhs.com/EQi20TheModel.aspx

Muyia, H., & Kacirek, K. (2009). An empirical study of leadership development training

program and its implications on emotional intelligence quotient score. Advance in

Developing Human Resouce 6(11), 703-718. doi: 10.1177/1523422309360844

O*Net Online. (2010). Summary report for: 19-3032.00 - Industrial-Organizational

Psychologists. Retrieved from http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/19-3032.00

Perlini, A. H., & Halverson, T. R. (2006). Emotional intelligence in the National Hockey

League. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du

comportement, 38(2), 109-119. doi:10.1037/cjbs2006001

Pope, K.S. (1992). Responsibility in providing psychological test feedback to clients.

Psychological Assessments, 4(3), 268-271. doi:10.1037/h0092775.

Robinson, S.E, & Gross, D.R. (1985). Ethics of consultation: The canterville ghost. The

Counseling Psychologist, 13, 444-465. doi: 10.1177/0011000085133013

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and

Personality, 9(3), 185-211.

http://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/19-3032.00

http://downloads.mhs.com/ei/MHS_Brief_ROI.pdf


Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D., & Lopes, P. N. (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence

as a set of abilities with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. In S. J.

Lopez, C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment:

A handbook of models and measures (pp. 251-265). American Psychological Association.

doi:10.1037/10612-016

Schaffer, R. (1999). Replacing recommendations with results: A new paradigm for consulting.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51(4), 242-251.

doi:10.1037/1061-4087.51.4.242.

Schein, E. H. (1990). A general philosophy of helping: Process consultation. Sloan Management

Review, 31(3), 57. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 812316).

Sharma,S., Deller, J., Biswal, R., & Mandal, M.K.(2009). Emotional intelligence: Factorial

structure and construct validity across cultures. International Journal of Cross

Cultural Managemen. 9(2): 217-236. DOI: 10.1177/1470595809335725

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologist (2011). Society for industrial and

organizational psychology, inc. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/default.aspx

Stein, S., Papadogiannis, P., Yip, J., & Sitarenios, G. (2009). Emotional intelligence of leaders:

A profile of top executives Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

doi:10.1108/01437730910927115

Thorndike, E.L. (1920). Intelligence and its uses. Harper’s Magazine, 140, 227-235.

http://www.siop.org/default.aspx


van Deventer, J. (2009). Ethical considerations during human centred overt and covert research.

Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 43(1), 45-57.

doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9069-8.

Weschler, D. (1958). Nonintellective factors in general intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 37,

444-445.

Documents

How to select the right EI assessment