CChhaapptteerr FFiivvee

PPrreelliimmiinnaarryy AAnnaallyyssiiss

Introduction to the Psychometric Tools Used in Detail:

IAS, ECI, Spiritual Intelligence

Performance Rating Criterion

214

Chapter One

PREFACE

MATHEW IAS RATING SCALE

MANUAL V. George Mathew, Ph.D.

1995

{Copyright reserved)

The Mathew IAS Rating Scale can be used as an instrument for

measuring personality as well as an aid in developing self-awareness

for personality development and counselling.

The instrument measures three broad behavioural tendencies

(personality components, dimensions): Inertia, Activation and

Stability. They cut across cognitive, temperament and motivational

modalities. The trait descriptions are given below:

1. Inertia:

Lethargic, Lacks energy, Slow, Late

Fear, Anxious, Timid, Not venturing, Inhibited,

Shy, Withdrawn

Weak-willed, Suggestible

Submissive, Unable to assert, refuse or argue

Inability to mix with strangers

Low self-confidence

Blind conformity, No strong emotional ties

Masochistic, Intropunitive

External Locus of control (believing in fate and luck)

233

No strong moral control, No definite values

Collectivistic

2. Activation:

Overactive, Uncontrolled energy, Impatient,

Hasty

Efficient in planning practical things for the future

Analytical

Risk taking, Rash, Adventurous

Go-getting, Acquisitive, Aggressive, Greedy

Competitive

Maniacal

Passionate, Ego-involved

Assertive, Dominant, Inability to be a follower

Thick-skinned, Proud, Egoistic, Values power, rebelling

Extra punitive, Sadistic

Unable to remain alone or be silent

Internal Locus of control (believing in self-effort and

freedom of will)

Needing rigid external moral controls,

Having conflicts

Individualistic

3. Stability:

Controlled, restful, detached action, Meta-motivation

Sensitive

Can be fast or slow as the situation demands

Punctual, Philosophical, Wise (in addition to being practically

efficient)

Self-actualising, Holistic, Intuitive

Taking calculated risks

234

Balanced, Mature, Open, Warm, Even tempered

Dispassionate

Self-sufficient, Self-accepting

Relaxed, Peaceful

Democratic

Can make a show of anger when required

Fair, tolerant, Loving, Unselfish, Altruistic,

Forgiving oneself and others

Enjoys aloneness or company

Transcending sex

Reforms group

Broad minded, Moral sense based on Love

TYPES OF RATING

The instrument can be used to get self-ratings or "Other" (non-

self) ratings. Other ratings include TGM (Typical Group Member

rating, Peer rating (rating of a ratee of equal status), "Superior" rating

(rating made by a rater having a superior or supervisory status in

relation to the ratee), and "Subordinate" rating (the rater being

subordinate to the ratee as when a student is evaluating a teacher).

Another possible type of rating is 'Expert' rating (When a psychologist

makes a rating after an interview or prolonged purposive observation

of a ratee).

No separate provision has been made in the answer sheet for

such a rating, but the column for `Superior rating' can be used for

this.

Since there is no attempt at camouflaging the purpose or trait

concepts, the testee who desires to give a good impression can

wilfully bias his scores or he may be unconsciously influenced by the

social desirability set, particularly in self-rating. Therefore, in many

235

situations, it may be advantageous to get a TGM rating which

involves to some extent operation of the projective principle and

overcomes the above biases.

ADMINISTRATION

The Rating Scale can be administered individually or in

groups. Distribute the Answer Sheet first and request the subject(s)

to fill in their name and other details. Then distribute the booklets.

Read out the instructions, requesting the subjects to follow the

printed instructions in their copy.

Explain that the test can be used to get different types of

ratings and specify the types that are to be filled-in. If ratings other

than self-rating are required, explain them in detail, giving specific

instructions regarding selection of ratees and filling up their names,

relationship to the ratee, etc. in the answer sheet. For example, if

Peer rating is used, specify how to select the peer (e.g. your best

friend, person sitting next to you, person best known to you, etc.).

After reading the three alternatives in one scale, the rater is expect

ed to make all the required types of ratings before proceeding to the

next scale.

SCORING

Check the answer sheet for omissions. Write 1,1,1 for omitted

scales. It is recommended that an answer sheet with more than

three omitted scales should not be scored. Check whether the total

of points for one scale is 3. Fill in blanks or make necessary

corrections to make totals 3. Add the points in each column. Thus

you get three scores (for I, A and S) for each type of rating. The total

of the three scores should be 105.

236

It is possible to average ratings made by different types of

ratings for one trait regarding one ratee.

INTERPRETATION OF SCORES

Scores can be interpreted in an absolute sense by comparing

the relative predominance of the three raw scores of each individual,

or means of a group.

Norms can be prepared for each type of rating for specific

populations for interpreting scores. These can be used for

interpreting scores with reference to a group. Centile norms for self-

rating are given as appendix.

RELIABILITY

Reliabilities may be determined sfor each population for each

type of rating. Reliabilities are in general high, particularly for

reasonably educated adult raters. Vinodkumar (1995) reports split-

half reliabilities of .73, .89 and .86 for the scales I, A & S respectively

in a sample of 43 adult raters for self-rating.

VALIDITY

The trait classification has a high degree of construct validity

as they are based on a highly developed theory anchored on a time-

tested traditional concept of personality. Meaningful mean group

differences have been reported on the three scales in a variety of

studies.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALE

The Scale is a revision of two personality inventories:

The SRT Inventory (Mathew, 1972) and the Mathew

Temperament Scale (Mathew, 1976). The classical trait conceptions

237

of Thamas, Rajas and Sattva in the SRT Inventory and

Thoughtfulness, Gregarious ness and Maladjustment (derived from

factor analysis at the item level) in the Mathew Temperament Scale

have been combined in the present scale to give more psychologically

meaningful, theoretically significant and practically useful trait

concepts. An attempt is made in this instrument to solve the

problem of social desirability by introducing different types of ratings

for assessment.

PERSONALITY THEORY BEHIND THE IAS TRAIT CONCEPTIONS

The three components of personality are mutually exclusive.

Stability is not a mid-point between the two extremes of Inertia and

Activation, but another dimension. Inertia and Activation are two

contrasted types of inabilities (deficiencies and dependencies, while

Stability indicates the degree of freedom.

Inertia is inability to act; Activation is inability to rest, be alone

or be at peace with oneself. Stability is transcendence, self-

sufficiency and meta-motivation and the ability to act or not act mix

with others or be alone with equal ease. Therefore the forced-choice

mode of response is best to measure these three components of

personality.

Modern concepts of introversion involve a mixture of Inertia

and Stability and the concept of extraversion include Activation and

Stability.

Interest in being alone is different from inability to mix with

others. In fact, a man who can effectively mix is one who is not

dependent on mixing. Similarly effective action is not the same as

impulsivity. Therefore we have to differentiate between mixing as a

result of freedom and compulsive mixing and we have to separate a

man who finds happiness in aloneness from one who is alone

238

because of inability to find company. Many popular scales of

introversion pool together interest in aloneness with inability to

socialise and absence of impulsivity with inability to be active.

Similarly, many scales measuring extraversion combine habits of

mixing with inability to be alone and they confuse inability to find

happiness in restful stillness with effective action.

Many popular scales measuring Stability consider stability as

merely the absence of pathological symptoms like anxiety, depression

and so on. The present conception views stability as stress

tolerance, freedom to adjust and find happiness in different types of

situations (aloneness or company) and act or not act as one chooses.

Many popular scales measuring introversion-extraversion ask

questions like whether you mix socially or not, whether you are

active or not, without separating inabilities and dependencies from

freedom and flexibility. This indiscriminate mixing and clubbing

together of theoretically different things at the level of item writing

and basing theory on superficial observed similarities without

separating causes has led to introversion and extraversion appearing

as the same dimension and sociability and impulsivity appearing as

two different factors. On the other hand, when items are written

separating inabilities and dependencies (to mix or be alone as well as

to rest or act) from freedom and flexibility, the resulting position is

tripolar. Most personality inventories treat introversion and

extraversion as value free; here Inertia and Activation are treated as

undesirable, Stability being the desirable position.

Development of Personality

The three components of personality are seen to different

degrees in everybody in every culture. There are group wise

differences and also culture-wise differences. Inertia is the result of

239

overall inhibition (with possible cortical excitation) resulting from

restrictiveness. It is seen in people subjected to a great deal of social

restriction. It is also seen in preliterate societies particularly in

geographical regions having a hot climate because hot climate

probably involves a great deal of restriction on activity.

Activation is seen in people having to be adventurous and

active to survive. It is seen generally in people inhabiting places with

a cold climate where it is necessary to aggressively act upon the

environment (high degree of mechanical ability, manipulative skill,

etc.), to plan ahead, (for winter), purposely organise themselves (for

hunting) and be active and alert (this probably involves inhibition at

the cortical level). Stability is perhaps historically seen mostly in

people inhabiting places with a moderate climate and congenial

environment. This sort of climate produces a philosophical bent of

mind. At the cortical level this involves balance or transcendence.

Early experiences, education, personality of people with whom one

associates all influence change and development of personality.

Deliberate alteration is possible through insight and personality

development programs.

The person with too much of I finds an escape in ceremonious

religiosity. Hyper intellectualism (interest in science) or physical

activation (interest in travel, sports) are two possible channellisations

of the energies of the high I type of person. Aesthetic, philosophical

and social work or truly spiritual orientations are possible directions

of channellisations of the S type of person.

Hypothetical Model of Effect of Stress and Maladjustment

I represents the flight stress response and A, the fight stress

response. In moderate levels the emotions of fear/aggression along

240

with the usual bodily concomitants of these emotions are seen in I/A

type persons.

A man with a great degree of Inertia gives an impression of

apparent balance when not exposed to stress. He has his existential

insecurity or survival anxiety under control through superstitions

and ceremonies. However when he has to face situations which he is

not programmed for, he tends to withdraw or break down as he has a

low level of stress tolerance. He is incapable of having deep emotions.

He has transitory states of anxiety or he resorts to hysteric devices.

When stress is pronged and when these devices are not satisfactory,

he may break down into psychosis. Instinctual collective aggression

is a means of dealing with group stress among such people.

People with Activation as the main component are people with

a great deal of restlessness and ambition. When exposed to

immediate stress, they become manic and aggressive and may show

delinquent, criminal or psychopathic behaviour.

People who have relatively high scores on both I and A, are

subject to moods of excitement (mania) and depression. They may

break down into manic-depressive disorders. People with high

scores on both A and S may become paranoid when exposed to

stress and may break down into paranoid schizophrenia.

People with high I & A seems to be more predisposed for

cancer. High A & S seems to be the type prone to physiological level

somatisation (psychosomatic complaints, heart disease).

A man with a great deal of Stability has the maximum Stress

tolerance. However he has also a very sensitive, discriminating

nervous system. He responds to delicate things like incongruity of

instructions, moral contradictions and so on. He is capable of deep

241

emotions. Though he is capable of adjusting to a variety of new

situations, uncongenial (morally, aesthetically and socially)

situations cause stress in him and create states of intense and

prolonged anxiety or deep depression. Pure S types however, seldom

break down.

Schizophrenia is viewed as total break down. Persons with any

combination of I, A & S values may ultimately break down into

Schizophrenia if the earlier, more adaptive defences prove to be

inadequate. In modern cultures I + S combination is the root

personality type having schizophrenia as the primary defence.

REFERENCE

Vinodkumar, P. (1995). A Study of Spontaneous Psi Experience,

Personaity and Materialism - Spiritualism Orientation of Yoga

Practitioners. Unpublished M.Phil Dissertation, Dept. of Psychology,

University of Kerala.

242

TENTATIVE NORMS: CENTILE NORMS FOR SELF-RATING

Norms for Males Norms for Females

Raw Scores Centiles Raw Scores Centiles

I A S I A S

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 4 0 0 5 7 1 0

10 12 1 0 10 20 3 0

15 35 6 1 15 29 10 0

20 51 15 2 20 40 45 0

25 63 31 6 25 60 67 1

30 76 55 10 30 75 82 3

35 85 85 14 35 86 93 5

40 92 92 19 40 94 98 10

45 96 97 26 45 99 99 14

50 97 98 40 50 100 100 21

55 98 99 56 55 38

60 99 99 68 60 53

65 99 100 78 65 64

70 100 86 70 73

75 94 75 82

80 96 80 90

85 98 85 96

90 99 90 99

95 100 95 100

243

PERFORMANCE RATING CRITERION

LIC affixes the targets for the development officer in the following

ways:

Sum assured:

First year premium:

Number of policies:

From 2007 – 08 financial year, LIC has abolished ‘sum

assured’ target for the development officers and divided ‘first year

premium’ target into two, namely ‘single’ premium and ‘non single’

premium.

The performance of the development officer(s) has been

obtained in the following manner. Firstly, development officers were

asked to mention about their individual targets assigned by their

respective LIC branch for the last five financial years starting from

2002 – 03. They were also asked to mention about their targets

achieved too.

Following table is an example of how a low performer

development officer was identified.

Low performance (example)

Approximate target assigned by the respective LIC branch

Financial Years Target Criteria

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Sum Assured (in Crores) 4.5 5 5.5 5.75 6.25

First year Premium (in Lakhs) 15.20 18 18.50 21 24.5

Number of policies 565 650 670 715 800 Average of Sum Assured (in Crores) - 4.5+5+5.5+5.75+6.25 = 27/5 = 5.4 crores. Average of 1st year Premium (in Lakhs)-15.2+18+18.5+21+24.5=97.2/5=19.4 lakhs. Average of number of policies-565+650+ 670+715+800=3400/5=680

244

Approximate target achieved by the respective Development Officer

Financial Years Target Criteria

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Sum Assured (in Crores) 3.0 4.15 2.0 4.25 4.0

First year Premium (in Lakhs) 9.7 7.24 10.74 9.3 10.23

Number of policies 571 287 356 473 348 Average of Sum Assured (in Crores)-3.0+4.15+2.0+4.25+4.0=17.4/5 = 3.48 crores. Average of 1st year Premium (in Lakhs)-9.7+7.24+10.74+9.3+10.23=47.21/5=9.44 lakhs Average of number of policies – 571 + 287 + 356 + 473 + 348 = 2035/5 = 407

()

0.64444 56.9 36.66889

×

= × =

Target Achieved Target Assigned

Highest Target Assigned Average of five financial

years in each performance criterion

3.48 CroresSum Assured = Crores5.4 Crores

First year Pre 0.48659 77.51 37.71621

0.5985 1333 798

= × =

= × =

9.44 Lakhsmium = Lakhs19.4 Lakhs407Number of Policies = Policies680

Following table is an example of how a high performer

development officer was identified.

High performance (example)

Approximate target assigned by the respective LIC branch

Financial Years Target Criteria

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Sum Assured (in Crores) 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.0

First year Premium (in Lakhs) 15.5 17.5 20.0 21.2 23.0

Number of policies 600 645 690 705 760 Average of Sum Assured (in Crores)-3.5+4.5+5.5+6.5+7.0 = 27/5 = 5.4 crores. Average of 1st year Premium (in Lakhs)-15.5+17.5+20.0+21.2+23.0=97.2/5=19.4 lakhs Average of number of policies – 565 + 650+ 670 + 715 + 800 = 3400/5 = 680

245

Approximate target achieved by the respective Development Officer

Financial Years Target Criteria

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Sum Assured (in Crores) 5.0 6.5 7.2 9.0 9.71

First year Premium (in Lakhs) 25.73 26.02 26.92 27.97 29.55

Number of policies 730 699 902 776 863 Average of Sum Assured (in Crores)-5.0+6.5+7.2 + 9.0 + 9.71 = 37.41/5 = 7.5 crores Average of 1st year Premium (in Lakhs)-25.73+26.02+26.92+27.97+29.55=136.19/5 = 27.24 lakhs Average of number of policies – 730 + 699 + 902 + 776 + 863 = 3970/5=794

()

1.88889 56.9 79.02778

×

= × =

Target Achieved Target Assigned

Highest Target Assigned Average of five financial

years in each performance criterion

7.5 CroresSum Assured = Crores5.4 Crores

First year Prem 1.40412 77.51 108.8334

1.1676 1333 1556

= × =

= × =

27.24 Lakhsium = Lakhs19.4 Lakhs794Number of Policies = Policies680

NB: From 2007 – 08 financial year onwards, LIC abolished ‘sum assured target to achieve’ for the development officers and divided ‘first year premium’ target into two category, namely ‘single’ premium and ‘non single’ premium.

Emotional competence inventory

The ECI is a 360-degree tool designed to access the emotional

competencies of individuals and organisations. It is based on

emotional competencies identified by Dr. Daniel Goleman in working

with emotional intelligence (1998), and on competencies from

Hay/McBer's Generic Competency Dictionary (1996) as well as

Dr.Richard Boyatzis Self Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ).

246

Hay/McBer's Generic Competency Dictionary was originated by

Lyle and Signe Spencer as documented in their book Competence at

Work (1993) and revised by psychologist David McCleelland after an

extensive review of the literature. It is based on over 20 years

initiated by Dr. McCllelland in 1973 with his seminal article, "Testing

for competence rather than Intelligence". Hay/McBer and other

researchers have established that every core competency in the

Dictionary reliably differentiates performance in a variety of

organisations.

The Self Assessment Questionnaire was initially developed by

Dr.Boyatzis in 1991 for use with MBA and executive students to

assess competencies in the Generic Model of Management used at

the Weather head school of Management, Case Western Reserve

University. The SAQ has shown a high degree of construct validity

against a variety of behavioural and questionnaire measure. Since

1991, it ahs been used in numerous studies, including longitudinal

research (Boyatzis, Cowen, and Kolb, 1995; Boyatzis, Leonard, Rhee,

and Thompson, 1995; Boyatzis, Leonard, Rhee and Wheeler, 1996).

Expanding upon Dr. Boyatzis's well-established evaluation

measure, Dr.Boyatzis and Dr. Goleman developed a pool of items

designed to capture the full spectrum of emotional competencies.

Items were selected from this pool based on conceptual and logical

considerations. Hay/McBer consultants further refined these items

to reflect developmental scaling characteristic of Hay/McBer's

Generic Dictionary of Competencies. Developmental scales were

designed and target levels were identified based on expert opinion

and prior studies.

Boyatzis, Goleman, Rhee (1999) outlined the rational for the

clustering and organisation of emotional intelligence competencies. A

247

more detailed explanation for the development of the ECI and the

theoretical structure from which it is based is mentioned in the

following part.

Emotional intelligence is the capacity for recognising our own

feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves and for

managing emotions effectively in others and ourselves. An emotional

competency is a learned capacity based on emotional intelligence

that contributes to effective performance at work.

The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) measures 20

competencies organised into four clusters: Self Awareness, Self-

management, Social Awareness, and Social Skill.

Self-Awareness concerns knowing one's internal states,

preferences, resources, and intuitions. The Self - awareness cluster

contains three competencies.

• Emotional Awareness: Recognising one's emotions and their

effects.

• Accurate Self -Assessment: knowing one's strength and limits

• Self Confidence: A strong sense of one's self-worth and

capabilities

Self-Management refers to managing one's internal states,

impulses, and resources. The Self-Management cluster

contains six competencies.

• Self-control: Keeping disruptive emotions and impulses in

check

• Trustworthiness: Maintaining standards of honesty and

integrity

248

• Conscientiousness: Taking responsibility for personal

performance

• Adaptability: Flexibility in handling change.

• Achievement Orientation: Striving to improve or meeting a

standard of excellence

• Initiative: Readiness to act on opportunities.

Social Awareness refers to how people handle relationships

and awareness of others' feelings, needs, and concerns. The

Social awareness cluster contains three competencies.

• Empathy: Sensing other's feelings and perspective, and taking an

active interest in their concerns.

• Organisational Awareness: Reading a group's emotional currents

and power relationships.

• Service Orientation: Anticipating, recognising, and meeting

customers' needs.

Social Skills concerns the skill or adeptness at inducing desirable

responses in others. The social skills cluster contains eight

competencies.

Developing Others: Sensing other's development needs and

bolstering their abilities.

Leadership: Inspiring and guiding individuals and groups.

Influence: Wielding effective tactics for persuasion.

Communication: Listening openly and sending convincing

messages.

249

Change Catalyst: Initiating or managing change.

Conflict Management: Negotiating and resolving disagreements.

Building Bonds: Nurturing instrumental relationships.

Teamwork & Collaboration: Working with others toward shared

goals. Creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals.

Reliability

Reliability generally refers to the consistency or stability of

measures or observations. Essentially, if a person is measured twice

on the same measure it should roughly yield the same score both

times, that is, it should be reliable. For example, more than one

judge (i.e., rater) might rate the behaviour of the same person or

event and the correlation between those ratings would give an

indication of the reliability of ratings, or observer agreement.

Alternatively, correlations between ratings by the same judge at

different times would provide some indication of stability. It might

indicate the consistency of the behaviour, the consistency of the

rater, or both over time (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991).

When assessing the reliability of survey instruments, typically

two indicators are provided; test-retest reliability and internal

consistency. Test-retests reliability refers to the stability of a

measure over time. For example, a survey is administered twice to

the same individuals with a period of time between assessment

(typically two weeks to four months), and correlations are computed

to determine how stable the test is from one administration to

another. Internal consistency refers to the average of the inter

correlations among all the single test items. Chronbach's alpha is

the most commonly used indicator of internal consistency. This

250

procedure estimates reliability from the consistency of item

responses from a single assessment.

Internal Consistency

Table No. 4 presents Chronbach's alpha internal consistency

coefficients for the ECI clusters and competencies. For total others'

ratings, the alpha coefficients range from 0.73 (Trustworthiness) to

0.92 (Empathy) with an overall average internal consistency

coefficient of 0.82. For self-ratings, the alpha coefficients range from

0.61 (Accurate Self Assessment) to 0.85 (Service Orientation) with an

overall average internal consistency coefficient of 0.75. These results

suggest that total others' ratings are more stable and reliable than

self-ratings although no statistical tests were conducted to determine

whether the difference is meaningful. These findings do support our

general contention that self-ratings are less reliable and

consequently less valid (i.e., poor predictor of performance relative to

total others ECI ratings). Research presented later in this manual

presents predictive validity evidence for both self and total others

ratings on the ECI. This pattern of results also suggests that total

others responses may be subject to a general halo effect, commonly

seen in multi-rater (i.e., 360) instruments. The tendency for raters to

apply an overall impression of a person may contribute to inflated

reliability estimates on total other's ratings. These results, however,

indicate very good internal consistency reliability for the ECI.

251

TABLE NO: 4

Chronbach’s alpha coefficients for self and total others ECI ratings from the Hay

North American Database. Scores based on average item scores

Total Others Rating

(N=3,931)

Self Rating (N=4,001)

ECI Cluster Competency Alpha

Coefficient Alpha

Coefficient

Emotional Self-Awareness 0.74 0.81

Accurate Self-Awareness 0.83 0.68 Self Awareness

Self Confidence 0.88 0.80

Self-control 0.89 0.78

Trustworthiness 0.73 0.74

Conscientiousness 0.90 0.81

Adaptability 0.77 0.60

Achievement Orientation 0.87 0.78

Self Management

Initiative 0.83 0.72

Empathy 0.92 0.81

Organisational Awareness 0.84 0.75 Social Awareness

Service Orientation 0.81 0.85

Developing Others 0.88 0.77

Leadership 0.80 0.69

Influence 0.83 0.73

Communication 0.86 0.77

Change Catalyst 0.91 0.84

Conflict Management 0.86 0.75

Building Bonds 0.84 0.75

Social Skills

Team work & Collaboration 0.91 0.81

Self-Awareness 0.76 0.61

Self-Management 0.88 0.79

Social Awareness 0.81 0.71 ECI Clusters

(N=5,354)

Social Skills 0.96 0.92

252

Test-Retest Reliability

Although no specific test-retest reliability studies have been

conducted with the ECI, other pre-and post-assessment research

provides reasonable evidence for adequate levels of test-retest

reliability. A sample of 20 Brazilian executives from a large

consumer retail organisation was assessed twice on the ECI with

seven months between assessments. This period of time is higher

than what is typically recommended (Anastasi, 1982). Further more,

between assessments, the executives participated in an EI

development program; therefore results must be interpreted with

caution. This data also suggests that the ECI may be sensitive to

change because stability coefficients for the total others ratings were

only moderately high, while stability coefficients for self-scores were

very low.

253

TABLE NO: 5

Test – retest stability coefficients for self and total others ECI ratings with Brazilian consumer

Total Others Rating Self Rating

ECI Cluster Competence Stability

Coefficient Stability

Coefficient

Emotional Self-Awareness 0.55 0.23

Accurate Self-Awareness 0.58 0.26 Self Awareness

Self Confidence 0.69 0.33

Self-control 0.49 0.43

Trustworthiness 0.67 0.22

Conscientiousness 0.92 0.56

Adaptability 0.52 0.55

Achievement Orientation 0.60 0.19

Self Management

Initiative 0.45 0.15

Empathy 0.62 0.61

Organisational Awareness 0.82 0.22 Social Awareness

Service Orientation 0.41 0.05

Developing Others 0.75 0.55

Leadership 0.56 0.47

Influence 0.56 0.73

Communication 0.56 0.08

Change Catalyst 0.69 0.35

Conflict Management 0.39 0.43

Building Bonds 0.72 0.44

Social Skills

Team work & Collaboration 0.57 0.82

254

Validity

The validity of the psychological tests generally refers to the

degree to which a measure or questionnaire actually measures what

it is supposed to measure. For example, a grade in a math course

might typically be thought to reflect (measure) math ability, but it

might also reasonably reflect other characteristics (e.g., motivation,

career goals, work ethic, parents' educational background, family

income, etc.). In fact, math grades might generally relate to grades in

other courses, which in turn might correlate with more psychological

characteristics like self-esteem, self-efficacy, and even lack of

depression. In other words, understanding the true nature of a

construct can be complicated.

Two types of validity research help us address these issues:

content and construct validity. Content validity addresses whether a

test adequately samples the relevant material it purports to cover.

This is typically done qualitatively by a team of 'experts' within a

field.

Alternatively, construct validity refers to the degree to which a

test or questionnaire is a measure of the characteristic of interest.

This type of evidence typically takes the form of discriminant and

convergent validity. This simply refers to whether the test correlates

with other measures that ought to be conceptually related while

correlating less with those that it should not be associated. For

example, the ECI ought to correlate positively with self-esteem

(convergent) and negatively with depression (convergent), and not

correlate with cognitive ability (discriminant).

255

SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE

Dr. Michael Guillen was born in East Los Angeles, earned his

B.S. from UCLA and his Ph.D. from Cornell University in physics,

mathematics and astronomy. For eight years he was an award-

winning physics instructor at Harvard University. In 2000, he was

elected to the renowned Explorers Club.

Michael grew up in East Los Angeles in a Christian home

in the heart of the Mexican barrio. His father and grandfather

were Pentecostal ministers.

When he was nine years old, Michael’s dad came home

with a paperback book called Nuclear Forces. Not realizing it

was a college textbook; Michael read it and fell in love with

science. He says the Lord mysteriously put the overwhelming

desire on his heart to become a scientist.

Everyone assumed he would follow in his father and

grandfather’s footsteps in ministry. His vision took him from

East Los Angeles to University of California Los Angeles,

Cornell, and Harvard and eventually his IQ (Intelligence

Quotient) overcame his SQ (Spiritual Quotient).

Dr. Guillen is the president of Spectacular Science

Productions. He is also the host of Where Did It Come From? An

exciting new weekly, one-hour, prime-time series for The History

Channel. The series is scheduled to debut in the summer, 2006

season.

Over the years, Dr. Guillen has written hundreds of articles for

numerous distinguished publications, including Science News and

Psychology Today magazines and The New York Times and

256

Washington Post. For fourteen years, he was the Emmy-award-

winning Science Correspondent for ABC News. He appeared regularly

on Good Morning America, 20/20, Nightline, and World News

Tonight.

Dr. Guillen is the best-selling author of two critically acclaimed

books for the general public about mathematics: Bridges to Infinity: the Human Side of Mathematics and Five Equations that Changed the World: the Power and Poetry of Mathematics. Another book title Can Faith and Logic Co-Exist was also very popular.

In his latest book “Can a Smart Person Believe in God?” Dr.

Guillen tells of his lifelong attempt to reconcile his scientific career

with his deeply religious upbringing. In it he uses the term SQ,

which stands for Spiritual Quotient - the spiritual counterpart to IQ.

Dr. Guillen believes that only when we use both our IQ and SQ, we

perceive ourselves, others, and the universe in their full, multi-

dimensional splendour.

In his latest book "Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"

Guillen describes about his successful attempt to reconcile his

scientific career with his deeply religious upbringing.

Guillen uses the term SQ, which stands for Spiritual Quotient,

the spiritual counterpart to IQ. According to Guillen, our SQ should

matter to us just as much as our IQ.

Guillen says that our journey through life works best when we

get our IQ to work right alongside our SQ.

Then, Guillen points out; we acquire what he calls

"stereoscopic faith", a faith that allows us to see the world in stereo.

"With stereoscopic faith," Guillen says we will see reality in its

full, multidimensional glory: space and time on the one hand,

meaning and purpose on the other.

257

According to Guillen, so much time has been spent nurturing the

idea that science and religion are incompatible and we have to make

a choice. According to him, one should learn how to reconcile the two

and that one doesn’t have to make a choice. The mind and spirit can

come together in some coherent way.

Guillen says one can’t choose between intelligence and

spirituality. But when one does that, he or she is tearing his or her

mind away from his or her spirit and one can't be a whole person

until one learns to integrate the two. Our mind cannot be at war with

our spirit.

Guillen strongly tries to make people understand that the

mind and the spirit are not only compatible but they are

synergistic.

His scientific studies, mainly, the studies ‘how the

universe operates’; ‘how the world was put together’, made

Michael Guillen understood that the creation of the universe

was not an accident.

He lists out three statements to justify his thoughts or beliefs:

1. The universe has a beauty that is more than skin deep

(artificial). For example: the one-celled organism or the

choreography of the cosmos.

2. If a person can believe in black holes and multiple

universes then it would be no big deal to believe in God.

3. In science there is one truth and one set of laws. This

showed Michael Guillen the uncompromising truth that

258

there is one truth, one standard of right and wrong. It was

easy for him to believe in SQ more thoroughly.

Presently Dr. Guillen is the Chief Consultant for Science and

Religion for the Crystal Cathedral Ministries, which includes the

Hour of Power television show, and Chief Science Advisor for the

Central Committee of American Rabbis. He lives outside of Boston.

TABLE NO: 6

Item analysis of Dr. Michael Guillen’s Spiritual Quotient Questionnaire

Questions ‘t’ value 1 -6.37** 2 -10.42** 3 -9.33** 4 -14.45** 5 -16.04** 6 -10.45** 7 -6.73** 8 -3.96** 9 -8.40** 10 -9.61** 11 -9.70** 12 -12.66** 13 -2.66** 14 -8.67** 15 -10.30** 16 -15.50** 17 -12.55** 18 -13.43** 19 -12.04** 20 -17.16**

*P < 0.05 level **P < 0.01 level

259

Item analysis was done for the Michael Guillen’s Spiritual

Quotient Questionnaire, and it was found that all the questions were

significant at 0.01 level. The questionnaire has likert five point

scaling technique. In order to avoid the communication gap and

other language barrier, the questionnaire was translated into

vernacular language Malayalam, after consulting with the respective

language expert.

The main purpose of doing item analysis is to find out the

relevance of each question in the Indian (in Kerala) context. In order

to find out this, the questionnaire was first distributed to 400

different segments of the public such as youths, working woman,

housewives, senior citizens, business people, teachers, bank

employees, people working in LIC, Doctors, artists etc. After

collecting the filled questionnaire, scoring was done and the whole

data was then sorted into ascending order, where first 200 responses

were treated as low response group one, and remaining 200

responses were treated as high response group two. Then

independent ‘t’ test was applied to find out each question’s

significance. The results showed that each question is significant at

0.01 level.

Again, the same process was repeated and questionnaire was

distributed to 300 LIC development officers (the original sample unit

of the study) and their responses was sorted into ascending order,

where first 175 responses were treated as low response group - one,

and remaining 175 responses were treated as high response group -

two. Then independent ‘t’ test was applied to find out each question’s

significance. The results showed that each question is significant at

0.01 level. The above Table No. 6 describes the results.

Spiritual intelligence questionnaire consist 20 questions

altogether.

260