Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based Emotional Intelligence (EI) tests

Carolyn MacCann, Richard D. Roberts, Gerald Matthews, Moshe Zeidner

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


    Faces and Designs (N=102) from the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) were scored using five different consensual-scoring methods: proportion, mode, lenient mode, distance, and adjusted distance. The aim was to determine which scoring methods were superior in terms of reliability, discriminability (distribution shape), and validity. Where possible, the Method of Reciprocal Averages (MRA)-used previously on dichotomously scored aptitude tests (to improve reliability)-was applied to consensus scores. Psychometric analyses suggested that the most promising techniques were proportion and mode scoring, with MRA scaling ameliorating some potential weaknesses apparent with these forms of consensual-scoring. Faces and Designs showed weak correlations with pro-social personality dimensions, with crystallized intelligence, and with visualization abilities. The study concludes with suggested remedies for addressing measurement problems endemic to EI research.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)645-662
    Number of pages18
    JournalPersonality and Individual Differences
    Issue number3
    StatePublished - Feb 2004


    • Consensus scoring
    • Emotional intelligence
    • Fluid and crystallized intelligence theory
    • Method of reciprocal averages scaling
    • Psychological assessment

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • General Psychology


    Dive into the research topics of 'Consensus scoring and empirical option weighting of performance-based Emotional Intelligence (EI) tests'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this