Zeidner M, Matthews G, Roberts R D
Department of Psychology, Center for Interdisciplinary Research of Emotions, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Israel.
Emotion. 2001 Sep;1(3):265-75.
Commentators on the R. D. Roberts, M. Zeidner, and G. Matthews (2001) article on the measurement of emotional intelligence (EI) made various pertinent observations that confirm the growing interest in this topic. This rejoinder finds general agreement on some key issues: learning from the history of ability testing, developing more sophisticated structural models of ability, studying emotional abilities across the life span, and establishing predictive and construct validity. However, scoring methods for tests of EI remain problematic. This rejoinder acknowledges recent improvements in convergence between different scoring methods but discusses further difficulties related to (a) neglect of group differences in normative social behaviors, (b) segregation of separate domains of knowledge linked to cognitive and emotional intelligences, (c) potential confounding of competence with learned skills and cultural factors, and (d) lack of specification of adaptive functions of EI. Empirical studies have not yet established that the Multi-Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale and related tests assess a broad EI factor of real-world significance.
对R.D. 罗伯茨、M. 蔡德纳和G. 马修斯（2001年）关于情商（EI）测量的文章的评论者提出了各种相关观点，证实了对该主题的兴趣日益浓厚。本回应在一些关键问题上达成了普遍共识：从能力测试的历史中学习、开发更复杂的能力结构模型、研究整个生命周期中的情绪能力以及建立预测效度和结构效度。然而，EI测试的评分方法仍然存在问题。本回应承认不同评分方法之间的收敛性最近有所改善，但讨论了与以下方面相关的进一步困难：（a）忽视规范社会行为中的群体差异，（b）将与认知和情商相关的不同知识领域分开，（c）能力与所学技能和文化因素的潜在混淆，以及（d）缺乏对EI适应功能的具体说明。实证研究尚未确定多因素情商量表及相关测试评估的是具有现实世界意义的广泛EI因素。
