Table 4.

Review of selected studies detailing psychometric properties of the Self-report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT).

Citation and country	Participants (N, age, occupation, gender ratio etc.)	Study design	Reliability and validity evidence	Comment
Schutte et al. (1998) USA	Non clinical N = 346 Sample: University students and individuals from diverse community settings. Gender: 218 were women and 111 were men. Age: average age was 29.27 years.	Self-assessment questionnaire. All 346 participants rated themselves on the 62 EI items, with a number of participants also filling out one of several established scales to measure constructs theoretically related to EI. Additional scales included; an alexithymia scale which assessed difficulties in identifying and describing feelings; a communication test which assessed non-verbal expressiveness; a life orientation test which assessed optimism and pessimism; a mood scale including assessing attention to feelings and mood repair; a scale to measure depressed mood; and a measure of impulsiveness.	Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha of 0.90 was obtained. Test retest reliability: 28 students repeated the test 2 weeks later, with a test-retest reliability of 0.78. Construct validity: validation studies showed that scores on the 33-item measure correlated with eight of nine theoretically related constructs, including, alexithymia (r = −0.65, p < 0.0001), attention to feelings (r = 0.63, p < 0.0001), clarity of feelings (r = 0.52, p < 0.0001), mood repair (r = 0.68, p < 0.0001), optimism (r = 0.52, p < 0.006), pessimism (r = −0.42, p < 0.025), depression (r = −0.37, p < 0.021) and impulse control (r = −0.39, p < 0.003). Predictive validity: a test was conducted on college students to assess the predictive validity. Results revealed that the EI measure completed at the start of the academic year, significantly predicted first year college grades at the end of the year (r = 0.32, p < 0.01). Discriminant validity: Scores on the measure were tested against the big five personality dimensions to assess discriminant validity and were only associated with the openness to experience trait.
Kinman and Grant (2011) UK	Non clinical N = 240 Sample: Trainee social work students (69% of the sample were first-year students and 31% second-year students). Gender: 82% female Age: Mean age of 33.7 years.	Self-report questionnaire. Participants were invited to participate via email and competed the questionnaire online. The aim of the study was to explore the role of emotional and social competencies on resilience. The study also assessed measurements of reflective ability, empathy, social competence, resilience and psychological distress.	Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha was 0.88. Construct validity: Emotional Intelligence was correlated to additional measures as expected. For example EI was positively correlated with resilience (r = 0.61, p < 0.001), reflective ability (r = 0.59, p < 0.001), and empathy (r = 0.45, p < 0.001),	The study is based on a cross-sectional and correlational data. Although some of the relationships found between emotional and social competencies and resilience and well-being were strong, cause and effect cannot be established using such methodology.
Por et al. (2011) UK	Non clinical N = 130 Sample: Student nurses. Gender: 117 female, 13 male. Age: Mean age of 28 years.	Data was collected through self-report questionnaire, an audit of students' academic performance and mapping of EI teaching material. The study aimed to explore the emotional intelligence of nursing students and its relationship to perceived stress, coping strategies, subjective well-being, perceived nursing competency and academic performance.	Internal consistency: Cronbach's alpha was 0.82. Construct validity: There was a strong negative correlation between EI and perceived stress (r = −0.40, p < 0.01). EI was positively related to perceived nursing competency (r = 0.32, p < 0.01) and subjective well-being (r = 0.27, p < 0.01).	There are some limitations to the study such as the small sample size and the fact that the study only involved students that may limit the generalizability to other occupations. Data being collected at a single point in time means that potential changes in participants over time were not captured.