Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40524824›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025

Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT 2: theory, rationale, and initial findings.

John D Mayer, David R Caruso, Peter Salovey, Iris Y Lin, Braden J Hansma, Joanna Solomon, Gill Sitarenios, Manolo Romero Escobar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

John D MayerDepartment of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, United States.
David R CarusoOffice of the Dean of Yale College, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Peter SaloveyDepartment of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Iris Y LinResearch and Development, Multi-Health Systems, Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada.
Braden J HansmaResearch and Development, Multi-Health Systems, Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada.
Joanna SolomonResearch and Development, Multi-Health Systems, Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada.
Gill SitareniosResearch and Development, Multi-Health Systems, Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada.
Manolo Romero EscobarResearch and Development, Multi-Health Systems, Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The model of emotional intelligence as an ability has evolved since its introduction 35 years ago. The revised model includes that emotional intelligence (EI) is a broad intelligence within the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of intelligence, and that more areas of problem solving are involved than originally detailed. An argument is made here that Methods: The MSCEIT 2 was developed and tested across 5 studies: Two preliminary studies concerned, first, the viability of new item sets (Study 1, Results: The studies provide evidence for factor-supported subscale scores, and good reliability at the overall test level, with acceptable reliabilities for 3 of the 4 subscale scores, and adequate measurement precision across the range of most test-takers' abilities. Discussion: Overall, the MSCEIT 2 used updated theory to guide its construction and development. Its test scores fit the CHC model, and correlate with the original MSCEIT. The revised test is 33% shorter than the original.

Indexed as

assessmentCHC Modelemotional intelligencefactor analysisfour-domain modelMayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test 2 (MSCEIT 2)veridical scoring

Identifiers

PMID40524824
PMCPMC12169179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.