ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
When emotional intelligence measures disagree: discordant profiles in allied health students and why classification uncertainty matters.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Emotional intelligence (EI) is widely studied in health professions education, but two methodological habits limit the field: EI is usually treated as a single continuous predictor, and person-centered studies typically assign students to profiles and then test associations as though those assignments were certain. We addressed both issues, and a third that emerged from our own data: the validity of the profile solution itself. Methods: Allied health sciences undergraduates at Kuwait University completed two self-report EI measures: the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT; a self-report measure based on the ability model, indexing self-perceived emotional skill) and the Kuwaiti-Arabic Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF; trait model). Of 561 responses, 559 remained after duplicate removal and 489 after excluding 70 invariant (straight-line) responders - a screen motivated by the fact that reverse-scoring maps every constant TEIQue-SF response pattern to a global mean of exactly 4.00, creating duplicate data points that induce degenerate, variance-collapsed solutions in unconstrained mixture models. Latent profile analysis of the two standardized scores was estimated with a variance floor; profile-outcome associations used the bias-adjusted three-step (BCH) approach with bootstrap confidence intervals (1,471 valid resamples of 2,000), compared against naive modal-assignment tests, with Holm and Bonferroni multiplicity control. Results: The two measures correlated only modestly (r = 0.35). A four-profile solution was favored on the Bayesian Information Criterion (entropy = 0.65): High EI (28.6%), Average EI (34.2%), Low EI (32.3%), and a Discordant EI profile (4.9%) combining very low self-perceived skill with near-average trait EI. Profile rank-ordering differed across instruments, indicating qualitatively distinct configurations, and the Discordant profile was stable across random starts, outlier removal, and bootstrap resampling. Two associations were robust: students in the Low EI profile attended voluntary EI workshops substantially more often than High and Average profiles, and stress-management confidence was highest in the Discordant profile and lowest in the Average profile. GPA showed no robust association. Discussion: Self-report EI measures from different theoretical traditions can disagree enough to define distinct student subgroups, and person-centered EI research must attend to solution validity - careless responding and degenerate likelihood spikes - as well as classification uncertainty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.