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

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

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Psychology

VOLUME=Volume 16 - 2025

YEAR=2025

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1539785

DOI=10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1539785

ISSN=1664-1078

ABSTRACT=IntroductionThe 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 veridical scoring of EI test responses is a sound procedure relative to scoring keys based on expert consensus or a single emotion theory. To the degree that EI fits present-day theories of intelligence (i.e., the CHC model), any subsidiary factors of EI reasoning should correlate highly with one another. These and other considerations led to a revision of the original Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) to the MSCEIT 2.MethodsThe MSCEIT 2 was developed and tested across 5 studies: Two preliminary studies concerned, first, the viability of new item sets (Study 1, N = 43) and, in Study 2 (N = 8), the development of a veridical scoring key for each test item with the assistance of Ph.D. area experts. Next, a pilot study (Study 3, N = 523) and a normative study (Study 4, N = 3,000) each focused on the test’s item performance and factor structure, including whether a four-domain model continued to fit the data in a manner consistent with a cohesive broad intelligence. Study 5 (N = 221) examined the relation between the original and revised tests.ResultsThe 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.DiscussionOverall, 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.