Reliability and convergent validity of the Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale,revised

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to reassess the reliability and convergent validity of the revised Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale, and determine whether the scale could identify students demonstrating professional behavior problems in the classroom and fieldwork environments.

Method

Thirty-six student participants completed the revised Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale and Schutte Assessing Emotions Scale. Interrater reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity were established.

Results

Interrater reliability and internal consistency were found to be high (intraclass correlation coefficient = .82, p < .001; Cronbach’s alpha = .96, p < .001, respectively). When participants were separated by age, convergent validity between the Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale and Schutte Assessing Emotions Scale of participants aged ≥ 26 years was high (r_s = .83, p < .002) compared to those ≤ 25 years (r_s = .58, p < .002). Six participants (16.6%) received Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale scores of 0 and were identified as potentially exhibiting professional behavioral problems; three of these students demonstrated professional behavior problems in the academic and/or fieldwork settings.

Conclusion

The Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale can be used as a screen to identify whether students may exhibit professional behavior problems; however, caution should be used as some identified students may be able to prevent professional behavior problems once aware of program expectations.

Keywords

Occupational therapy health care education academic admission processes

Introduction

In recent years, health care education programs have increasingly used measures of emotional intelligence to assess student applicants based on the awareness that emotional intelligence is a critical skill for health care practitioners (Foster et al., 2015; Shakir et al., 2017). Emotional intelligence involves both intra- and interpersonal skills. Intrapersonal skills include the ability to recognize one’s own emotions, understand how one’s emotions were derived, and use emotion-based information to maintain emotional equilibrium (Salovey and Mayer, 1990; Snowden et al., 2015). Interpersonal skills involve the ability to recognize emotions in others, understand how one’s own behaviors may have influenced others’ emotions, and use emotion-based information to mediate conflict and maintain stable relationships (Di Fabio and Saklofske, 2014).

Health care professionals need to have strong emotional intelligence competencies to interact well with patients, family members, and health care colleagues; advocate for patient needs with insurers; assist caregivers who are often overwhelmed and anxious; and negotiate possible conflict with colleagues who may feel burdened by high productivity demands within stressful work environments (Ranjbar, 2015; Uchino et al., 2015). Researchers have found that health care students with higher emotional intelligence scores on standardized measures perform more adeptly on clinical internships (Codier et al., 2015; Libbrecht et al., 2014; Rankin, 2013), are rated more favorably by clinical supervisors and patients (Arora et al., 2010; Rankin, 2013; Victoroff and Boyatzis, 2013), are considered as more collaborative and cooperative by treatment team members (Arora et al., 2010; Victoroff and Boyatzis, 2013), and are more likely to complete their health care education programs (Jones-Schenk and Harper, 2014; Rankin, 2013).

Although the subject of emotional intelligence research is fairly new, many researchers have suggested that emotional intelligence is shaped by both environment and genetics within a set of parameters that exists early in development (Pérez-González and Sanchez-Ruiz, 2014). Some research has shown that the emotional intelligence of health care students can be enhanced through coursework addressing emotional intelligence competencies (Bray et al., 2014; Choi et al., 2015). Many health care education schools, internationally, have begun using measures in their admission application process to identify potential students with higher emotional intelligence levels (Austin et al., 2005; Codier and Odell, 2014; Jones-Schenk and Harper, 2014). To date, standardized emotional intelligence measures have included paper and pencil or computer-generated tests, and structured interviews. Paper and pencil or computer-generated tests, tend to either (a) pose scenarios and ask respondents to identify the most emotionally intelligent response from a set of multiple choice questions, or (b) ask respondents to indicate the degree to which they agree with a set of statements about the identification and use of emotion-based information (Fiori and Antonakis, 2011). In structured interviews, applicants are asked to respond to a set of standardized questions designed to yield information about emotional intelligence. Raters are trained to both administer and score structured interviews, and are required to establish interrater reliability with other raters (Rees et al., 2016). The administration of both tests and structured interviews is often expensive and labor intensive, making them prohibitive to health care education programs that have neither sufficient funding nor personnel.

In 2016, we published the pilot version of the Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale (EIAE) in an effort to design an instrument that could yield information about student applicants’ emotional intelligence, and be cost- and time-efficient (Gutman and Falk-Kessler, 2016). The EIAE is an essay question and five-item scale that has high interrater reliability and content validity (see Instruments). The question is designed to elicit both intra- and interpersonal emotional intelligence information and asks applicants to describe ‘(1) a conflict situation in a work, school, or personal event; (2) how the applicant knowingly or unknowingly contributed to the conflict; and (3) how he or she attempted to resolve the conflict based on the ability to use emotion based information to guide problem solving’ (Gutman and Falk-Kessler, 2016: 3).

Applicants are asked to respond to the question in a 1000-word essay. Essays are rated using a five-item scale that assesses how well applicants can (a) understand and empathize with others’ emotions and perspectives in a conflict situation, (b) recognize how their own behaviors may have contributed to the conflict, (c) refrain from externalizing blame, (d) consider all individuals’ needs and desires when problem-solving a resolution, and (e) cooperate equally with others in conflict negotiation (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale.

Although our initial examination of the EIAE’s psychometric properties found interrater reliability and content validity to be high, we also found that approximately one-third of students did not answer the question and instead wrote about an intrapersonal conflict that they alone experienced (for example, desiring career change). As a result, we reworded the essay question to elicit information specifically about interpersonal conflict with others:

Describe an interpersonal conflict in which you were involved during the past year or two. An interpersonal conflict is a situation in which you and others experienced discord and disagreement with each other due to differences in perceptions and opinions related to the conflict area. The conflict could be one that occurred in school, work, family life, or recreation. The conflict should not be an internal conflict that you alone experienced.

Please address the following:

Describe the conflict and how it came to occur.

Describe individual emotions, needs, and desires each person had regarding the conflict and its outcome (including your own).

Describe how you knowingly or unknowingly contributed to the conflict.

Describe whether a resolution was achieved and how the resolution was generated.

Describe the conflict outcome.

The purpose of this study was to reassess the reliability and convergent validity of the revised EIAE. We also sought to discern whether the revised EIAE could identify students who demonstrate professional behavior problems in the classroom and fieldwork environments. Our research questions were as follows.

What is the interrater reliability and internal consistency of the revised EIAE?

Does the revised EIAE have convergent validity with an established emotional intelligence scale having content validity?

Can the revised EIAE predict students who exhibit professional behavioral problems in the academic and/or fieldwork setting?

Method

Research design

In this instrument development study, we sought to reestablish the reliability and convergent validity of the EIAE after revision of the initial essay question. Because the actual EIAE (see Figure 1) was not changed, we did not reestablish content validity. We also sought to determine whether the revised question could elicit responses that could identify students with professional behavioral problems. The Columbia University Institutional Review Board approved this study and all participants provided written consent.

Participants

The participants were first year entry-level master’s students in an occupational therapy program. Participants completed the EIAE as part of their admission application process, approximately 6 months prior to the commencement of their first academic semester. Students were invited to participate in the study in the first month of their academic coursework. Participation was voluntary and the EIAE scores of students who declined participation were not used in this study.

Instruments

EIAE

The EIAE is a five-item, four-point Likert scale with a range from 0 (no evidence) to 3 (strong evidence) (see Figure 1). The scale requires approximately 15 minutes to complete (10 minutes to read the essay and 5 minutes to score it). Possible total scores range from 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating higher emotional intelligence. Content validity was found to be high, as determined by a panel of experts in emotional intelligence (content validity index = 1.0) (Gutman and Falk-Kessler, 2016). Convergent validity—established between the pilot version of the EIAE and the Schutte Assessing Emotions Scale (Schutte et al., 1998; Schutte et al., 2009)—was found to be moderate (r_s = .46, p < .02). Interrater reliability of the pilot EIAE was established between two trained faculty raters and found to be high (ICC = .91, p < .001). Internal consistency of the pilot scale was high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .95 (Gutman and Falk-Kessler, 2016).

Schutte Assessing Emotions Scale

The Schutte Assessing Emotions (Schutte) Scale (Schutte et al., 1998) is a 33-item, five-point (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), self-report emotional intelligence measure that requires approximately 5 minutes to complete. Respondents are provided with statements regarding inter- and intrapersonal emotional intelligence skills and are asked to rate how strongly they identify with each statement. Total scores range from 33 to 165, with higher scores indicating higher levels of perceived emotional intelligence. Internal consistency was reported to be high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .90. Test-retest reliability was moderately high (r = .78, p < .05). Convergent validity with the Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997) was found to be moderate (r = .43, p < .05) (Schutte et al., 1998; Schutte et al., 2009).

Procedures

Interrater reliability

Interrater reliability was established by two trained raters who were faculty in the occupational therapy program. Raters received 1 hour of training from the first author and were asked to independently rate five essays using the EIAE. Raters submitted their EIAE scores 1 day after training and were blinded to each other’s scores. Essays were submitted by participants as part of their admission application and were masked for study purposes. Essays used to establish interrater reliability were selected randomly using a random numbers generator.

Internal consistency

Internal consistency for the EIAE was completed using final scores on the EIAE essays of participants who volunteered for the study. For those essays that were rated by both raters for the purposes of evaluating interrater reliability, final scores were generated by consensus between the raters after interrater reliability analyses had been completed.

Convergent validity

Students who volunteered to participate in the study were asked to complete the Schutte Scale using an online, digital platform in the first month of their academic coursework. EIAE scores, which had been completed by the authors to establish internal consistency, were then correlated with participants’ Schutte Scale scores to determine convergent validity. All Schutte Scale and EIAE scores were masked and coded to reduce possible bias.

Identification of students with professional behavioral problems

In the final stage of the study, we unmasked EIAE and Schutte Scale scores to determine (a) whether the EIAE could identify students who demonstrated professional behavioral problems in the academic or fieldwork setting, and (b) whether there was a statistically significant difference between the EIAE scores of students with and without professional behavioral problems. Professional behavior problems in the academic setting were defined as behaviors that prompted the issuing of professional development forms and/or meetings with advisors for remediation. Problematic behavior in the fieldwork setting was defined as behaviors that prompted intervention from academic fieldwork coordinators, the issuing of behavioral contracts, and/or fieldwork failure or withdrawal.

Data collection and analysis

As stated above, all first-year students in the occupational therapy program completed EIAE essays as part of their admission application. In the first month of their coursework, these students were invited to participate in the study via email solicitation. Students who volunteered to participate were then asked to complete the Schutte Scale online. All EIAE essays and Schutte Scale scores were masked and coded by the admissions coordinator. Masking was removed in the final stage of the study when we examined whether students who were identified by their EIAE scores as potentially exhibiting professional behavioral problems, actually demonstrated problems in the academic or fieldwork setting.

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24 and significance was set at α = .05. To determine interrater reliability between two trained raters, an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used. Internal consistency was determined with Cronbach’s alpha. Convergent validity between EIAE and Schutte Scale scores was established using Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient. Interrater reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity were determined to be low, moderate, or high: values of ≤.49 were considered low, values of .50–.79 were considered moderate, and values ≥.80 were considered high). A Mann–Whitney U test was used to determine whether a statistically significant difference existed on EIAE scores between students exhibiting professional behavioral problems and those who did not (Portney and Watkins, 2015).

Results

Forty-six first-year occupational therapy students volunteered to participate in this study. Participants were primarily female (n = 41, 89.13%; male: n = 5; 10.86%), White (n = 39, 84.78%; Asian: n = 5, 10.86%; Black: n = 2, 4.34%), and non-Hispanic (n = 41, 89.13%; Hispanic: n = 5, 10.86%). Age ranged from 21 to 29 years (M = 23.86 ± 2.51).

Of the 46 essays, 10 (21.73%) did not address the question and could not be scored. The 36 (78.26%) essays that answered the question ranged in EIAE score from 0 to 13 (M = 4.80 ± 3.33). Schutte Scale scores ranged from 112 to 153 (M = 135.25 ± 10.04) (see Table 1). Interrater reliability between two trained faculty raters was found to be high (ICC = .82, p < .001). Internal consistency between scale items was found to be high, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .96 (p < .001). Convergent validity between EIAE and Schutte Scale scores was moderate (r_s = .64, p < .001). However, when participants were separated by age, convergent validity of those aged ≥ 26 years (n = 10) was high (r_s = .83, p < .002) compared with participants aged ≤ 25 years (n = 26) (r_s = .58, p < .002).

Table 1.

Schutte and EIAE scores for all participants, N = 36.

EIAE score	Schutte score	Age, years
0	121	22
0	124	22
0	129	22
0	125	24
0	139	22
0	144	22
2	112	27
2	129	22
2	133	23
3	119	26
3	119	21
3	125	24
3	125	24
3	132	28
3	137	21
4	128	28
4	135	27
5	132	24
5	137	22
5	146	26
6	134	27
6	134	22
6	134	23
6	142	22
6	151	23
7	145	24
7	144	22
8	143	22
8	145	26
8	145	26
8	145	21
8	149	22
9	146	23
10	153	29
10	136	23
13	132	24
M = 4.80 ± 3.33	M = 135.25 ± 10.04	M = 23.63 ± 2.07

EIAE: Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale; Schutte: Schutte Assessing Emotions Scale.

Six participants (16.6%) received EIAE scores of 0 and were identified as potentially exhibiting professional behavioral problems. Of the 36 participants, three (8.3%) exhibited professional behavior problems in the classroom and/or fieldwork setting—these students were identified as part of the six who received scores of 0 on the EIAE. A statistically significant difference in EIAE scores, with a large effect size, was found between the three students who experienced professional behavior problems in the classroom or fieldwork setting and students who did not (Z = −2.512, p < .012, d = −2.278). This statistically significant difference was not identified by the Schutte Scale (Z = −0.659, p < .51, d = 0.258).

No statistically significant difference in Schutte Scale scores was found between participants who wrote about an interpersonal conflict as opposed to an intrapersonal conflict.

Discussion

Similar to our initial establishment of reliability (Gutman and Falk-Kessler, 2016), the revised EIAE demonstrates high levels of interrater reliability and internal consistency. We found that convergent validity with the Schutte Scale was high only for participants aged ≥26 years.

The Schutte Scale is a self-report measure indicating a respondent’s perceived emotional intelligence. Older participants may have had greater insight into their emotional intelligence skills and may have more accurately assessed such competencies. The idea that age corresponds with insight into emotional intelligence is supported by neuroscience literature reporting that brain development, particularly of the frontal lobes where cognitive functions are mediated, is not complete until 25–26 years of age (Lebel and Beaulieu, 2011). Brain maturity may be accompanied by both greater ability to assess one’s emotional intelligence and regulate inappropriate emotional responses. Participants aged ≥26 years may also have had more exposure to work environments through which enculturation into a repertoire of accepted professional behaviors could have occurred. These findings suggest that emotional intelligence skills may be a factor of both neural development and environmental experience.

The revised EIAE was able to accurately identify the three students in our first-year class who experienced professional behavioral problems in the classroom and/or fieldwork setting. However, although six students were identified by the EIAE as potentially problematic, only three actually exhibited professional behavior problems. The three students who were identified as potentially problematic but who did not experience professional behavior problems, may have been able to enhance their emotional intelligence skills through exposure to classroom and fieldwork experiences. Continued brain maturation could also have played a role (all three students were <25 years old when they matriculated into the program). This suggests that the EIAE should be used only as a screen to identify applicants who may potentially experience professional behavior problems. Potential problems, however, may be able to be mitigated through exposure to the experiences of a professional program and counseling. This idea is supported by research demonstrating that participation in coursework addressing emotional intelligence skills increased scores on emotional intelligence measures in health care students (Bray et al., 2014; Choi et al., 2015).

Interestingly, the three identified students who exhibited professional behavior problems attained high Schutte Scale scores (M = 137.33 ± 7.63), reflecting their high level of perceived emotional intelligence. These students may have lacked insight into their professional behavior problems and may have been more resistant to guidance provided by faculty and academic advisors. The three identified students who did not experience professional behavior problems had lower Schutte Scale scores (M = 123.33 ± 2.08); their assessment of their emotional intelligence skills may not have been as disparate, thus enabling them to more readily use feedback to modify behaviors in accordance with the expectations of a professional program.

One reason why we revised the pilot EIAE was to modify the question to elicit a higher percentage of students addressing interpersonal rather than intrapersonal conflicts. In our pilot study, 30% of participants wrote about intrapersonal conflicts (Gutman and Falk-Kessler, 2016), whereas in this study, such conflicts were addressed by only 22%. Although our revised EIAE question appeared to have increased the number of students addressing interpersonal conflicts, approximately one-fifth still wrote about intrapersonal conflicts despite question modification. Because there was no statistically significant difference between the Schutte Scale scores of students who addressed intrapersonal as opposed to interpersonal conflicts, and because none of these students demonstrated professional behavior problems in the classroom and/or fieldwork setting, we propose that either the EAIE question requires further modification or some students are uncomfortable revealing interpersonal conflict in a perceived high-stakes university admission essay. There is some evidence to support the latter. In a study in which we compared the use of the EIAE question in an essay versus interview format with 36 matriculated students, only two (5.55%) addressed an intrapersonal rather than an interpersonal conflict (Gutman et al., in press). Because these 36 students were already matriculated in various health care education programs, they may not have perceived negative consequences for revealing information about their involvement in interpersonal conflicts.

Another explanation may be that some students believe that disagreement with others experienced only as an internal phenomenon, and that is neither expressed nor discussed with others, constitutes an interpersonal conflict. The majority (n = 6, 60%) of students in this study who wrote about intrapersonal conflicts, expressed in their essays that they internally experienced disagreement or distress with others, but never revealed their concerns and emotions to those others. This finding may reflect lower emotional intelligence and/or poorer communication skills. The 10 students as a group were young (M = 22.8 ± 1.81 years) and may have lacked adequate conflict negotiation skills as a factor of life experience. None of these students experienced professional behavior problems in the classroom or fieldwork setting, suggesting that they may not have understood the difference between inter- and intrapersonal conflicts. This finding may also indicate that these students were able to modify their emotional intelligence behaviors in accordance with the expectations of a professional health care program.

Our findings suggest that the EIAE can be used as a screen to identify applicants with potential professional behavior problems. Such students could be monitored throughout the curriculum and provided with counseling if professional behavioral problems arise. Caution should be used, however, as the identification of potentially problematic students could bias faculty-student interactions. Perhaps such data could be maintained by an admissions coordinator and only revealed to faculty if identified admitted students do, in fact, demonstrate professional behavioral problems in the classroom and clinical setting. Rather than using EIAE scores to counsel students, faculty should only refer to student incidents of problematic behavior when providing guidance.

EIAE scores may be best used to make applicant admission decisions when other information is insufficient or unclear. For example, applicants who demonstrate both average academic grades and clinically related experience, but high EIAE scores, may be selected over those presenting the same grades and clinically related experience, but low EIAE scores. Further research must be implemented to substantiate the use of EIAE scores as one criterion of an admission process.

Limitations

One acknowledged limitation was our sample size of 36 students. There is little consensus in the literature regarding minimum sample size needed to establish convergent validity, and recommendations range from 10 to 100 observations, with a minimum 5:1 subject-to-item ratio (Anthoine et al., 2014). Although we attained 72 observations (two raters per 36 participants) with a 7:1 subject-to-item ratio, a larger number of participants would have provided greater power.

Our participants lacked diversity in race, ethnicity, gender, and age. Although our sample mirrored USA national statistics on occupational therapy student demographics (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2015), a sample with greater diversity is needed to examine the psychometric properties of the EIAE—particularly with regard to gender and age. Published literature (Takeuchi et al., 2011; Van Rooy et al., 2005) and our preliminary data suggest that emotional intelligence is influenced by age and its accompanying neural maturity, and exposure to environmental situations requiring the development of emotional intelligence competencies. There is conflicting evidence that gender affects emotional intelligence (Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2012; Tsaousis and Kazi, 2013); however, a sample with a larger percentage of male participants would have yielded some information to address this question.

A final limitation involved the use of the Schutte Scale to establish convergent validity with the EIAE. Because the Schutte Scale is a self-report measure, it yields data about a respondent’s perceived emotional intelligence, which may differ from an externally rated instrument. We used the Schutte Scale because most available externally rated emotional intelligence scales with high content validity require a fee per student. Although the Schutte Scale provided information about students’ perceived emotional intelligence, an externally rated instrument similar to the EIAE would have more accurately yielded information about convergent validity. The Schutte Scale did, however, allow us to understand that (a) older students in our sample tended to have greater insight into their emotional intelligence, and (b) students who were identified as having potential professional behavior problems and perceived themselves as having high emotional intelligence may have been more resistant to counseling from faculty and advisors. The latter idea is speculative, however, and all findings should be replicated with larger sample sizes.

Future research

Future research is needed to replicate our findings with larger and more diverse samples, particularly with regard to gender and age. Future research is also needed to examine the factors that facilitate students’ ability to use feedback to modify potentially problematic behavior. Convergent validity of the EIAE should be reestablished with an externally rated instrument having high content validity. Additionally, as the American Occupational Therapy Association has now mandated that by 2025, all USA occupational therapy programs must offer entry-level clinical doctorates (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2014), and countries throughout the world offer entry-level occupational therapy degrees at differing educational levels, research must be implemented to understand how degree level, age, and life experience affect emotional intelligence. Presently it is unclear whether the completion of a graduate degree—and the life experience that may accompany it—will affect the emotional intelligence of occupational therapy applicants. It would be interesting, as well, to examine this question cross-culturally and identify whether and how varying cultures affect occupational therapy applicants’ emotional intelligence.

Conclusion

In this study we found that the revised EIAE has high interrater reliability, internal consistency, and convergent validity (when participants were separated by age). Although we found that this version of the EIAE was able to identify all of the students who exhibited professional behavior problems in our first-year class, the scale also identified three students as potentially problematic who did not exhibit professional behavior problems. As such, the EIAE should only be used as a screen to identify whether students may potentially exhibit professional behavior problems. Because some students may be able to modify their behaviors through exposure to academic and fieldwork experiences, and may respond well to advisement and counseling, identified students should be provided with guidance if and when problems arise. Students with high levels of perceived emotional intelligence, who are identified by the EIAE as potentially experiencing professional behavior problems, may be less responsive to counseling. Further research is warranted to better understand these findings and to determine if they can be replicated with larger sample sizes, cross-cultural samples, and with samples pursuing varying occupational therapy educational degree levels.

Key findings

The revised EIAE has strong convergent validity with the Schutte Scale in participants aged ≥26 years, and high reliability and internal consistency.

In our sample, the EIAE was able to identify the three students who actually exhibited professional behavior problems in the academic and fieldwork settings.

The EIAE also flagged three students who did not display such behaviors.

What the study has added

The EIAE can be used as a supplemental instrument, along with other criteria, in admission processes to identify students who may display unprofessional behaviors. EIAE scores may be best used to make applicant admission decisions when other information is insufficient or unclear.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Amanda Sarafian for her assistance in this work.

Research ethics

This study was approved by Columbia University Medical Center’s Institutional Review Board (2017, protocol no. AAAR4250). All participants provided informed written consent to take part in the study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Occupational Therapy Association (2014) AOTA Board of Directors position statement on entry-level degree for the occupational therapist. Available at: https://www.aota.org/AboutAOTA/Get-Involved/BOD/OTD-Statement.aspx (accessed 4 September 2017).

American Occupational Therapy Association (2015) Academic programs annual data report. Academic years 2014–2015. Available at: https://www.aota.org/∼/media/Corporate/Files/EducationCareers/Educators/2014-2015-Annual-Data-Report.pdf (accessed 5 July 2017).

Anthoine

Moret

Regnault

et al. (2014) Sample size used to validate a scale: A review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 12: 176.

Arora

Ashrafian

Davis

et al. (2010) Emotional intelligence in medicine: A systematic review through the context of the ACGME competencies. Medical Education 44(8): 749–764.

Austin

Evans

Goldwater

et al. (2005) A preliminary study of emotional intelligence, empathy and exam performance in first year medical students. Personality and Individual Differences 39(8): 1395–1405.

Bar-On

(1997) The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A Test of Emotional Intelligence, Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Bray

O’Brien

Kirton

et al. (2014) The role of professional education in developing compassionate practitioners: A mixed methods study exploring the perceptions of health professionals and pre-registration students. Nurse Education Today 34(3): 480–486.

Choi

Song

(2015) Effects of teaching communication skills using a video clip on a smart phone on communication competence and emotional intelligence in nursing students. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 29(2): 90–95.

Codier

Odell

(2014) Measured emotional intelligence ability and grade point average in nursing students. Nurse Education Today 34(4): 608–612.

10.

Codier

Kofoed

Peters

(2015) Graduate-entry non-nursing students: Is emotional intelligence the difference? Nursing Education Perspectives 36(1): 46–47.

11.

Di Fabio

Saklofske

(2014) Promoting individual resources: The challenge of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences 65: 19–23.

12.

Fernández-Berrocal

Cabello

Castillo

et al. (2012) Gender differences in emotional intelligence: The mediating effect of age. Behavioral Psychology – Psicología Conductual 20(1): 77–89.

13.

Fiori

Antonakis

(2011) The ability model of emotional intelligence: Searching for valid measures. Personality and Individual Differences 50(3): 329–334.

14.

Foster

McCloughen

Delgado

et al. (2015) Emotional intelligence education in pre-registration nursing programmes: An integrative review. Nurse Education Today 35(3): 510–517.

15.

Gutman

Falk-Kessler

(2016) Development and psychometric properties of the Emotional Intelligence Admission Essay Scale. Open Journal of Occupational Therapy 4(3): 6.

16.

Gutman

Falk-Kessler

Sarafian

et al. (in press) Emotional Intelligence Essay Scale: Comparison of essay vs interview formats. Annals of International Occupational Therapy.

17.

Jones-Schenk

Harper

(2014) Emotional intelligence: An admission criterion alternative to cumulative grade point averages for prelicensure students. Nurse Education Today 34(3): 413–420.

18.

Lebel

Beaulieu

(2011) Longitudinal development of human brain wiring continues from childhood into adulthood. Journal of Neuroscience 31(30): 10937–10947.

19.

Libbrecht

Lievens

Carette

et al. (2014) Emotional intelligence predicts success in medical school. Emotion 14(1): 64–73.

20.

Pérez-González

Sanchez-Ruiz

(2014) Trait emotional intelligence anchored within the big five, big two and big one frameworks. Personality and Individual Differences 65: 53–58.

21.

Portney

Watkins

(2015) Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice, 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

22.

Ranjbar

(2015) Emotional intelligence training: A necessity for nursing education curriculum. Nurse Education Today 35(11): 1053.

23.

Rankin

(2013) Emotional intelligence: Enhancing values‐based practice and compassionate care in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing 69(12): 2717–2725.

24.

Rees

Hawarden

Dent

et al. (2016) Evidence regarding the utility of Multiple Mini-Interview (MMI) for selection to undergraduate health programs: A BEME systematic review. BEME Guide No 37. Medical Teacher 38(5): 443–455.

25.

Salovey

Mayer

(1990) Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality 9(3): 185–211.

26.

Schutte

Malouff

Hall

et al. (1998) Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences 25(2): 167–177.

27.

Schutte

Malouff

Bhullar

(2009) The Assessing Emotions Scale. In: Stough

Saklofske

Parker

(eds) The assessment of Emotional Intelligence, New York: Springer, pp. 119–135.

28.

Shakir

Recor

Sheehan

et al. (2017) The need for incorporating emotional intelligence and mindfulness training in modern medical education. Postgraduate Medical Journal 93(1103): 509–511.

29.

Snowden

Stenhouse

Young

et al. (2015) The relationship between emotional intelligence, previous caring experience and mindfulness in student nurses and midwives: A cross sectional analysis. Nurse Education Today 35(1): 152–158.

30.

Takeuchi

Taki

Sassa

et al. (2011) Regional gray matter density associated with emotional intelligence: Evidence from voxel‐based morphometry. Human Brain Mapping 32(9): 1497–1510.

31.

Tsaousis

Kazi

(2013) Factorial invariance and latent mean differences of scores on trait emotional intelligence across gender and age. Personality and Individual Differences 54(2): 169–173.

32.

Uchino

Yanagawa

Weigand

et al. (2015) Focus on emotional intelligence in medical education: From problem awareness to system-based solutions. International Journal of Academic Medicine 1(1): 9.

33.

Van Rooy

Alonso

Viswesvaran

(2005) Group differences in emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications. Personality and Individual differences 38(3): 689–700.

34.

Victoroff

Boyatzis

(2013) What is the relationship between emotional intelligence and dental student clinical performance? Journal of Dental Education 77(4): 416–426.