|
Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale
Fateme Hadadian-Chaghaei1, Fariba Haghani2, Awat Feizi3, Fariba Taleghani4, Nasrollah Alimohammadi5
1 Student Research Committee, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan; Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty Nursing and Midwifery, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
2 Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
4 Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
5 Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| Date of Submission | 06-Dec-2020 |
| Date of Decision | 19-Jan-2021 |
| Date of Acceptance | 12-Feb-2021 |
| Date of Web Publication | 30-Sep-2021 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Nasrollah Alimohammadi
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Hezarjrb Ave., Isfahan
Iran
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jrms.JRMS_1250_20
Background: Increasing the level of emotional intelligence (EI) is seen as a strategy for improving both relational quality and efficiency at work. As of today, there was no validated Persian brief instrument for evaluating EI. To fill this gap, this article was aimed to investigate the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale (BEIS-10). Materials and Methods: A methodological cross-sectional study was conducted among 201 Persian-speaking individuals. These individuals were selected from different parts of Iran using the convenience sampling method. Translation of the BEIS-10 was conducted by employed forward–backward method. Internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's α, and for test–retest reliability, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was employed. The construct validity was investigated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: The Persian version of BEIS-10 indicates a good test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.612, 95% confidence interval: 0.384 and 0.769) as well as internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.748, ranging from 0.359 to 0.868 for different domains). The construct validity was evaluated by CFA and five factors from ten items were confirmed and all goodness-of-fit-indices were in acceptable levels. Conclusion: The article concludes that the Persian version of BEIS-10 in five factors from ten items was a reliable and valid instrument for measuring EI in the general population. As well, the article was suggesting that the Persian version of BEIS-10 may stand as a suitable alternative to time-consuming tools for EI measurement since this scale appears to be time-saving and applicable to Iranian society.
Keywords: Emotional intelligence, instrument development, psychometric, transcultural adaptation, validation
How to cite this article:
Hadadian-Chaghaei F, Haghani F, Feizi A, Taleghani F, Alimohammadi N. Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale. J Res Med Sci 2021;26:73 |
How to cite this URL:
Hadadian-Chaghaei F, Haghani F, Feizi A, Taleghani F, Alimohammadi N. Transcultural adaptation and validation of the Persian version of the Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale. J Res Med Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2023 Jun 1];26:73. Available from: https://www.jmsjournal.net/text.asp?2021/26/1/73/327208 |
| Introduction | |  |
As a multidimensional concept, emotional intelligence (EI)[1] is often employed to describe adaptive interpersonal and intrapersonal emotional functioning.[2] In this regard, the concept includes competency to control own emotions through self-awareness, improving own emotions through self-management, understanding the effects of own emotions on others through empathy, and boosting own and others' morale through effective management of interpersonal relationships.[3] Furthermore, EI is defined as the ability to recognize, express, understand, manage, and employ/use emotions.[4] In literature, EI is seen as a factor that has the potential to help people to improve their positive attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes.
A review of the literature in the field of EI revealed that EI plays an important role in health care and health-care education, and higher EI is strongly related to more compassionate and empathetic patient care, higher degree of knowledge and skills, and better teamwork and relationship[5] There is a general agreement that higher levels of EI are beneficial for health professionals include physicians.[6] There are different validity, reliability, and measurable tools to EI assessment.[7] Meanwhile, an important issue in developing valid EI measurements[8] is to understand the main theoretical models of EI;[9] these models are the ability model,[10] the competency model,[11] the adjective model,[12] and the hybrid model.[13] Determining the ideal procedure for EI measurement may stand as complicated and challenging. In this regard, it is surely fruitful to take a different method of measuring into consideration. In measuring EI, there are three suggested methods to employ; they are either (a) performance-oriented test (ability based), (b) self-report method (report on self), or (c) observational method (observation–rating) or 360° feedback.[14],[15] In Iran, inspired by these mentioned methods, there are approaches for measuring EI.[16],[17],[18] One of them is a Bar-On EI Questionnaire, consisting of five aspects, namely intrapersonal and interpersonal skills, stress control, adaptability, and general mood, as well as 15 subscales. The initial questionnaire contains 132 questions; however, in Iran, as a result of a modification process, the questionnaire is reduced to 90 questions. This questionnaire functions mainly as a “self-reporting questionnaire,” employed to measure EI.[13],[16] Another scale for measuring EI is Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT). The method is among other things, known as an intellectual ability test excitement for adults. This method is constituted of a questionnaire with 141 questions. However, as the case in the previous method, this method has also been subject to modification in Iran, resulting in a reduced questionnaire with 33 questions. MSCEIT provides 15 main scores constituted of a total EI score, two area scores, four branch scores including perceiving emotions, facilitating thought, understanding emotions, and managing emotions, and finally, eight task scores. In addition to these 15 scores, there are three supplemental scores.[19] The next scale for measuring EI is Cyberia-Shrink Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire. Once again, while the questionnaire in its original form contains 70 questions, it has been reduced to 33 questions. This questionnaire measures five components: self-awareness, self-control, self-motivation, social awareness, and social skills.[18] In addition, emotional competence inventory or Daniel Goleman's EI model that contains competencies of self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, social skills, and conflict management is discussed. It uses a 360°-feedback approach. This inventory was developed to assess the competence of EI and further emphasizes organizational performance.[20]
Finally, Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence (SSREI-33) test was developed by Schutte et al. in 1998 based on the theoretical model of Salovey and Meyer's EI questionnaire. It is used to measure adolescents' EI.[21] This scale has 33 items and is very popular due to its shortness comparing to other EI assessment tools.[22] This led to questions regarding the utility of SSRI-33 measure.[23] Austin et al. added eight items to the 33 main questions and created a 41-item corrected scale that obtained higher psychometric indicators.[7] The Persian version of this 41-item scale has been evaluated and used in Iran.[24]
Davies, et al., using theory-driven method, tested the validity and reliability of SSEIT with a brief version of its Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale (BEIS-10). They wanted to establish whether BEIS-10 could serve as a more valid and efficient measure. The most important benefit of BEIS-10 is short and quick to be filled out such that at just 10 items and within 1 to 2 min, one can capture EI quickly, while maintaining acceptable psychometric properties. BEIS-10 is particularly useful for collecting data in population groups and under conditions in which time is an issue.[23] Various studies have shown that there are challenges in using EI tools. On the other hand, along with the growing interest in EI in different groups of society, the construction and standardization of new and shorter EI scales is necessary.
Therefore, the current study aimed at developing the Persian version of the BEIS-10 according to the guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation and evaluating its psychometric properties (test–retest reliability, internal consistency and construct validity) to reach the equivalent at a semantic, conceptual, and content level with the original version.[25]
| Subjects and Methods | | |
This study is part of a PhD dissertation to perform criterion validity that was approved by the Bioethics Committee of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (Project Number: IR.MUI.RESEARCH.REC.1397.455 and Grant number 397672). Permission for cross-cultural adaptation was obtained from the BEIS and SSRIT developers.
Study design and participants
This cross-sectional study was conducted from February 2020 to May 2020 among 201 Iranian general population selected in different cities of Iran using a convenience sampling method. Eligible people from the general population were invited to participate in the study by electronic link through WhatsApp, Linkedin, and E-mail. Inclusion criteria for participating in this study were being able to speaking the Persian language, be at least 18 years old, and having at least a diploma degree (12 years of formal education). Those participants who did not answer the main questions (items of BEIS-10) were excluded. After explaining the objectives of the study on the first page of the scale and obtaining written consent to participate in the study, the participants were requested to fill out the BEIS-10. The sample size was determined in regard to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).[26] Singh et al. suggested that the N at least 200 is acceptable.[27]
The Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale
Researchers from the University of Wolverhampton, Walsall, UK, developed and validated a brief EI scale, called BEIS-10. It includes 10-items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), also includes five factors ranging from 2 to 10 and total score ranging 10–50.[23] This EI measurement scale is based on the SSREI[28] and the EI framework proposed by Salovey and Mayer.[29] In the UK population, the reliability of BEIS-10 was reported as an evidence of content validity, construct validity, and test–retest reliability. The test–retest reliability analysis of BEIS-10 was more moderate than expected for a stable construct. In addition, good construct validity was approved.[23]
Translation and cross-cultural adaptation
After obtaining permission from the initial developers (Devonport, Tracey) by E-mail to them, the “forward-backward” procedure was applied to translate the BEIS-10 from English into Persian (Iranian official language), according to the guidelines recommended by Beaton et al.[25] First, the original English instrument was translated into Persian by two professional translators, independently (forward translation). They were native Persian speakers but fluent in both the languages. Then, both of the translated versions with the original scale were compared by the current study's researchers and the mentioned translators to develop an acceptable forward translation. The Persian version of BEIS-10 was provided for translation into English by a bilingual translator who was blinded to the English version of that the original version. The researchers compared the translated English version with the original. Finally, necessary changes were made, and the provisional Persian version of BEIS-10 was provided. This prefinal Persian BEIS-10 was piloted by five experts in the EI field. They were asked to comment about the level of difficulty (difficulty in understanding items and words), the degree of relevancy (appropriateness and good relationship of items to the questionnaire) and ambiguity (possibility of misunderstanding items or not explaining the meaning of words), grammar, style of writing, the items and the ease of completing the scale (face validity). The translation quality, simplicity, and clarity of the questions were verified by the same five experts as mentioned above. Finally, adjustments were done by the researchers and were developed the Persian version of BEIS-10. The following changes were made in the process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation: we considered “I organize events so that others can enjoy” instead of “I arrange events others enjoy.” In addition, we considered “When other people are not feeling well, I help them feel better” instead of “I help other people feel better when they are down,” “In the face of obstacles, I help myself to keep my mood up” instead of “I use good moods to help myself keep trying in the face of obstacles,” and “I can't tell how people are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice” instead of “I can tell how people are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice” because we thought for assessment EI in our society, we need the negative item(s).
Statistical analysis
Data analysis, i.e. psychometric properties of the Persian version of BEIS-10, including reliability (test–retest reliability and internal consistency and floor and ceiling effect) and validity (content validity and construct validity) were evaluated by using IBM SPSS for Windows, Version 16.0. Chicago, SPSS Inc. SPSS Inc. Released 2008 statistics 16 and Amos Graphics16.
Reliability
We recruited 50 persons who completed the BIES-10 for evaluating internal consistency and test–retest reliability. They were asked to complete the BIES-10 at 2 separate days with a 14-day interval that 43 persons of them completed. The first round of collected data was used for evaluating internal consistency. Test–retest reliability was assessed separately for each item and total score of instrument. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) using two-way mixed model was used to evaluate the relative reliability for the total score of items. ICC ≥ 0.70 was considered as the evidence of excellent stability. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's α coefficient (>0.7: acceptable, >0.8: good, and > 0.9: excellent).[30] Furthermore, the floor and ceiling effects were investigated based on the relative frequency of samples that had the highest and lowest scores, the effect of ceiling and floor was judged, when the relative frequency was < 0.15, it was considered there was no ceiling and floor effect.[31]
Validity
We investigated two aspects of validity, including content validity (content validity ratio [CVR] and content validity index [CVI]), and construct validity was investigated by CFA.
Content validity
To calculate the CVR, the acceptable values of Lawshe table (for five-panel experts, 0.99) were used.[32],[33] In CVI calculations, a score above 0.79 is adequate, between 0.79 and 0.70 is questionable (the need for review), and < 0.70 is unacceptable and should be eliminated.[23],[33]
Construct validity
We conducted a CFA to investigate the five-factor structure of BEIS-10 with generalized least squares. The fit indices minimum value of the discrepancy function C divided by its degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF), root mean square error of approximation, parsimonious comparative fit index, root mean square residual, goodness-of-fit index, adjusted goodness-of-fit index, incremental fit index, Tucker–Lewis index, and comparative fit index were considered as acceptable model fitness.[34],[35] Furthermore, quantitative and qualitative variables were expressed as mean standard deviation and number (percent), respectively. Additional data about gender, age group, education level, marital status, and job status were also collected.
| Results | | |
Participants' characteristics
Two hundred and one samples were general population participated in this study, including 144 (71.6%) women and 57 (28.4%) men from 17 provinces. The majority of the participants (50.2%) were in the age group of under 30 years with mean 31.61 ± 8.214 years and in the age range of 18–60 years, married (61.7%), had a bachelor's degree (53.7%), and employed (56.2%) [Table 1].
Validity analysis
Content validity
The results of the CVR calculation showed that the value of this ratio for all items was 1, which is higher than the value recommended by the Lawshe Table (0.99). The calculated CVI was >0.79 in all items except for item 2. CVI was calculated for all items to be above 0.79 (except item 2), so it seemed necessary to remove this item from the BEIS-10; however, because of the high CVR value of Item 2, it was not removed either. The mean CVR and CVI value of the BEIS-10 was 1 and 0.89, respectively [Table 2]. | Table 2: Content validity ratio and content validity index values of the scale items
Click here to view |
Construct validity
Construct validity was evaluated by using CFA. To investigate the five-factor structure of BEIS-10, a CFA was performed based on Davies, et al.'s study[23] [Figure 1]. | Figure 1: The results of CFA on Persian version of BEIS-10. F1: Appraisal of own emotions. Q1: I know why my emotions change. Q2: I easily recognize my emotions as I experience them. F2: Regulation of own emotions. Q3: I seek out activities that make me happy. Q4: I have control over my emotions. F3: Appraisal of others' emotions. Q5: I can't tell how people are feeling by listening to the tone of their voice. Q6: By looking at their facial expressions, I recognize the emotions people are experiencing. F4: Regulation of others' emotions. Q7: I organize events so that others can enjoy. Q8: When other people are not feeling well, I help them feel better. F5: Utilization of emotions. Q9: When I am in a positive mood, I am able to come up with new ideas. Q10: In the face of obstacles, I help myself to keep my mood up
Click here to view |
The results obtained from the CFA indicated a constructed validated instrument based on goodness-of-fit indices [Table 3], also all items loaded significantly on their respective factors [Table 4].
Reliability analysis
Test–retest reliability
Test–retest reliability was evaluated by calculating the ICC statistics over a 2-week interval in a subsample of 43 people. The results are shown in [Table 5]. The ICC for the total score of BEIS-10 scale suggests strong test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.612, 95% confidence interval |: 0.384 and 0.769). All factors and all Items had an acceptable ICC value [Table 5]. | Table 5: Test- retest reliability and ceiling and floor effects of the Persian version of BEIS-10
Click here to view |
Internal consistency
The Cronbach's alpha method was used to investigate the internal consistency of the BEIS-10. The Cronbach's alpha of the total scale was 0.748 (α: 0.359–0.868) in a sample of 43 people, which was an acceptable value. Cronbach's alpha for the five extracted factors was as: “Appraisal of own emotions” (0.529), “Regulation of own emotions” (0.721), “Appraisal of others' emotions” (0.868), “Regulation of others' emotions” (0.661), and “Utilization of emotions” (0.359) of the scale.
Ceiling and floor effect
The total ceiling effect calculated for scale was 31.55%. For each item, the calculated ceiling effect was between 21.4% and 46.8%. It was means this scale had a ceiling effect. Furthermore, the total floor effect calculated for scale was 1.25% and the calculated floor effect for each item was between 0.5% and 5.5%, indicating no floor effect [Table 5].
| Discussion | | |
Due to the importance of the subject of EI, using the right tools to measure EI can helps people to know their level of EI. Knowing the level of EI can help planning to improve it. Planning to improve it can improve people's quality of life. Therefore, various scales have been proposed to measure EI, the Persian version of which is also available in Iran. The BEIS-10 scale is a valid and reliable brief scale for measuring EI, which is presented in this study for the first time in Iran with a Persian version. The findings of this study showed that the Persian version of this scale, in terms of validity and reliability, has the necessary features for use in Iranian society.
In the process of transcultural adaptation of this study, BEIS-10 was confirmed with the five factors and ten items, such as the main version[23] and the Canadian version.[36] These factors include appraisal of own emotions, regulation of own emotions, appraisal of others 'emotions, regulation of others' emotions, and utilization of emotions. Therefore, the information obtained from the use of this scale can lead to a comprehensive understanding and provide a person's EI. Similar to the current study in Canada, this scale was studied. In the present study, the ICC index, as a measure of test–retest reliability, for the total items of the BEIS-10 was 0.580, which is acceptable. Previously reported ICC for the total score of the Canadian version of BEIS-10 was 0.360.[36] Also in the current study, the Cronbach's alpha for the total score was 0.755, which was higher than the marginal Cronbach's alpha level of 0.64 in the main version in Davies study.[23] In this study, the psychometric properties (test–retest reliability, internal consistency, content validity, and construct validity) of the Persian version of BEIS-10 were evaluated. The results showed that it has good test–retest reliability and internal consistency. The test–retest reliability of all factors in the Persian version of the BEIS-10 was 0.294–0.591, which was superior to that reported for the Canadian version (0.19–0.46).[36] Except for the second factor, test–retest reliability of the Persian version of BEIS-10 was moderate to good. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.755 suggests acceptable internal consistency in our study; of course, in the Canadian version also it was reported 0.91.[36]
To the best of our knowledge, this scale, which is self-report and quick to complete, is the first brief fully validated scale to assess EI in Iran. Therefore, considering the availability of this relatively up-to-date, concise, and valid scale for the Iranian society, the following items are suggested: applying this tool in future research, carrying out studies in comparing this tool with other Persian EI tools in Iranian society, use of this scale by executive managers and supervisory experts in all departments and organizations in order to assess the current state of employees' EI, and perform interventions to improve EI based on the findings of using this scale.
However, the limitations of this study were that, if better conditions were provided, more comprehensive sampling could be performed to enhance the generalizability of results. Since this instrument has not been validated in other population, we are not able to compare our results with previous ones. The self-reported response from participants through electronic survey maybe has less reliability. Another limitation of this scale was the high ceiling effect. This may be due to the insufficient 5-point Likert for answering scale items, which in future studies, it is recommended to use 7- or 10-point Likert for answering each item. More studies with larger sample sizes are recommended.
| Conclusion | | |
The BEIS-10 is a reliable and valid scale in Iranian society that can be used in the general population at least aged 18 years and with a diploma degree. Its structure is consistent with Iranian culture, which is well illustrated by the reliability and validity obtained for it in this study. Its advantages over other translated and standardized scales in Iran are its higher accuracy and shorter response time. Using the Persian version of this scale with the necessary scientific features, comprehensive information about the level of EI in Iranian society can be provided for stakeholders.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Vice-Chancellery for Research and Technology in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences for their approval of the research. We also thank Nicola S. Schutte and Devonport, Tracey J, for their permission to perform this transcultural adaptation and Mr. Ebrahim Parvin for language editing and proof-reading of the paper.
Financial support and sponsorship
This study was financially supported by Vice-Chancellery for Research and Technology in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (No. 397672).
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Sony M, Mekoth N. The relationship between emotional intelligence, frontline employee adaptability, job satisfaction and job performance. J Retailing Consumer Serv 2016;30:20-32.  |
| 2. | St Amant K, Angeli EL. Contextualizing care in cultures: Perspectives on cross-cultural and international health and medical communication. Present Tense 2019;7:1-6. |
| 3. | Goleman D. Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building. In: Cherniss C, Goleman D, editors. The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2001. |
| 4. | Kotsou I, Mikolajczak M, Heeren A, Grégoire J, Leys C. Improving emotional intelligence: A systematic review of existing work and future challenges. Emotion Rev 2019;11:151-65. |
| 5. | Arora S, Ashrafian H, Davis R, Athanasiou T, Darzi A, Sevdalis N. Emotional intelligence in medicine: A systematic review through the context of the ACGME competencies. Med Educ 2010;44:749-64. |
| 6. | Imperato A, Strano-Paul L. Impact of reflection on empathy and emotional intelligence in third-year medical students. Acad Psychiatry 2021;45:350-3. |
| 7. | Austin EJ, Saklofske DH, Huang SH, McKenney D. Measurement of trait emotional intelligence: Testing and cross-validating a modified version of Schutte et al.'s (1998) measure. Personal Individual Diff 2004;36:555-62. |
| 8. | Brackett MA, Rivers SE, Salovey P. Emotional intelligence: Implications for personal, social, academic, and workplace success. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 2011;5:88-103. |
| 9. | Kaimal G, Carroll-Haskins K, Mensinger JL, Dieterich-Hartwell RM, Manders E, Levin WP. Outcomes of art therapy and coloring for professional and informal caregivers of patients in a radiation oncology unit: A mixed methods pilot study. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2019;42:153-61. |
| 10. | Mayer JD, Caruso DR, Salovey P. The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Rev 2016;8:290-300. |
| 11. | Goleman D, McKee A, George B, Ibarra H. HBR Emotional Intelligence Boxed Set (6 Books)(HBR Emotional Intelligence Series). Harvard: Harvard Business Press; 2018. |
| 12. | Petrides KV, Furnham A. Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. Eur J Personal 2001;15:425-48. |
| 13. | Bar-On R. The Bar-On model of emotional-social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema 2006;18:13-25. |
| 14. | Palmer B. Emotional intelligence in the workplace: An introduction. Organ People 2007;14:2. |
| 15. | |
| 16. | Dehshiri R. The Reliability and Validity of EQ-I in Iran's Context. Tehran, Iran: Allame Tabataba'i University; 2003. |
| 17. | Yousefi F. Reliability and validity of a measure of emotional intelligence in an Iranian sample. Psychol Rep 2006;98:541-8. |
| 18. | Moslehi M, Samouei R, Tayebani T, Kolahduz S. A study of the academic performance of medical students in the comprehensive examination of the basic sciences according to the indices of emotional intelligence and educational status. J Educ Health Promot 2015;4:66. |
| 19. | Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR, Sitarenios G. Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion 2003;3:97-105. |
| 20. | Goleman D. The first component of emotional intelligence. In: Goleman D, McKee A, George B, Ibarra H, editors. Emotional Intelligence Self Awareness HBR Emotional Intelligence Series. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press; 2018. p. 1-10. |
| 21. | Schutte NS, Malouff JM, Bhullar N. The assessing emotions scale. In: Assessing Emotional Intelligence. New York: Springer; 2009. p. 119-34. |
| 22. | Shi J, Wang L. Validation of emotional intelligence scale in Chinese university students. Pers Individ Diff 2007;43:377-87. |
| 23. | Davies KA, Lane AM, Devonport TJ, Scott JA. Validity and reliability of a brief emotional intelligence scale (BEIS-10). J Individ Diff 2010;31:198-208. |
| 24. | Besharat MA. Psychometric properties of Farsi version of the Emotional Intelligence Scale-41 (FEIS-41). Pers Individ Diff 2007;43:991-1000. |
| 25. | Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:3186-91. |
| 26. | Kyriazos TA. Applied psychometrics: Sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology 2018;9:2207. |
| 27. | Singh K, Junnarkar M, Kaur J. Measures of Positive Psychology: Development and Validation. New Delhi: Springer Nature; 2016. |
| 28. | Schutte N, Malouff J, Hall L, Haggerty D, Cooper J, Golden C, et al. Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personal Individ Diff 1998;25:167-77. |
| 29. | Salovey P, Mayer JD. Emotional intelligence. Imagin Cogn Pers 1990;9:185-211. |
| 30. | Rey E, Carballo-Fazanes A, Varela-Casal C, Abelairas-Gómez C, ALFA-MOV Project collaborators. Reliability of the test of gross motor development: A systematic review. PLoS One 2020;15:e0236070. |
| 31. | Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007;60:34-42. |
| 32. | Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Personnel Psychol 1975;28:563-75. |
| 33. | Waltz CF, Strickland OL, Lenz ER. Measurement in Nursing and Health Research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2010. |
| 34. | Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 1980;88:588. |
| 35. | Tinsley HE, Brown SD. Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling. San Diego,CA: Academic Press; 2000. |
| 36. | Balakrishnan A, Saklofske DH. Be mindful how you measure: A psychometric investigation of the Brief Emotional Intelligence Scale. Personal Individ Diff 2015;87:293-7. |
[Figure 1]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]
|
Search Pubmed for