Evaluation and Program Planning 58 (2016) 152–159

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evaluation and Program Planning

jo urnal homep age: ww w .e l s e v ie r .c o m /l o cat e/e valprogp lan

Psychometric properties of WLEIS as a measure of emotional

intelligence in the Portuguese and Spanish medical students
Vânia Sofia Carvalhoa,*, Eloísa Guerrerob, Maria José Chambela, Pablo González-Ricob
a
Faculty of Psychology, University of Lisbon, Portugal
b
Faculty of Education, University of Extremadura, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 20 August 2015 The psychometric properties of Wong and Law’s (2002) Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) were
Received in revised form 29 March 2016 analyzed. Participants were 954 medical students: 481 from the University of Extremadura (Spain) and
Accepted 3 June 2016 473 from the University of Lisbon (Portugal). Following Messicks’ validation framework, we analyzed the
Available online 16 June 2016 scale’s response process, internal structure and relationship with other variables (i.e., engagement).
Descriptive statistics, scale reliability, item characteristics, and exploratory and confirmatory analyses
Keywords: supported the distribution of the sixteen items across four factors. Convergent validity analyzed through
Emotional Intelligence Scale the rvc (h) index showed that all the factors were in the 50% criterion. The factors shared, on average, 23%
Measure
of the variance showing adequate discriminant validity. Furthermore, the correlations among EI
Psychometric properties engagement
dimensions and engagement were all positive and significant. Overall, the WLEIS demonstrated good
Medical students
psychometric properties. Thus, this study ensures that WLEIS is a valid instrument in Portugal and Spain
to evaluate EI in medical students.
ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Emotional Intelligence (EI) has been considered an emergent
topic in different fields (Wong & Law, 2002). Remarkably, several
studies have demonstrated how EI is positively associated with
well-being (self-acceptance, life satisfaction, somatic complaints
and self-esteem) and with optimal functioning (Carmeli, Yitzhak-
Halevy, & Weisberg, 2009; Costa, Petrides & Tillmann, 2014; Ryan &
Deci, 2001). On the other hand other studies have recognized that
EI is an important skill in patient care (Neumann et al., 2011; Taylor,
Farver, & Stoller, 2011) and there have been recent calls for further
EI research in medicine (i.e., Cherry, Fletcher, O’Sullivan, & Dornan,
2014). In fact, it may be considered that underpins the six core
competencies for medicine, namely patient-care, professionalism,
system-based practice, interpersonal and communication skills,
medical knowledge and practice-based learning and improvement
(Arora et al., 2010). Higher EI levels contribute positively to the
doctor-patient relationship, to increase empathy, teamwork and
communication skills, to stress management and organizational
commitment and leadership. Thus, the modern medical curricu-
lum requires the development of EI (Arora et al., 2010; Taylor et al.,
* Corresponding author at: Alameda da Universidade, 1649-013 Lisboa, Portugal.
E-mail address: vscarvalho@psicologia.ulisboa.pt (V.S. Carvalho).
2011) and efforts have been made to include EI measures in the
selection process of medical applicants (Carrothers, Gregory, &
Gallagher, 2000). Different studies have confirmed the relevance of
EI in medicine. For example, Arora et al. (2011) showed that EI was
crucial for the recovery of medical students from situations that
had triggered high stress. Smith et al. (2012), in a study examining
the relationship between EI and worry at different stages of a
cancer diagnosis, concluded that low EI is predictive of increased
worry levels in the early stages of the cancer diagnosis. Pau,
Croucher, Sohanpal, Muirhead, and Seymour (2004) showed that EI
was very important to develop a good doctor-patient relationship
and to read and manage emotions or traumatic experiences.
Additionally, Elam highlighted that EI was imperative to establish
positive relationships among members of the healthcare team
(Elam, 2000).
EI has been conceptualized in two streams: the mixed-trait
ability and the ability model (Goldenberg, Matheson, & Mantler,
2006). Mixed-trait ability incorporates a wide range of personality
characteristics and other traits to describe EI (Bar-On, 2001;
Goleman, 1995, 1998; Petrides & Furnham, 2001). This stream is
criticized mainly for not embodying any conceptualization of
emotion and for incorporating multiple aspects of personality (e.g.,
optimism, motivation, and capacity to engage in relationships)
without establishing a relationship with emotion and intelligence
(Goldenberg et al., 2006; Matthews, Roberts, & Zeidner, 2004).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.06.006
0149-7189/ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 V.S. Carvalho et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 58 (2016) 152–159
In the ability model, the most influential authors are Salovey &
Mayer (1990, p.189) who describe EI as “the subset of social
intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and
others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to
use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions”. In short,
this framework makes it possible to pinpoint the specific skills
required to understand and experience emotions most adaptively
(Salovey and Mayer, 1990). At this level, EI is described in three
domains: 1) the accurate appraisal and expression of emotion (in
self and in other people); 2) the adaptive regulation of emotion (in
self and in other people) and (3) the utilization of emotions to plan
and motivate action (Salovey, Hsee, & Mayer, 1993). Despite broad
acceptance of Salovey and Mayer’s framework (Goldenberg et al.,
2006), there is no consensus as to how it can be assessed (Conte,
2005; Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998). In fact, performance-
based measures and self-reported measures may be distinguished
(Goldenberg et al., 2006). The first considers that EI should be
evaluated through problem- solving in order to evaluate whether
the answer is correct, i.e. indicative of high EI. The second considers
that EI should be measured by asking people about their own level
of EI. In the performance-based measures approach, two measures
developed in an intelligence testing tradition have gained
prominence: the Multifacet Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS)
(Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1997) and the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso
Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
1999). The MEIS includes more than 402 items and takes 1–2 h to
complete (Wong & Law, 2002) and has different methods to
identify correct answers (i.e., target scoring, consensus scoring,
and expert scoring). As this scale presented low reliability and
some problems with scoring procedures, the authors developed
the MSCEIT (Conte, 2005). The MSCEIT consists of 141 items and
takes 30–45 min to complete. Nevertheless, as also in the case of
the MEIS, there is a pool of critics against this measure: there is no
consensus among experts in the evaluation of response; the length
of time to administer the test; the high costs of their application
(Conte, 2005; Goldenberg et al., 2006).
Among the self-reported measures, we can distinguish the Self-
Reported Emotional Intelligence Scale (SREIS; Schutte et al., 1998)
and the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS; Wong
& Law, 2002). The SREIS (Schutte et al., 1998) has 33 items and is
represented in a one factor-solution. The WLEIS (Wong & Law,
2002) contains sixteen items with a four-factor solution distribut-
ed across four dimensions: Self Emotion Appraisals (SEA)—Ability
to understand deep emotions and to express these emotions
naturally; Others’ Emotion Appraisals (OEA)—Ability to perceive
and understand the emotions of others; Regulation of Emotion
(ROE)—Ability to self-regulate emotions, which will enable a more
rapid recovery from psychological distress; Use of Emotion
(UOE)—Individuals’ ability to make use of their emotions by
directing them towards constructive activities and personal
performance.
Compared to performance-based EI measures, the self-reported
measures have received more psychometric support and are also
simpler to administer. On the other hand, considering self-
reported measures, the WLEIS it is shorter and has a four-factor
structure that seems to be more reliable to represent the Salovey
and Mayer (1990) EI framework. Thus, our purpose was to evaluate
the psychometric properties of the WLEIS in a field that calls for
more studies in EI (Cherry et al., 2014), that is, the medical
students’ context in two countries, Portugal and Spain.
The WLEIS had already presented adequate psychometric
evidence in previous studies. For example, BitmiŞ and Ergeneli
(2013) investigated the construct validity of the WLEIS with a
sample of nurses in Turkey and confirmed the validity of the scale.
Libbrecht, Beuckelaer, Lievens, and Rockstuhl (2014) concluded
that the WLEIS is invariant across a sample of populations in
153
Singapore and Belgium. Moreover, Shi and Wang (2007) validated
the use of the WLEIS with Chinese university students. Hence, we
believe that it might also be suitable to analyze the WLEIS in the
context of Portuguese and Spanish medical students. This study,
therefore, sets out to analyze the WLEIS psychometric properties in
these two languages, which are broadly spoken in different
countries with a very large number of people worldwide. It should
be noted that previous research conducted in Portugal and in Spain
proved that the WLEIS is reliable for the Portuguese and Spanish
context (Fernández-Berrocal, Pérez, Repetto, & Extremera, 2004;
Rodrigues, Rebelo, & Coelho, 2011). Hence, these studies were
considered in our translation procedure.
In order to conduct this study, we set out to use the Messicks’
validation framework (Messick, 1995), which looks for multiple
sources of evidence. More specifically, we followed the steps of the
response process, internal structure and relationship to other
variables.
To accomplish the step ‘relationship with other variables’, we
decided to test the relationship of medical students’ EI with their
engagement. Engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-
related state of mind (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, &
Bakker, 2002), implying a high level of energy and involvement
with work and is dependent on the resources (Demerouti, Bakker,
De Jonge, Janssen, & Schaufeli 2001; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). In
fact, researchers have explored a large number of potential causes
of engagement and, according to the meta-analysis performed by
Halbesleben, Bakker, and Leiter (2010), all the studies suggest that
resources should increase work engagement. As a result, EI may be
related to work engagement as this personal resource may
facilitate motivation and involvement with work. Vigor, dedication
and absorption are considered to be the dimensions that
characterize engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Vigor is
translated as high levels of energy and mental resistance as well as
the desire and capacity to invest effort in work. Dedication is a
feeling of relevance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge
geared towards work. Absorption is a sense of being fully
concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, so that time
passes quickly and detaching oneself from work may seem
difficult. Despite engagement being originally presented to include
these three dimensions, recent empirical studies have shown that
vigor and dedication are its core dimensions (Llorens, Bakker,
Schaufeli, & Salanova, 2007). Therefore, engagement was mea-
sured using only these two dimensions. Students’ engagement is
considered to represent a likely antidote to a decline of academic
motivation and achievement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris,
2004). Moreover, a study reported that engaged physicians tended
to have greater choice and independence at work, a profound
approach to work, a more supportive work environment, were
more extroverted and more conscientious, and, finally, reported
higher self-esteem (McManus, Jonvik, Richards, & Paice, 2011).
Thus, it is important to ascertain whether EI is a crucial variable in
the prediction of engagement in medical students.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
In 2014, we recruited first to sixth year undergraduate medical
students from the Faculty of Medicine, University of Extremadura,
Spain, and the University of Lisbon, Portugal. It should be noted
that students in their fifth and sixth years have practical clinical
experience. The students from the University of Extremadura
consisted of 481 students (314 female = 65.3%; 167 male = 34.7%;
83 first year = 17.3%; 98 s year = 20.4%; 57 third year = 11.9%; 88
fourth year = 18.3%; 65 fifth year = 13.5%; 90 sixth year = 18.7%,
mean age = 21.3 years). The students from the University of Lisbon
154 V.S. Carvalho et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 58 (2016) 152–159
consisted of 473 students (331 female = 70%; 142 male = 30%; 65
first year = 13.7%; 85 s year = 18%; 101 third year = 21.4%; 104 fourth
year = 22%; 102 fifth year = 21.6%; 16 sixth year = 3.4%; mean
age = 21.2 years). The Faculty’s local ethics committee granted
ethical approval for this study.
2.2. Response process
We encouraged all the students who met the inclusion criteria
to report their comprehension and availability for the purpose of
this study. Participation was voluntary, anonymous and did not
involve any compensation. From a population of 1657 medical
students, 1003 questionnaires (60.5%) were collected. Given the
robust sample size, we chose to exclude from our analyses 49
questionnaires that lacked complete data. Thus, our final sample
consisted of 954 (57.6%) questionnaires. Of these, 481 (50.4%) were
questionnaires answered by Spanish medical students and 473
(49.5%) were questionnaires answered by Portuguese medical
students. The questionnaires were administered in paper format at
the beginning of a class with the approval of the teacher.
Instructions were written on the questionnaire and we also
explained orally to the students that the questionnaire was related
to various aspects of their student life and the way they felt on a
day-to-day basis. Additionally, we also explained that the
questionnaire was not a test, and so there would be no right or
wrong answers. It should also be noted that the students in both
universities are familiar with this type of questionnaire and they
were also informed that they would have the opportunity to
receive feedback of the overall results. The questionnaire took
around 10 min to complete.
2.3. Measures
EI was measured with the Wong and Law Emotional Intelli-
gence Scale (Wong & Law, 2002) containing 16 items and four sub-
scales, with four items: Self Emotion Appraisals (SEA), Others’
Emotion Appraisals (OEA), Regulation of Emotion (ROE), and Use of
Emotion (UOE). The survey questions for each of the four
dimensions, shown in Table 2, were randomly included throughout
the questionnaire to avoid response bias. The response format of
the WLEIS is a 7-point Likert-type scale (0 = totally disagree;
6 = totally agree). We followed the Brislin’s (1980) translation-back
translation procedure to analyze the previous WLEIS translations
and verified that the Portuguese version had undergone minor
alterations (Rodrigues et al., 2011) while the Spanish version
remained similar (Fernández-Berrocal et al., 2004). Additionally,
Students from both universities had previously read the question-
naire and confirmed the clarity and familiarity of all items.
Engagement was measured with the Utrecht Work Engagement
Scale for Students (UWES-S). We used a version of the validated
student short form of engagement developed by Schaufeli,
Martínez, Marques-Pinto, Salanova, & Bakker (2002). This ques-
tionnaire included the dimensions of: vigor (3 items; e.g., “When
studying I feel strong and vigorous”) and dedication (2 items; e.g.,
“I am enthusiastic about my studies”). The response format of the
UWES-S is a 6-point Likert-type scale (1 = never; 6 = every day). We
used the translated versions provided by Schaufeli on his website
(Schaufeli, online).
2.4. Statistical analyses
The response process is the evidence of data integrity so that all
sources of error associated with the test administration are
controlled or eliminated to the maximum extent possible (Down-
ing, 2003).
The internal structure is the examination of the psychometric
characteristics of the questionnaire. This step includes the
examination of descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, median, standard
deviation and variance), item characteristics (i.e., item difficulty
and item discrimination) and the score reliability. We also
performed an exploratory factor analysis followed by a confirma-
tory factor analysis. In order to accomplish these analyses we
randomly split the data on SPSS. Thus, we applied an exploratory
factor analysis to 50% of the sample, randomly selected, and also a
confirmatory analysis to a further 50% of the sample that was also
randomly selected. The exploratory factor analysis was calculated
using SPSS version 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). A principal
components analysis (PCA) was conducted for the extraction of the
factor with orthogonal rotation whenever two or more factors
emerged. In order to conduct the confirmatory factor analysis, we
used AMOS version 19.0 program (Amos, Chicago, IL, USA). Five
competing models were created to examine whether all the
constructs were better represented by one factor model or by the
four research-factors model, as recommended in the literature. The
overall goodness of fit was based on the combination of several fit
indexes. The models were compared based on chi-square
difference tests and other fit indexes: the standardized root mean
square (SRMR), the Bentler comparative fit index (CFI), the Tuckler
Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA). Levels of 0.90 or higher for TLI and CFI and levels of 0.06
or lower for RMSEA, combined with levels of 0.08 or lower for
SRMR, indicated that the models fit the data reasonably well
(Arbuckle, 2003). We also examined the convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of the theoretical model (Model 1) using three
procedures. First, we used a stringent procedure outlined by
Fornell & Larcker (1981) and recommended by Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff (2003). Second, as suggested by
Byrne (2007) we performed a multiple group analysis with the
total sample (N = 954), to inspect the invariance across both
samples (baseline model). The fit of this model was subsequently
compared to an alternative model (fully constrained model), in
which we constrained all coefficient paths to be equal in both
samples. Finally, we performed a series of increasingly more
restrictive tests, where the chi-squared value of the various models
with constrained parameters was compared with the baseline
model to inspect the location of non-variance. Where the
difference between the chi-squared values was non-significant,
we included this constraint successively in the next model until we
reached a final model.
Finally, the relationship with other variables was analyzed
through the correlation between a newer measure and a measure
that is well known (Schaufeli, Salanova et al., 2002). Thus we
analyzed the correlation coefficient values between the WLEIS
dimensions and engagement. Below, we present the results
following the described steps.
3. Results
3.1. Internal structure
Correlations, means and standard deviations are presented in
Table 1. Concerning item characteristics, we observed through the
item response percentage that medical students used all points of
the Likert-type scale (Table 2). Moreover, the total item-correlation
indicated that all 16 items have good discriminant power since all
of them presented values above 0.30. In fact, the item with most
power was item 16 (“I have good control of my own emotions”) and
the item with least power was item 7 (“I am sensitive to the
feelings and emotions of others”). The WLEIS presented good
internal-consistency reliability for the four sub-scales since the
Cronbach’s alpha was higher than 0.81 (SEA = 0.83; OEA = 0.82;
 V.S. Carvalho et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 58 (2016) 152–159 155

Table 1 5.57, 2.25, 1.72 and 1.48, respectively. Together, they explained
Means, standard deviations and correlations between EI and engagement for the
68.87% of the variance. All the factors had four items that
total sample.a
corresponded to each type of EI (Table 2).
Mean (SD) Cronbach’s r Sample Confirmatory factor analysis supported the model with four
alpha factors (i.e., SEA, OEA, ROE, and UOE) that corresponded to our
1 2 3 4 5
theoretical model (Model 1) showing a good fit (Table 4). Other
1. SEA 4.6 (0.92) 0.83
models showed a significantly lower fit in the Single Factor Model
2. 4.5 (0.93) 0.82 0.35**b
OEA (Model 2) in which all items loaded on a single latent variable, as
3. ROE 4.5 (1.04) 0.85 0.36** 0.16** well as on other alternative tested models. Thus, the theoretical
4. 3.9 (1.07) 0.89 0.41** 0.23** 0.37** model was the one that showed the best fit. In Fig. 1 we present the
UOE factor loadings and we can see that no error variance was
5. VIG 3.28 (1.07) 0.77 0.20** 0.17** 0.31** 0.23** correlated.
6. 4.51 (1.07) 0.72 0.25** 0.20** 0.41** 0.17** 0.54**
DED In terms of convergent validity, we computed the rvc(h) index,
which denotes the proportion of variance in the items explained by
EI: Emotional Intelligence; SEA: self-emotion appraisal; OEA: others’ emotion
appraisal; ROE: regulation of emotion; UOE: use of emotion; VIG: vigor; DED:
the underlying factor. The rvc(h) values of SEA (rvc(h) = 43%), OEA
dedication. (rvc(h) = 48%), UOE (rvc(h) = 30%), and ROE (rvc(h) = 45%) were
a
The 954 students from first-year to the sixth-year responded to Wong and Law below the 50% criterion reported by Fornell & Larcker (1981).
Emotional Intelligence Scale at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Extremadura, In terms of discriminant validity, the four factors shared, on
Spain and University of Lisbon, Portugal.
b average, 23% of the variance (range 13% to 31%). Additionally, the
**P < 0.01.
variance shared among the other alternative models studied was
always less than the variance in items explained by each of the four
ROE = 0.85; UOE = 0.89). The Cronbach’s alpha for engagement was factors of the theoretical model, satisfying the discriminant
also adequate: vigor = 0.77 and dedication = 0.72. validity criterion reported by Fornell & Larcker (1981).
We then performed an exploratory factor analysis (Table 3). In Table 5 shows the results of the multiple group analysis. The
order to decide whether or not to perform an orthogonal rotation baseline model (N = 954) showed an acceptable fit. Subsequently,
or an oblique rotation, we followed the recommendations of we performed the full constrained model. Compared with the
Tabachnick & Fidell (2007). Thus, we first performed an oblique baseline model, the difference between the chi-squared values was
rotation (i.e. direct oblimin) in order to verify whether there were significant. We compared the baseline model with several
correlations around 0.32 and above among factors. As correlations alternative models, which differed in number and type of
were below 0.32 the solution remained orthogonal. Hence, we parameters that were assumed to be invariants. When we
performed a varimax rotation. compared the baseline model with the measurement model
Multiple criteria for determining the number of factors to retain invariant (factor loadings), we found that the difference between
were used including eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and explained the Portuguese and Spanish samples was significant. However, we
variance of over 60% (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986; Kim & Mueller, also found that the main difference between the two samples was
1978; Stevens, 1992). Furthermore, we attempted to retain only in item 6 (“I am a good observer of others’ emotions”) that presents
items that loaded at 0.50 or higher on the intended factor and less a factor loading of 0.90 in the Portuguese sample and a factor
than 0.30 on all other factors. The measure resulted in four factors loading of 0.52 in the Spanish sample. In contrast, the smallest
composed of 16 items. The eigenvalues for the four factors were difference between the two samples was in item 13 (“I am able to

Table 2
Univariate statistics for WLEIS items.

Items Percentage of responses Item total-correlation

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Self-emotion appraisal (SEA)

1. I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time. 2 1.1 1.5 10 18.3 43 25.8 0.46
2. I have good understanding of my own emotions. 0.1 0.7 2.5 10.7 21.1 42.6 22.2 0.59
3. I really understand what I feel. 0.2 0.9 3.6 14.4 26.5 35.9 18.5 0.60
4. I always know whether or not I am happy. 0.5 1.2 4.1 16.1 21.5 31 25.7 0.51

Others’ emotion appraisal (OEA)

5. I always know my friends’ emotions from their behavior. 0.2 0.9 4.3 20.6 32.5 32.8 8.6 0.43
6. I am a good observer of others’ emotions. 0.2 1 3.4 14.3 26.8 36.2 18 0.46
7. I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others. 0.3 1.1 2.4 10 23.1 36.1 27 0.31
8. I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me. 0.1 0.8 1.8 13.8 31.3 38.7 13.5 0.50

Use of emotion (UOE)

9. I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them. 0.3 0.6 2.3 10.2 15.1 34.3 37.1 0.40
10. I always tell myself I am a competent person. 0.8 2.0 8.1 22.9 22.1 28 16.1 0.49
11. I am a self-motivated person. 0.9 1.9 6.1 15.3 21.5 31.6 22.7 0.55
12. I would always encourage myself to try my best. 0.3 1.3 3.2 11.2 21.3 34.7 28 0.49

Regulation of emotion (ROE)

13. I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally. 0.5 1.1 5.9 19.1 29 31.3 13 0.57
14. I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions. 0.6 2.3 9.5 21.5 31.7 25.7 8.8 0.60
15. I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry. 1.8 4 12.9 26.8 26.5 20.1 7.9 0.51
16. I have good control of my own emotions. 3 2.3 8.8 22.9 31.7 25.4 8.6 0.64
156 V.S. Carvalho et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 58 (2016) 152–159

Table 3
Exploratory factorial analysis.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Self-emotion appraisal (SEA)

1. I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time. 0.80
2. I have good understanding of my own emotions. 0.87
3. I really understand what I feel. 0.80
4. I always know whether or not I am happy. 0.56

Others’ emotion appraisal (OEA)

5. I always know my friends’ emotions from their behavior. 0.79
6. I am a good observer of others’ emotions. 0.85
7. I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others. 0.68
8. I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me. 0.80

Use of emotion (UOE)

9. I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them. 0.72
10. I always tell myself I am a competent person. 0.80
11. I am a self-motivated person. 0.84
12. I would always encourage myself to try my best. 0.81

Regulation of emotion (ROE)

13. I am able to control my temper and handle difficulties rationally. 0.78
14. I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions. 0.81
15. I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry. 0.84
16. I have good control of my own emotions. 0.86

% Variance Explained 34.8% 14% 10.7% 9.2%

Note: To perform the exploratory analysis we used the random sample of cases in SPSS and we analyzed approximately 50% of all cases, n = 477.

Table 4
Structural equation models’ results for the WLEIS.a

Models Chi-square df p Delta chi-square SRMR CFI TLI RMSEA

1 312.01 98 0.00 0.05 0.95 0.93 0.07

2 2033.62 104 0.00 Compare to model 1 0.14 0.50 0.43 0.19
D Chi- square = 1721.61**[1]; df = 6
3 1494.18 103 0.00 Compare to model 1 0.13 0.64 0.58 0.16
D Chi- square = 1 182.17**; df = 5
4 1588.58 103 0.00 Compare to model 1 0.14 0.62 0.55 0.17
D Chi- square = 1 276.57**; df = 5
5 1736.92 103 0.00 Compare to model 1 0.16 0.58 0.51 0.18
D Chi- square = 1 424.91**; df = 5
Note: We used the sample of participants that were not selected for Exploratory Factor Analyze (N = 504).
a
Model 1: Theoretical model; Model 2: One latent factor model (with all 16 items grouped in one latent variable); Model 3: Two latent factors model (first latent
variable = self-emotion appraisal + others’ emotion appraisal; second latent variable = use of emotion + regulation of emotion); Model 4: Two latent factors model (first latent
variable = self-emotion appraisal + regulation of emotion; second latent variable = others’ emotion appraisal + use of emotion); Model 5: Two latent factors model (first latent
variable = self-emotion appraisal + use of emotion; second latent variable = others’ emotion appraisal + regulation of emotion); df: degree of freedom; SRMR: Standardized
root mean square; CFI: Bentler comparative fit index; TLI: Tuckler Lewis index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation.

control my temper and handle difficulties rationally”) that
presented a factor loading of 0.77 in both samples. The factor
loadings range from 0.54 to 0.92 in the Portuguese sample and the
factor loading variance ranges from 0.52 and 0.90 in the Spanish
sample. Thus, despite the significant difference between samples,
we also found that this variance was mostly restricted to one
specific item. Finally, we performed subsequent iterative tests to
inspect the location of invariance across the samples. These tests,
which led us to a final model, were performed by adding one
constraint in a specific path. If a non-significant difference in the
Chi-squared value resulted from the comparison between the
baseline model and this new model, then support was provided for
the invariance across the two samples in this specific constrained
path. Then, we proceeded to test the variance in another specific
path until we attained a final model. The final model exhibited an
acceptable fit (x2 (192) = 454.1, p < 0.001, SRMR = 0.05; CFI = 0.97;
TLI =0.96; RMSEA =0.04), non-significantly better than the baseline
model Dc2 = 3.5 n.s.; df = 2 (Table 5).
3.2. Relationship with other variables
Table 1 presents the differential relationships between
engagement (vigor and dedication) and the four dimensions of
EI examined. As expected, we found that the different dimen-
sions of EI were positively and significantly related to dimensions
of engagement; the correlations ranged from 0.17 to 0.41
(p < 0.01).
Additionally, ANOVAs were performed to verify the possible
differences between male and females’ responses and the year of
training regarding EI dimensions. Only the dimensions of OEA and
UOE were different among males and females. More specifically,
females presented 4.52 and males 4.33 as the mean in OEA
(F = 4.85; p< 0.01) and females presented 3.81 and males 4.17 in
UOE (F = 11.80; p< 0.00). Thus, females perceived and understood
the emotions of others easily while males perceived their ability to
make use of their emotions by directing them towards constructive
activities and personal performance. As regards the EI differences
157 V.S. Carvalho et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 58 (2016) 152–159

instance, BitmiŞ & Ergeneli (2014) reassessed the construct validity

EI1
.54 of the WLEIS and found that the scale presented adequate
SEA EI2 consistency (e.g., from 0.81 to 0.89). We also found support for
EI3 the convergent and discriminant validity of the four factors that
EI4 was needed to support the self-reported measures approach
.24
(Conte, 2005). Thus, this inventory seems to have a stable
EI5
.66 structure. Furthermore, this study examined the invariance of
OEA EI6 the WLEIS across two samples of medical students: Spanish and
EI7 Portuguese. More specifically, we found that the WLEIS items
.30
.18 .09 EI8 seemed to be invariant across samples.
The results also showed that the four dimensions of the WLEIS
EI9
.39 are related to two dimensions of Engagement: dedication and
ROE EI10 vigor. With regard to this correlation, it is also important to note
.21
EI11 the shared variance between the four sub-scales of the WLEIS and
EI12 the two sub-scales of engagement ranging from 0.16 (Vigor and
.23 OEA) to 0.43 (Dedication and ROE). The reason for this relatively
.69 EI13
small shared variance could be related to the fact that organiza-
UOE EI14 tional resources – work, team and organizational characteristics –
EI15 are determinant predictors of engagement (Bakker & Demerouti,
EI16 2007). In a specific study with students, Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, &
Barch (2004) observed that engagement was enhanced by
Fig. 1. Parameter estimates of the CFA.
increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Furthermore, Hijzen,
Boekaerts, & Vedder (2006) also pointed out that engagement
cannot be understood separately from the organizational resour-
among the years of training, the results did not provide significant ces, namely task, teacher, and group characteristics. Since EI is a
differences. personal resource, it was not expected to be so highly correlated
with engagement dimensions. However, some authors of the JD-R
4. Discussion model have recognized the need to expand the model by including
personal resources (Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli,
The present study has demonstrated that the WLEIS (Wong & 2007). Hence, future studies should analyze the additive effects or
Law, 2002) is a valid instrument to apply to Portuguese and moderating effects between students’ EI and organizational
Spanish medical students. Through the response process, WLEIS resources in order to explain students’ engagement.
items proved to be correctly understood by students. The internal The results of this study revealed that females have higher EI
structure was analyzed by means of several procedures and the scores on other emotions appraisal and males have high scores on
results corresponded to those originally anticipated, that is, four use of emotions. This result is in line with the study of Mandell &
distinct dimensions and sixteen items evaluating EI. Hence, the Pherwani (2003) which found that women, in comparison with
descriptive analyses and item characteristics confirm that each men, scored higher on certain components (for example, empathy
item is important in order to measure the EI. As in the original and social skills) and lower on other components (for example,
scale, the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the motivation and self-regulation). However, the results did not
WLEIS confirm a four-factor structure in these two different reveal any differences in other dimensions. One explanation for
samples. This finding is consistent with the definition of EI as a this result may be related to the argument put forward by Goleman
multidimensional construct. The factors are also similar to four (1995), namely that males and females have their own personal
factors in the conceptual model of Salovey & Mayer (1990). profiles in EI. Furthermore, results revealed that EI did not decline
Moreover, the internal-consistency reliability results of the current or increase over the years of training in Portuguese and Spanish
study are similar to other validity studies of the WLEIS. For contexts. This result is contrary to what the majority of studies

Table 5
Fit statistics for the multiple group and invariance tests.a

Models N Chi- p df Delta chi-square SRMR CFI TLI RMSEA 90% confidence interval of RMSEA
squared

Spanish sample 481 206.4 0.00 95 0.05 0.97 0.96 0.05 0.04–0.06
Portuguese sample 473 244.3 0.00 95 0.05 0.96 0.96 0.06 0.05–0.07
Baseline model—two samples combined 954 450.7 0.00 190 0.05 0.97 0.96 0.04 0.03–0.04
Full constrained model 954 883.1 0.00 231 Compare to baseline 0.06 0.91 0.91 0.05 0.05–0.06
model
Dx2 = 432.4**b; df = 41
Measurement Model Invariant (Factor 954 627.24 0.00 208 Compare to baseline 0.05 0.95 0.94 0.05 0.04–0.05
loadings) model
Dx2 = 176.5**b; df = 18
Final model 954 454.1 0.00 192 Compare to baseline 0.05 0.97 0.96 0.04 0.03–0.04
model
Dx2 = 3.5 n.s.; df = 2
Abbreviations: df, degree of freedom; n.s., non significant; SRMR, Standardized root mean square; CFI, Bentler comparative fit index; TLI, Tuckler Lewis index; RMSEA, root
mean square error of approximation.
a
The 954 students from first-year to the sixth-year responded to Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale at Faculty of Medicine, University of Extremadura, Spain and at
Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Portugal.
b
**P < 0.01.
 V.S. Carvalho et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 58 (2016) 152–159 157

reveal, namely that EI declines over the years of training (Neumann 10. Siempre me digo a mí mismo/a que soy una persona
et al., 2011). As the research performed by Neumann et al. was competente
mainly based on longitudinal data, this result might be due to the 11. Soy una persona que se automotiva
cross-sectional characteristics of the present study. Future studies 12. Siempre me animo a mi mismo para esforzarme al máximo
should explore this analysis longitudinally. 13. Puedo controlar mi temperamento para hacer frente a las
On a final note, this study has presented characteristics to vouch dificultades de manera racional
for this scale as being suitable for the development of compre- 14. Soy perfectamente capaz de controlar mis propias emociones
hensive knowledge of EI dimensions. Unlike other approaches, 15. Puedo calmarme rápidamente cuando estoy muy enojado/a
such as performance-based tests, the WLEIS presents consistency 16. Tengo un buen control de mis emociones
to capture all EI dimensions with a simple application process since
it is a shorter scale. Thus, in line with previous studies that tested
the WLEIS in different contexts (Libbrecht et al., 2014; Shi & Wang,
1. Portuguese translated items
2007), this scale is also reliable to apply to medical students of
differing languages, namely Portuguese and Spanish.
0: Nunca
This study has limitations, including its use of cross-sectional
1: Quase nunca/Algumas vezes por ano
data, and we have not tested whether this measure is distinct from
2: Raramente/Uma vez por mês
other EI measures. Another concern could be that the present study
3: Às vezes/Algumas vezes por mês
relied on self-reports, which may have led to method variance or
4: Bastante/Uma vez por semana
socially desirable responses. Another shortcoming is related to the
5: Frequentemente/Algumas vezes por semana
choice of engagement to evaluate the relationship of EI with other
6: Sempre/Todos os dias
variables. Despite the acknowledged importance of engagement to
medical students, this variable is widely used to explain well-being
1. Apercebo-me realmente dos meus sentimentos a maior parte
at work. Therefore, other variables closer to emotions should be
do tempo
analyzed. We strongly recommend that future studies analyze the
2. Compreendo as minhas emoções
WLEIS relationship with, for instance, self-awareness, empathy
3. Realmente percebo o que sinto
and core-self-evaluation.
4. Sei sempre se sou ou não feliz
Nevertheless, there are several strengths that are worthy of
5. Reconheço sempre as emoções dos outros pelo seu comporta-
mention. These strengths include the successful validation of the
mento
WLEIS based on four dimensions, the use of a two-country sample
6. Sou um bom observador/a das emoções dos outros
in this validation, the large sample size and the participation of
7. Sou sensível aos sentimentos e emoções dos outros
students who have one to six years of university education. Thus,
8. Compreendo as emoções dos que me rodeiam
we believe that the WLEIS provides a simple tool for assessing EI in
9. Defino sempre metas para mim mesmo/a e depois tento
medical students.
alcançá-las
10. Sempre digo a mim mesmo/a que sou uma pessoa competente
5. Conclusions
11. Sou uma pessoa auto-motivada
12. Incentivo-me sempre a fazer o meu melhor
The WLEIS demonstrated the ability to measure EI in medical
13. Consigo controlar o meu temperamento para lidar com as
students in Portuguese and Spanish contexts. The psychometrics
dificuldades racionalmente
properties of this self-reported instrument also demonstrated the
14. Sou perfeitamente capaz de controlar as minhas próprias
positive relationships between EI dimensions and engagement.
emoções
15. Posso acalmar-me rapidamente quando estou muito irritado/a
Appendix A. Spanish translated items
16. Tenho um bom controle das minhas emoções
1. Spanish translated items

Scale
References
0: Nunca
1: Casi nunca/Un par de veces al año Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the amos user’s guide. Chicago Illinois, USA:
2: Raramente/Una vez al mes SmallWaters.
3: Algunas veces/Un par de veces al mes Arora, S., Ashrafian, H., Davis, R., Athanasiou, T., Darzi, A., & Sevdalis, N. (2010).
Emotional intelligence in medicine: a systematic review through the context of
4: A menudo/Una vez a la semana the ACGME competencies. Medical Education, 44, 749–764. http://dx.doi.org/
5: Frecuentemente/Un par de veces a la semana 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03709.x.
6: Siempre/Todos los días Arora, S., Russ, S., Petrides, K. V., Sirimanna, P., Aggarwal, R., Darzi, A., et al. (2011).
Emotional intelligence and stress in medical students performing surgical tasks.
Academic Medicine, 86, 1311–1317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/
1. Soy bastante sensible de por qué tengo ciertos sentimientos la acm.0b013e31822bd7aa.
mayoría del tiempo Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: state of
the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
2. Tengo buen conocimiento de mis propias emociones
02683940710733115.
3. Realmente entiendo lo que siento Bar-On, R. (2001). Emotional intelligence and self-actualization. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P.
4. Siempre sé si soy o no soy feliz Forgas, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life: a scientific
inquiry (pp. 82–97).Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
5. Siempre reconozco las emociones de mis paciente por su
BitmiŞ, M. G., & Ergeneli, A. (2014). Emotional Intelligence: reassessing the
comportamento construct validity. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 1090–1094.
6. Soy un buen observador/a de las emociones de los demás http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.123.
7. Soy sensible a los sentimientos y las emociones de los demás Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In
H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 44–
8. Comprendo las emociones de la gente de mi alrededor 389).Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
9. Siempre establezco metas por mí mismo/a y luego me esfuerzo Byrne, B. M. (2007). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts,
para lograrlas applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
159 V.S. Carvalho et al. / Evaluation and Program Planning 58 (2016) 152–159
Carmeli, A., Yitzhak-Halevy, M., & Weisberg, J. (2009). The relationship between
emotional intelligence and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 24(1), 66–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940910922546.
Carrothers, R. M., Gregory, S. W. Jr., & Gallagher, T. J. (2000). Measuring emotional
intelligence of medical school applicants. Academic Medicine, 75, 456–463.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200005000-00016.
Cherry, M. G., Fletcher, I., O’sullivan, H., & Dornan, T. (2014). Emotional intelligence
in medical education: a critical review. Medical Education, 48, 468–478. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/medu.12526.
Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 433–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
job.319.
Costa, S., Petrides, K. V., & Tillmann, T. (2014). Trait emotional intelligence and
inflammatory diseases. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 19, 180–189. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2013.802356.
Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: in search of an
elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 989–1015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.989.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P. P. M., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001).
Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control.
Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27, 279–286. http://dx.
doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.615.
Downing, S. M. (2003). Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment
data. Medical Education, 37, 830–837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2923.2003.01594.x.
Elam, C. L. (2000). Use of emotional intelligence as one measure of medical school
applicants’ noncognitive characteristics. Academic Medicine, 75, 445–446.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200009001-00036.
Fernández-Berrocal, P., Pérez, J. C., Repetto, E., & Extremera, N. (2004). Una
comparación empírica entre cinco medidas breves de inteligencia emocional
percibida [An empirical comparison of five brief measures of perceived
emotional intelligence]. Proceedings of VII European Conference on Psychological
Assessment61.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor
analysis in applied psychology: a critical review and analysis. Personal
Psychology, 39, 291–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.4.777.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
48, 39–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150980.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potencial
of the concept, state of evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.
Goldenberg, I., Matheson, K., & Mantler, J. (2006). The assessment of emotional
intelligence: a comparison of performance-based and self-report
methodologies. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(1), 33–45. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_05.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working With Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). A meta-analysis of work
engagement: relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and
consequences. Work engagement: a handbook of essential theory and research.
New York, NY, US: Psychology Press102–117.
Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., & Vedder, P. (2006). The relationship between the quality
of cooperative learning, students’ goal preferences, and perceptions of
contextual factors in the classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 9–21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2006.00488.x.
Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis: statistical methods and practical
issues. Newbury Park: Sage.
Libbrecht, N., De Beuckelaer, A., Lievens, F., & Rockstuhl, T. (2014). Measurement
invariance of the Wong and Law emotional intelligence scale scores: does the
measurement structure hold across Far Eastern and European countries. Applied
Psychology. An International Review, 63, 223–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1464-0597.2012.00513.x.
Llorens, S., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Testing the
robustness of the job demands-resources model: erratum. International Journal
of Stress Management, 14, 224–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-
5245.14.2.224.
Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership style: a gender comparison. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 17, 387–404.
Matthews, G., Roberts, R. D., & Zeidner, M. (2004). Seven myths about emotional
intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 179–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327965pli1503_01.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. (1997). Emotional IQ test. CD-ROM version.
Richard Viard (producer). Needham, MA: Virtual Entertainment.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (1999). MSCEIT item booklet (research version
1.1.). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
McManus, I. C., Jonvik, H., Richards, P., & Paice, E. (2011). Vocation and avocation:
leisure activities correlate with professional engagement, but not burnout, in a
cross-sectional study of UK doctors. BMC Medicine, 9, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1186/1741-7015-9-100.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of Psychological Assessment: validation of inferences
from Person’s responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score
meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.50.9.741.
Neumann, M., Edelhäuser, F., Tauschel, D., Fischer, M. R., Wirtz, M., Woopen, C., et al.
(2011). Empathy decline and its reasons: a systematic review of studies with
medical students and residentes. Academic Medicine, 86, 996–1009. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318221e615.
Pau, A. K. H., Croucher, R., Sohanpal, R., Muirhead, V., & Seymour, K. (2004).
Emotional intelligence and stress coping in dental undergraduates: a qualitative
study. British Dental Journal, 197, 205–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.
bdj.4811573.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: psychometric
investigation with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of
Personality, 15, 425–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.416.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’
engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion,
28, 147–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f.
Rodrigues, N., Rebelo, T., & Coelho, J. V. (2011). Adaptação da Escala de Inteligência
Emocional de Wong e Law (WLEIS) e análise da sua estrutura factorial e
fiabilidade numa amostra portuguesa. Psychologica, 55, 189–207.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On hapiness and human potencials: a review of
research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In S. Fiske (Ed.), Annual review
of psychology (pp. 141–166).Palo Alto, CA: Annuals Reviews, Inc..
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and
Personality, 9, 185–211.
Salovey, P., Hsee, C., & Mayer, J. D. (1993). Emotional intelligence and the self-
regulation of affect. In D. M. Wegner, & J. W. Pennebaker (Eds.), Handbook of
mental control (pp. 258–277).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schaufeli, W. Available at: http://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/ Accessed 12.01.15.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.248.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question:
burnout and work engagement, and their relationship with efficacy beliefs.
Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 20, 177–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10615800701217878.
Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Marques-Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B.
(2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: a Cross-National
Study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 5, 464–481. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0022022102033005003.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: a confirmative analytic approach.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/
A:1015630930326.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., et al.
(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence.
Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
s0191-8869(98)00001-4.
Shi, J. Q., & Wang, L. (2007). Validation of emotional intelligence scale in Chinese
university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 377–387. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.012.
Smith, S., Turner, B., Pati, J., Petrides, K. V., Sevdalis, N., & Green, J. (2012).
Psychological impairments in patients urgently referred for prostate and
bladder cancer evaluations: the role of trait emotional intelligence and
perceived social support. Supportive Care in Cancer, 20, 699–704. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s00520-011-1129-5.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. New Jersey:
Erlbaum.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, C., Farver, C., & Stoller, J. K. (2011). Can emotional intelligence training serve
as an alternative approach to teaching professionalism to residents? Academic
Medicine, 86, 1551–1554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318235aa76.
Wong, C. S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional
intelligence on performance and attitude: an exploratory study. Leadership
Quartely, 13, 243–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00099-1.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of
personal resources in the job demands–resources model. International Journal of
Stress Management, 14, 121–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121.