Validating the Skills for Career And Life Effectiveness (SCALE)

The Skills for Career And Life Effectiveness® 1 The Skills for Career And Life Effectiveness® as a Valid Measure of Transformative Emotional Intelligence Richard D. Hammett, Walden University Abstract In 2011 the Skills for Career And Life Effectiveness® (SCALE®) self-assessment survey instrument, a positive assessment of emotional intelligence, went live on the proprietary website of Emotional Intelligence Learning Systems, Inc (EILS). The website domain for SCALE® is www.doscale.com. The SCALE® is based on a predecessor instrument that was created by Darwin Nelson, Ph.D. and Gary Low, Ph.D., psychologists licensed in the state of Texas since the 1970s. The SCALE’s predecessor instrument was the Personal Skills Map® (PSM®), which was one of Nelson and Low’s self-assessment instruments that together comprised a family of positive assessments constructed from an original pool of over 1,200 items the authors developed to measure healthy and effective being. The PSM® was 250+ items in length, was available only in paper-pencil version, and presented challenges for participants to self score. Conversely, the online SCALE® is only 98 items and is scored by computer over the Internet. The first year the SCALE® was available online was also the first year it was included in EILS's two-day emotional intelligence (EI) certification workshop. Prior EILS workshops focussed on the online Emotional Skills Assessment Process® (ESAP®) only, which is the 213-item positive assessment instrument used in education. Since 2011, the online SCALE® and online ESAP® both have been included in the EI certification workshops, allowing 98 paired records to bee collected from workshop participants who completed both instruments. Based on this convenience sample, the purpose of this quantitative study was to determine and publish evidence of reliability and validity for online SCALE®. Instrument Description The online SCALE® consists of 98 three-point Likert scale items that measure 14 skills-based emotional intelligence (EI) scales using 7 items per scale. The three available responses are Least Like Me = 0, Sometimes Like Me = 1, and Most Like Me = 2. The 14 scales consist of 11 that are skills and three that are potential problem areas which are reframed as skills for training, education, and development. The SCALE® skills and potential problem areas, their theoretical minimum and maximum scores, and their observed statistics (N = 98) are presented in Table 1. Eight of the nine items in the Stress Management competency and one item in Physical Wellness are negatively worded and those items are reverse scored by the computer. Table 1 The SCALE® Competencies, Theoretical Scores, and Actual Score Descriptive Statistics Competence Theoretical Min Theoretical Max Actual Min Actual Max Mean SD Self-Esteem 0 14 5 14 12.13 2.08 Assertion 0 14 3 14 11.17 2.60 Comfort 0 14 4 14 12.55 2.00 Empathy 0 14 0 14 12.48 2.24 Drive Strength 0 14 8 14 12.32 1.65 Decision Making 0 14 5 14 12.07 2.19 Time Management 0 14 2 14 11.13 3.06 Influence 0 14 4 14 10.14 2.63 Commitment Ethic 0 14 6 14 12.80 1.44 Stress Management 0 14 1 14 3.24 Physical Wellness 0 14 3 14 9.94 3.36 Aggression* 0 14 0 13 10.21 3.03 Deference* 0 14 0 13 3.14 Change Oritentation* 0 14 0 14 2.31 3.05 3.13 3.86 Notes: N = 98 for last four columns. SD = standard deviation. * = problematic indicators.

2 The International Journal of Transformative Emotional Intelligence Each item is a behaviorally anchored statement that requires the respondent to estimate their location on the Likert scale (i.e., estimate their skill level) based on the particular competency measured by the item. For example, one of the items that measures Empathy reads, “I seem to be able to accurately feel what another person feels”. During the survey process, the items are randomly presented one at a time on the computer screen and the font color of every other item alternates between green and blue. The instrument takes 15-20 minutes to complete using the web-based computer delivery platform (www.doscale.com). After responding to the last item, the user can return to their SCALE® dashboard and select their profile results to view. The SCALE® profile is a horizontal bar chart showing the user’s summated scores for each area within three vertical bands (see Figure 1). While logged in on the website, the user can review the research- derived skill definitions provided below the profile. The skill definitions contain embedded .pdf links that can be selected to reveal additional skill interaction and development information for each skill. The two outer bands’ colors on the profile are reversed for the problematic indicators. Also notice in Figure 1 that the Assertion skill is shown twice, once under the interpersonal communication dimension and another as a communication skill that balances the automatic communication patterns of Aggression and Deference. Figure 1. SCALE® Profile as presented after taking the assessment (color removed). Instrument Reliability The reliability of an instrument is important for several reasons and how reliable an instrument needs to be depends on application. For most applications, Chronbach’s alpha (α) correlation coefficients in the range of .70 -.80 are sufficient (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2018). On the other hand, for use in clinical settings or to make employment decisions a reliability of .90 might not be considered reliable enough. According to Kaplan and Saccuzzo (2018), “For a test used to make a decision that affects some person’s future, evaluators should attempt to find a test with a reliability greater than .95” (p. 123). The authors of the EILS instruments have always cautioned against using their instruments for anything other than what they were designed, and they were designed as a way for helping professionals to engage clients in meaningful conversations about themselves (Nelson et al., 2016). The EILS instruments have been used successfully since the 1970s in this way by a myriad of professionals including teachers and instructors in secondary and post-secondary

The Skills for Career And Life Effectiveness® 3 education settings, counselors, personal coaches, professional trainers, and others. The internal reliability alphas are reported for each SCALE® and ESAP® scale in Table 2. Table 2 SCALE® and ESAP® Chronbach’s alpha Reliability Statistics SCALE® (N = 98) ESAP® (N = 98) ESAP® (2004, N = 1,389) α No. Items α No. Items α Self-Esteem 0.70 7 0.83 25 0.81 Assertion 0.75 7 0.82 18 0.60 Comfort 0.73 7 0.61 12 0.74 Empathy 0.85 7 0.90 12 0.79 Drive Strength 0.54 7 0.80 25 0.81 Decision Making 0.75 7 0.80 12 0.76 Time Management 0.86 7 0.91 12 0.82 Influence 0.71 7 0.81 12 0.82 Commitment Ethic 0.52 7 0.66 12 0.76 Stress Management 0.85 7 0.90 25 0.81 Physical Wellness 0.84 7 N/A N/A N/A Aggression* 0.88 7 0.85 18 0.70 Deference* 0.83 7 0.89 18 0.75 Change Oritentation* 0.77 7 0.84 12 0.75 Overall, the SCALE® provided strong evidence of internal reliability. The SCALE’s composite measure of Interpersonal skills (combining Assertion, Comfort, & Empathy) was α= .86. Its composite measure of Career and Life Skills (combining Drive Strength, Decision Making, Time Management, Influence, & Commitment Ethic) was α = .88. The Personal Wellness composite (combining Stress Management & Physical Wellness) was α = .88. Also, the Problematic Indicator composite (combining Aggression, Deference, & Change Orientation) was α = .89. Finally, the overall reliability when combining all items less those making up the Problematic Indicators was a very high α = .94. Overall based on these reliability statistics, it can be said that the SCALE® assessment reliably measures the global and composite skills constructs assessed. Reliability statistics for the ESAP® are also provided in Table 2. Including them was appropriate because it is the instrument used for the concurrent and convergent validity comparisons in this study. Its baseline statistics for reliability may also be informative, therefore, as a comparison to SCALE®. Overall the ESAP® yielded very high internal estimates of reliability. The Self-Management composite scale (combining Time Management, Drive Strength, & Commitment Ethic) reliability was α = .92. The Personal Leadership composite scale (combining Comfort, Empathy, Decision Making, & Positive Influence) reliability was α = .95. The Intrapersonal composite scale (combining Stress Management & Self Esteem) reliability was α = .92. The Problematic composite scale (combining Aggression, Deference, & Change Orientation) reliability was α = .94. Finally, combining the ten skills resulted in a total instrument skills reliability of α = .96, only 1/50 of a point higher than the SCALE® assessment even with more than twice the number of items. One likely reason for the higher composite scale alphas for the ESAP® compared to SCALE® is the increased number of items in each

4 The International Journal of Transformative Emotional Intelligence scale. Consider, for example, the 25 items that assess Stress Management for ESAP® compared to only 7 items for the same skill for SCALE®. As explained by Kaplan and Saccuzo (2018), According to the domain sampling model, each item in a test is an independent sample of the trait or ability being measured. The larger the sample [of items representing the domain], the more likely that the test will represent the true characteristic. In the domain sampling model, the reliability of a test increases as the number of items increases.(p. 124). Most research texts indicate that reliability coefficients of .70 are sufficient for research. According to Kaplan and Saccuzzo (2018), Chronbah’s α greater than .80 are very good, and Creswell (2003) proclaimed that anything above .90 is very high. Only two scales in the online SCALE were below .70 and all the composite scales were very good, indicating adequate internal reliability for practical use in the ways for which it was designed. You may have noticed that I also included in the last column of Table 2 additional Chronbach’s α reliability statistics from a much larger sample (Nelson et al., 2003). While the larger sample yielded higher reliability alphas on four scales, the more recent and much smaller sample yielded higher alphas on nine scales. One reason for the surprising performance with a much smaller sample [both survey items and participants] may be that the automatic computer scoring of the online ESAP reduced testing error from human scoring by an amount that actually increased the internal reliability of the instrument. SCALE® Validity Evidence of instrument validity is provided by researchers to describe the construct(s) measured by the instrument. Creswell (2009) described the three primary kinds of instrument validity as (a) content validity (the amount of a particular constitute contained), (b) concurrent validity (the amount and strength the measure correlates with another measure with established content), and (c) construct validity (the extent to which the survey measures hypothetical constructs). Kaplan and Saccuzzo 2018), however, reminded us that as of the 2014 edition of Standards for Educational and Psychological testing, validity is no longer recognized in this way but rather it recognizes evidence for validity. Still, it can be instructive to talk about these long held validity categories when presenting evidence. Instrument validity and reliability are related constructs. As shared by Kaplin and Saccuzzo (2018), attempting to provide evidence of test validity without reliability would be pointless because an unreliable test cannot logically be valid. Accordingly, for a test to be reliable, it should correlate more highly with itself than with any other test (Kaplin & Saccuzzo). Also, and with an eye toward validity, when constructs correlate very strongly from two different tests, then they are essentially measuring the same thing (Epstein, 2012). Before we can understand what SCALE® measures in terms of its relationship to ESAP®, what the ESAP® measures must first be considered. The ESAP® was first published in the late 1998 with reliability and validity statistics reported initially by Nelson, Low, and Vela (2003) based on several studies with different populations. Since then, ESAP® validity has also been reported by others including Cox and Nelson (2008), Dokrat (2012), Farnia (2012), Hammett, Holon, and Maggard (2012), Hammett, Arenas, and Scherer (2020), Justice, Espinoza, Veitch, and Mei-Ying (2012), and Tang, Yin, and Nelson (Tang et al., 2010). Following is a summary of those findings. Convergent and Divergent Content Validity For ESAP® Nelson, Low, and Vela (2003) reported the following based on empirical studies. • Most ESAP® measures were not significantly correlated with IQ (Raven’s Progressive Matrices). The three exceptions included the Self-Management skills of Decision Making (r = .30, p < .01) and Time Management (r = .30, p < .01), and the Intrapersonal skill of Self Esteem (r = .33, p < .01). Also while Drive Strength, Time Management, and Commitment Ethic were significantly related to school achievement (p < .01), the correlations were quite weak (r = .19). Taken together, this evidence supports Nelson and Low’s definition of EI in terms of a confluence of learned skills and abilities, as well as their caution to avoid defining emotional intelligence in terms of fixed ability or traits (i.e., IQ or EQ).

The Skills for Career And Life Effectiveness® 5 • All thirteen ESAP® scales were significantly related to mental health as measured by the 16PF. The ten skills were positively related to mental health and the three problematic indicators (Aggression, Deference, and Change Orientation) were significantly negatively related to mental health (p < .01) at r = .-31, r = -.54, and r = -.63, respectively. The evidence from this study supports Nelson and Low’s overarching claim that their instruments reflect healthy and effective being in the world. Because the problematic indicators also represent reactive thinking and behaving, these statistics also support Nelson and Low’s Emotional Learning System (2004, 2011); a five-step systematic learning framework and model that encourages reflection rather than reaction to develop emotional intelligence skills. • The ESAP® was also significantly related to Epstein’s (1998) Constructive Thinking Inventory® (CTI®), which is a reliable and valid test for measuring personality health in terms of his cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST). This finding was later confirmed and strengthened by Cox and Nelson (2008). The ESAP® skills were positively and significantly related to Global Constructive Thinking, and negatively related to destructive thinking patterns measured by CTI®. In addition, the ESAP® problematic measure of Aggression was positively correlated with the destructive thinking patters of Distrust of Others and Categorical Thinking measured by CTI. Interestingly, Epstein noted that constructive thinking was the key to emotional intelligence, and based on these convergent and divergent empirical findings, Nelson and Low would agree. In fact, based on these findings combined with other parallels that emerged through the collegial friendship developed with Epstein, Nelson and Low coined their short definition of emotional intelligence as The learned ability to think constructively and act wisely. As a result, Epstein’s CEST theory of personality remains an important framework of EILS’s EI certification workshops. Farnia (2011) reported the positive relationship between total ESAP problem areas (Aggression + Deference + Change Orientation), and total EI (adding the ten skills) with the mastery of English as a second language as measured by the paper-based Test Of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). The convenience sample included Iranian adult learners of English (N = 84) at the Kish Language School in Tehran, Iran. Total EI was significantly positively related to TOEFL (r = .45, p < .001) and total EI problems was significantly negatively related to TOEFL (r = -.44, p < .001). In addition, the ESAP® Personal Leadership, Self-management, and Intrapersonal domains were significantly positively related to TOEFL as follows: r = .47, p < .001; r = .34, p < .001; and r = .40, p < .001, respectively. Only three of the 13 ESAP® scales (Assertion, Decision Making, & Change Orientation) did not significantly differentiate high and low TOEFL performers. Dockrat (2011) administered the ESAP® to first-year college students (N = 1,990) at a technology university in South Africa. Her findings confirmed the factor structure of the ESAP® and yielded strong internal consistency coefficients. An interesting aspect of this study was the comparison of the normed ESAP® profiles from first-year students in South Africa and first-year students from south Texas. The normed profiles of the students from two groups looked very similar, despite having experienced very different cultures and languages, and having been reared on the opposite sides of the globe. This finding suggests that the ESAP® model measures a global human construct. Hammett, Holon, and Maggard (2011) reported findings of the ESAP® skills’ ability to differentiate leadership quality among U. S. Air Force (USAF) officers (N = 1,213) based on the officers’ participation in a five-week residency course on leadership development. The participants had a minimum of four years of service to be selected for the course. The officers were given the ESAP® during the first week of the course and then the top 10% and bottom 10% of graduates were compared based on their ESAP® scores. Eleven of the 13 ESAP® scores were statistically significantly different based on course performance. The only two ESAP® scales that did not significantly differentiate the top and bottom performers were Stress Management and Aggression. The USAF must be very good, therefore, at selecting for and developing these skills among in its officer corps. Hammett, Arenas, and Scherer (2020) conducted a follow-up study with the USAF officers after the leadership course had transitioned to teaching the full-range leadership model using the Leadership Development Scale (LDS). The LDS was developed to measure a priori leadership preferences of the officers including Laissez Faire, Management by Exception (Passive), Management by Exception (Active), and Contingent Reward, plus the four dimensions of transformational leadership: Idealized Influence, Intellectual Stimulation, Inspirational Motivation, and Individualized Consideration. The laissez-faire style was confirmed as a non-leadership approach through its statistically significant negative correlations with ESAP® skills and positive correlations with ESAP® problematic indicators. Furthermore, this

6 The International Journal of Transformative Emotional Intelligence research confirmed the findings by Tang, Yin, and Nelson (2010) that Nelson and Low’s measures of emotional intelligence are strongly, significantly correlated with transformational leadership. To read the report detailing the findings of the most recent USAF research, please refer to Hammett, Arenas, and Scherer (2020) in this volume. The ESAP® as a Measure of Emotional Intelligence What do these studies tell us about the extent to which the ESAP® measures emotional intelligence? This question cannot be answered without an operational definition of EI, so let’s begin there. Nelson and Low’s short definition of EI is the learned ability to think constructively and act wisely. The strong and significant correlations with Epstein’s CEST model, the CTI, provided convergent validity of the ESAP® as an EI-centric measure based on constructive thinking. These strong and significant correlations also provide discriminant validity of the ESAP® as a measure of skills that can be taught, learned, and practiced above and beyond automatic thinking and personality as defined by CEST. Also related to personality and mental health, the positive relationship of the ESAP® with the validated mental health scale, the 16PF, provided additional evidence that the ESAP® measures a construct related to healthy, effective being. Nelson and Low’s (2004, 2004) longer definition of EI is the confluence of learned abilities and skills that facilitate four sets of life skills that include (a) accurate self-knowledge and appreciation, (b) a variety of healthy relationships, (c) working well with others, and (d) dealing healthily with the demands of everyday work and life. For Epstein, EI was the manifestation of constructive thinking. For Nelson and Low, based on their longer definition, EI is healthy being in the world (i.e., thinking well and acting wisely). According to Kaplan and Saccuzzo (2018), another form of validity evidence is provided when a reliable instrument is used in practice to achieve positive ends. Recall that the purpose of the family of positive self-assessment instruments created from Nelson and Low’s original item pool was to facilitate meaningful conversations with people about themselves. Nelson and Low’s ESAP® and its predecessor instruments have been used since the 1970s to engage people in meaningful conversations that encourage them to acknowledge their personal strengths and to self-identify specific personal skill opportunities for growth, a necessary step in developing accurate self-knowledge and appreciation. Through Positive Change; the reframed skill of Change Orientation (problematic indicator), willing students are then guided to create action plans to understand, learn, and apply specific skills for developing and maintaining relationships, working well with others, and healthily coping with the pressures of everyday work and life. Nelson and Low, their students, colleagues, and associates have conducted hundreds if not thousands of classes and workshops that used their positive assessment instruments in this way. Beyond this practical, positive application, the ESAP® has generated a plethora of research that has not only added to our knowledge of what EI is (or can be), but has also provided a research vehicle used by many doctoral students to hone their own research skills and finish a terminal degree, another very positive outcome. You are invited to visit the Bibliography tab on the EILS website <www.EiLearningSys.com> to review a list of research articles, theses, and dissertations that have been completed using Nelson and Low’s assessment models and theory of healthy being. Based on this evidence from practice, research, and observations, it can be said with confidence that the ESAP® measures a skills-based form of emotional intelligence, what the authors have begun to call transformative emotional intelligence. I have observed with interest the studies that link Nelson and Low’s EI models to positive leadership models, like transformational leadership. Recall that many ESAP® skills demonstrated significant positive correlations with transformational leadership, and its problematic indicators demonstrated significant negative correlations with non- leadership (i.e., laissez-faire). ESAP® skills were also positively correlated with leadership quality as assessed by class standing in the USAF Squadron Officer leadership development course. How then, can we explain leadership in terms of emotional intelligence? I think the answer lies in Nelson and Low’s longer definition of EI. It is not difficult to envision how a good leader engenders the four dimensions of EI by using ESAP® skills to facilitate practicing the four dimensions of transformational leadership. Accurate self-knowledge and appreciation are embolden using ESAP skills that facilitate Individualized Consideration. Intellectual Stimulation and Idealized Influence are facilitated through ESAP skills related to having a variety of healthy relationships and working well with others. Finally, dealing healthily with the demands of everyday work and life is fortified through ESAP® skills that relate to Inspirational Motivation and Idealized Influence. Concurrent Content and Construct Validity of SCALE® Having established, at least in a cursory way, what EI is and how it is measured by ESAP®, it is time to turn attention to empirical evidence of content and construct validity by comparing the ESAP® and SCALE®. Reported in Table 1 are the Pearson r inter scale correlations (ISC) for the two instruments. The correlations are of the summated item

The Skills for Career And Life Effectiveness® 7 scores for each scale with the summated items scores from every other scale on the instruments. The last column reports the correlations between the summated item scores for each scale with the total EI score for the instruments. The total EI score was found by adding the total scale scores for the skills measured by the instrument, excluding the potential problem scores. Table 1 consists of 15 table rows with each table row, except one, containing three correlation rows. The first data row in each table row are SCALE-to-SCALE ISC. The second data row in each table row are the ESAP-to-ESAP ISC. Finally, the third data row in each table row are the ESAP-to-SCALE ISC. The tenth row and tenth column only contain one set of correlations because they represent the SCALE’s physical wellness measure, which is a skill measured by SCALE® but not by ESAP®. The values that did not reach Pearson r statistical significance are highlighted in Table 1. Of the 247 ISC produced, only 22 (8.90%) were not statistically significant. The poorest performing scale based on Pearson r statistical significance was the empathy scale. Within SCALE® the Empathy skill was not significantly related to five other scales (Drive Strength, Decision Making, Time Management, Commitment Ethic, and Deference); not significantly related to two scales on ESAP® (Time Management and Deference); and not significantly related to five scales for both instruments combined (Drive Strength, Decision Making, Time Management, Assertion, and Deference). Drive Strength and Influence (Leadership on ESAP) performed about the same on the statistical significance metric. Drive Strength was not significantly related to Stress Management, Physical Wellness or Aggression on SCALE®. The same was true for Influence, except that Influence was also not related to Aggression when looking at both instruments. Finally, only three other bivariate correlations failed to reach statistical significance. For SCALE®, Comfort was not significantly related to Time Management and Time Management was not significantly related to Influence. When comparing both instruments, Commitment Ethic was not significantly related to Stress Management. Of the remaining 225 bivariate correlations, 213 were significant at p < .001 and 12 were significant at p < .01, a result suggesting that the two instruments are measuring constructs that are very similar. Table A.1 First Data Row in Each Table Row: Inter-scale Correlations within the Skills for Career And Life Effectiveness® (SCALE) (N = 98). Second Data Row in Each Table Row: Inter-scale Correlations within the Emotional Skills Assessment Process® (ESP®) (N-98). Third Data Row in Each Table Row: Inter-scale Correlations Between the two Instruments (N = 98). SSE SCF SEM SDS SDM STM SIN SCE SSM SPW SAS SAG SDF SCO STotal ESE ECF EEM EDS EDM ETM EIN ECE ESM N/A EAS EAG EDF ECO Total S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E N/A S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E SSE .49** .33** .34** .52** .30** .30** .51** .48** .52** .58** -.32** -.54** -.59** .74** ESE 1 .67** .58** .52** .47** .39** .56** .44** .32** .59** -.52** -.57** -.73** .84** S-E .56** .57** .37** .52** .33** .27** .52** .50** .61** -.44** -.55** -.60** .79** SCF .47** .57** .28** 0.124 .58** .29** .39** .27** .58** -.24* -.40** -.45** .68** ECF 1 .51** .49** .38** .30** .64** .40** .50** .62** -.39** -.50** -.46** .73** S-E .53** .50** .39** .25* .60** .48** .40** .52** -.35** -.47** -.48** .70** SEM EEM 0.11 0.133 -0.03 .24* 0.16 .35** .29** .25* -.38** -0.12 -.30** .44** S-E .21* .36** .29** -.34** -.183 -.37** .55** 1 .32** .29* .15 .41** .20* .28** -.28** -.32** .42** SDS .18 -.12 EDS .12 .15 .10 .24** S-E .42** .32** .62** .53** 0.19 .54** -0.15 -.38** -.38** .58** SDM EDM 1 .62** .68** .51** .70** .43** 0.04 .57** -.43** -.52** -.50** .80** S-E .52** .60** .42** .61** .29** .43** -.30** -.38** -.40** .63** STM ETM 1 .40** .43** .57** .47** .30** .69** -.46** -.62** -.59** .73** S-E .60** .59** .63** .48** .49** -.41** -.49** -.50** .74** SIN .46** .44** .44** .35** .53** -.34** -.48** -.45** .60** EIN S-E 0.18 .49** .27** .32** -.26** -.34** .54** .53** 1 .30** .69** .37** .35** .47** -.41** -.50** -.52** .68** .21* .46** .25* .39** -.27** -.37** -.47** .53** .37** 0.19 .49** -0.1 -.40** -.44** .61** 1 .42** .31** 0.16 .53** -.42** -.20* -.37** .68** .35** .21* .49** -.13 -.37** -.37** .62** Table Continues

8 The International Journal of Transformative Emotional Intelligence SSE SCF SEM SDS SDM STM SIN SCE SSM SPW SAS SAG SDF SCO STotal ESE ECF EEM EDS EDM ETM EIN ECE ESM N/A EAS EAG EDF ECO Total S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E N/A S-E S-E S-E S-E S-E SCE .38** .39** .45** -.36** -.56** -.52** .67** ECE 1 .32** .41** -.38** -.34** -.40** .68** S-E .19 .35** -.26** -.29** -.34** .54** SSM .56** -.62** -.54** -.65** .70** ESM 1 .48** .31** -.63** -.60** -.81** .74** S-E .66** -.60** -.59** -.75** .80** SPW 1 .30** -.28** -.37** -.46** .60** N/A N/A SAS -.47** -.70** -.64** .84** EAS 1 -.33** -.63** -.51** .73** S-E -.23* -.52** -.39** .60** SAG .42** .43** -.53** EAG 1 .74** .64** -.60** S-E .71** .62** -.70** SDF .62** -.71** EDF 1 .64** -.69** S-E .76** -.69** SCO -.79** ECO 1 -.77** S-E -.80** STotal 1 Total S-E Notes: 1. SSE = SCALE Self Esteem. SCF = SCALE Comfort. SEM = SCALE Empathy. SDS = SCALE Drive Strength. STM = SCALE Time Management. SIN = SCLAE Influence. SCE = SCALE Commitment Ethic. SSM = SCALE Stress Management. SPW = SCALE Physical Wellness. SAS = SCALE Assertion. SAG = SCALE Aggression. SDF = SCALE Deference. SCO = SCALE Change Orientation. 2. ESE = ESAP Self Esteem. ECF = ESAP Comfort. EEE = ESAP Empathy. EDS = ESAP Drive Strength. ETM = ESAP Time Management. EIN = ESAP Influence. ECE = ESAP Commitment Ethic. ESM = ESAP Stress Management. EAS = ESAP Assertion. EAG = ESAP Aggression. EDF = ESAP Deference. ECO = ESAP Change Orientation. 3. Significance levels: * p < .01. **p < .001 Conclusion The purpose of this article was to provide evidence of the SCALE assessment’s reliability and emperical validity for measuring emotional intelligence as the construct was defined by Nelson and Low (2004, 2011). Through this process, I have presented the close connections to Epstein’s (1998) CEST theory of personality and CTI®. As Epstein (2012) suggested, some models and theories of EI measure peoples’ knowledge about emotions, while more useful theories measure peoples’ ability to learn from their emotional experiences to become happier, more effective people. I would add, and I think Nelson and Low would agree, that EI is not just an ability to learn from emotional experience, but the daily and routine operation of specific skills and strategies that facilitate the continual, daily emotional learning that guides you in your persuit of becoming your best, wisest self. Based on the findings reported here, the SCALE® assessment, particularly when adminstered and interpreted from this positive perspective of what EI is, is a valid and reliable measure of emotional intelligence. Future correlation research is needed to determine the actual relationships between Nelson and Low’s EI models, and others that emphasize different definitions, like the MSCEIT® and EQ-I®. Such research will further strengthen and help define the EI construct as defined by these authors. Author’s Note: Dr. Rick Hammett is a retired Naval Officer who teaches doctoral research in Walden University’s Richard W. Riley College of Education. He is also a founding faculty member of the Emotional Intelligence Training and Research Institute in the U.S. and Forum for Emotional Intelligence Learning in India. With Dr. Gary Low, Rick is also a principal of Emotional Intelligence Learning Systems, Inc. He can be contacted by email at [email protected].

The Skills for Career And Life Effectiveness® 9 References Cox, J. E., & Nelson, D. B. (2008). Quantifying emotional intelligence: The relationship between thinking patterns and emotional skills. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development, 47(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1939.2008.tb00044.x Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc. Dockrat, S. Y. (2012). The standardization of the Emotional Skills Assessment Process (ESAP) for South African students of higher education. The International Journal of Transformative Emotional Intelligence, 1, 61–72. Epstein, S. (1998). Constructive thinking: The key to emotional intelligence. Praeger Publishers. Epstein, S. (2012). Emotional intelligence from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. The International Journal of Transformative Emotional Intelligence, 1, 108–120. http://eitri.org/2015/11/14/emotional- intelligence-from-the-perspective-of-cognitive-experiential-self-theory/ Farnia, F. (2012). Emotional intelligence and foreign language proficiency: Relating and comparing ESAP and TOEFL performance. The International Journal of Transformative Emotional Intelligence, 1, 51–60. Hammett, R. D., Arenas, F. J., & Scherer, J. (2020). Full range leadership and transformative emotional intelligence among United States Air Force field-grade officers. The International Journal of Transformative Emotional Intelligence, 5, ?-? Hammett, R. D., Hollon, C., & Maggard, P. (2012). Professional military education in the USAF SOS leadership course: Incorporating emotional intelligence. The International Journal of Transformative Emotional Intelligence, 1, 73– 96. http://eitri.org/2015/11/13/professional-military-education-pme-in-the-usaf-sos-leadership-course- incorporating-emotional-intelligence/ Justice, M., Espinoza, S., Veitch, B. L., & Lin, M. (2012). Emotional intelligence, teacher education, and future studies. The International Journal of Transformative Emotional Intelligence, 1, 39–50. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2018). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (9th ed.). Cengage Learning. Nelson, D. B., & Low, G. R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Achieving academic and career excellence. Pearson Higher Education. Nelson, D. B., Low, G. R., Hammett, R. D., & Murray, M. (2016). EI certification workshop for ESAP, SCALE, and PEM [Pre- conference Workshop]. Fourteenth Annual Institute for Emotional Intelligence, Corpus Christi, TX. Nelson, D. B., Low, G. R., & Vela, R. (2003). ESAP intervention and interpretation guide [Technical manual]. Emotional Intelligence Learning Systems, Inc. Tang, H.-W. V., Yin, M., & Nelson, D. B. (2010). The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership practices: A cross-cultural study of academic leaders in Taiwan and the USA. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(8), 899– 926. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011089143