Talk:Emotional intelligence tests

I see that this article contains none of the standard statistical information on psychometric tests, such as internal or test-retest consistency.

Under the circumstances I think it should not be included in Wikipedia.

217.33.166.212 12:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello :

I am aware that the specified tests :

http://quiz.ivillage.co.uk/uk_work/tests/eqtest.htm http://quiz.ivillage.com/health/tests/eqtest2.htm http://psychology.about.com/library/bl/bleq_onlinetests.htm

Have probably business motivations behind them, but I did not find any others or any better, if you do, please publish !! Tests also look somehow poor in information content, if you read one or two, you feel like you know them all, not like IQ where reading one helps you just a little for the others! In other words it would be great to have much brother EQ tests, and why not EQ advices in different fields involving communication and naturally also politics ... because it looks like they need it a lot :-)

By the way I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN EQ (still a Bsc equivalent in psychology with a individual differences paper in 1994), so improvement is very welcome!

Greetings : Laser Resal

Hope pseudos are ok arround here ?


 * I suggest deleting those links because they are trash. Look for scholarly papers on EQ instead.

would be happily completed with :

emotional quotient (psychology): quotient between the "emotional age" and the chronological age that meaures emotional intelligence (how well a person understands emotions); the most famous test used to determine the EQ is the MSCEIT (Meyer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test); see emotional intelligence.

from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EQ

It seems to me this article should be merged with Emotional intelligence. Kslays 17:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism I've taken some of those tests and have noticed the following: 1. Grammatical errors abound. 2. In many questions NONE of the options are optimal or the situation is too incomplete to make a judgement. 3. There is no proof of the correct responses given by the test author. 4. The same sites that promote these tests carry, e.g. horoscope advertisements. Conclusion: these tests are in my opinion no more valid than informal personality tests and do not justify a numerical EQ for any kind of ranking comparison. Suggested action: Reference only tests supported by SCHOLARLY WORK in peer reviewed journals, not some horoscope hawking pseudoscience website. Jwray1 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated and added links
As the headline says, I have added and updated links