Editorial review: November 12, 2026
Measuring emotional intelligence starts with defining what you mean by it. Are you asking how someone reasons about emotional information, how they describe their own typical behavior, or how other people experience their conduct? Those questions call for different forms of evidence, so an “EI score” is not meaningful without knowing the instrument behind it.
Three influential approaches are associated with Mayer and Salovey’s ability model, Goleman and Boyatzis’s competency work, and Bar-On’s emotional-social intelligence model. This is an introduction to those approaches, not a claim that they are the only models or that their scores can be substituted for one another.
Ability-based assessment: solving emotion-related problems
An ability approach asks people to work through tasks involving emotional information. It differs from asking how emotionally skilled they believe they are. The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test is a well-known example; the current MSCEIT 2 publisher description identifies perceiving, connecting, understanding and managing emotions as its domains.
The developers’ 2025 paper on the MSCEIT 2 explains the revised measure and its initial research. A performance-based assessment still depends on the quality of its tasks, scoring approach and evidence. It should not be described as an infallible view of how someone will behave in every real interaction.
When reviewing this kind of measure, ask how responses are scored, which populations were studied and what conclusions the results support. Understanding emotional information in an assessment and consistently acting on that understanding at work are related questions, not identical ones.
Competency ratings: behavior seen by others
Competency approaches focus on behaviors relevant to working with people. The Emotional and Social Competence Inventory (ESCI) uses multiple raters and includes areas such as emotional self-awareness, adaptability, empathy and teamwork. This connects the assessment to how behavior is experienced in a setting.
Different observers can have different opportunities to see a behavior. A manager, peer and direct report may encounter different aspects of someone’s work. A useful feedback discussion explores the examples behind a rating rather than assuming one observer supplies the complete truth.
Before using a multi-rater process, clarify confidentiality, how raters are chosen and how the feedback will be interpreted. The purpose should be understandable to everyone involved. A report that creates defensiveness without a constructive discussion may not lead to useful development.
Self-report approaches: the person’s own perspective
Bar-On’s 2006 account of emotional-social intelligence describes a broad model of emotional and social functioning. The EQ-i 2.0 overview describes a self-report measure, with EQ 360 adding observer information. The current product’s scale structure should not be confused with every historical version of the model.
Self-report provides information about how a person sees their typical behavior. It is not the same method as solving an ability task or receiving ratings from colleagues. Interpretation needs to consider self-awareness, the situation the person had in mind and how the questions were understood.
An unsupported claim that Bar-On “created the test in 1995” is not necessary to explain the approach. The model has a development history, and a current assessment should be understood through its own documentation and version rather than a single simplified origin date.
Compare what the methods can tell you
- Ability tasks: performance on specified emotion-related problems under the assessment’s scoring method.
- Self-report: the participant’s account of their typical emotional and social behavior.
- Multi-rater feedback: other people’s observations within the relationships and situations they know.
If the results differ, that does not automatically mean one is wrong. They may be answering different questions. Explore the relevant examples and limits with someone qualified to interpret the particular instrument. Do not average unlike scores into a supposedly more accurate overall number.
An illustrative workplace development example
Imagine a manager who believes she handles disagreement calmly, while colleagues report that meetings feel rushed. The useful next step is to examine specific situations. Does she interrupt? Does she summarize the concern before answering? Do colleagues know which decisions are still open?
She could choose one behavior to practice: let a concern finish, summarize it and ask whether the summary is accurate before responding. After several meetings, she asks for concrete feedback and reviews whether unresolved questions are being recorded. This is an illustrative development exercise, not proof that a particular assessment caused improvement.
An instrument can help focus a conversation, but a score alone does not specify the right action. The plan should connect the result to a behavior the person can practice and a way to review it. Claims about improved performance need evidence beyond a favorable assessment discussion.
Keep emotional intelligence and personality preferences distinct
Insights Discovery describes preferences within its own framework. It is not interchangeable with an emotional intelligence ability test or competency inventory, and a color energy is not an EI score. A preference for direct communication, for example, does not establish how accurately someone understands another person’s emotion.
Use the tool that fits the question, review its evidence and intended use, and keep the interpretation proportionate. For workplace application, explore self-aware leadership and leadership development. The goal is a useful, supported development conversation rather than collecting a label or chasing a higher score.