Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment
http://jpa.sagepub.com/

Factorial and Item-Level Invariance of an Emotional Intelligence Scale Across Groups

of International Students
Chuang Wang, Do-Hong Kim and Kok-Mun Ng
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 2012 30: 160 originally published online 1 August 2011
DOI: 10.1177/0734282911412543

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/30/2/160

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jpa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jpa.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/30/2/160.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 19, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 1, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

412543
of Psychoeducational Assessment
JPAXXX10.1177/0734282911412543Wang et al.Journal

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Factorial and Item-Level 30(2) 160170

2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
Invariance of an sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282911412543

Emotional Intelligence http://jpa.sagepub.com

Scale Across Groups of

International Students

Chuang Wang1, Do-Hong Kim1, and Kok-Mun Ng1

Abstract
This study examined the factorial and item-level invariance of Wong and Laws emotional intelli-
gence scale (WLEIS) in a sample of 375 international students in U.S. universities. Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) and differential item functioning (DIF) analysis were employed at the test
and item level, respectively. International students from three regions were of interest: Far East
Asia, India, and Europe. A single group CFA was conducted, and the model was found to fit for
each group. The factorial invariance between the groups was tested through three models with
cumulative constraints. The results suggest that the WLEIS is a viable emotional intelligence
measure when applied to this student population. Students from different cultures shared simi-
lar pattern of EI. The DIF analysis further revealed that 14 out of 16 items functioned similarly
between Far East Asian students and Indian students, while all the items functioned similarly
between Far East Asian and European students.

Keywords
international students, emotional intelligence, factorial invariance, differential item functioning

International student enrollment in the U.S. higher education increased by 8% to a high record of
671,616 in the 2008/2009 academic year (Bajka, 2009). According to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, international students contribute US$17.8 billion to the U.S. economy through their
expenditures on tuition and living expenses (Bajka, 2009). The growth of international students
has led to increased attention in the literature on this student population; however, assessment
instruments developed and validated for this group of students are rare (Yoon & Portman, 2004).
International students are heterogeneous because of nationality and cultural backgrounds. There-
fore, a psychometrically valid instrument for international students should take into consider-
ation of the variances due to the cultural origins of these students.

1
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, NC, USA

Corresponding Author:
Chuang Wang, Department of Educational Leadership, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University
City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA
Email: cwang15@uncc.edu

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

Wang et al. 161

Recently, emotional intelligence (EI) has drawn great attention from researchers and practi-
tioners across disciplines as EI has been suggested to be important to students academic achieve-
ment (Parker, Sumerfeldt, Hogan, & Majeski, 2004; Van der Zee, Thijs, & Schakel, 2002) and
well-being (Fukuda et al., 2011; Martinez-Pons, 1997; Palmer, Donaldson, & Stough, 2002).
The lack of a valid EI instrument for international students interferes with research on the rela-
tionships between EI and the social and emotional functioning of these students.
The purpose of this study was to examine the factorial and item-level invariance of Wong and
Laws EI scale (WLEIS; 2002) in a sample of international students in the U.S. universities.
Specifically, we applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the variance-covariance
matrix to test the equality of covariance structures across three international student groups: Far
East Asian countries, India, and European countries. We also used Differential Item Functioning
(DIF) analysis to test if each item functioned similarly across different groups. This study builds
on our previous research that examined the factor structure of the scale on a large sample (n = 601)
that included students from countries not included in the current studys groupings of students
(Ng, Wang, Zalaquett, & Bodenhorn, 2008). Although previous research provided some evidence
of validity of WLEIS with various populations (Ng et al., 2008; Fukuda et al., 2011; Law, Wong, &
Song, 2004; Wong & Law, 2002), few had attempted to examine the cross-cultural validity of this
instrument (Sharma, Biswal, Deller, & Mandal, 2009). To the best of our knowledge, the current
study is the first to evaluate the factorial invariance of the WLEIS across populations.

Emotional Intelligence and Academic Achievement

Salovey and Mayer (1990) were among the first to introduce a scientific conceptualization of EI and
defined it as the ability to monitor ones own and others feelings and emotions, to discriminate
among them and to use this information to guide both thinking and actions (p. 189). EI is a distinct
(because it can be isolated in personality space), compound (because it is partially determined by
several personality dimensions) construct that lies in the lower levels of personality hierarchies
(Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007, p. 283). Interest in this construct and its applications increased
greatly after Goleman (1995) claimed that EI was more powerful than IQ in predicting ones suc-
cess. Mayer and Salovey (1997) refined their definition of EI and proposed four subconstructs:
(a) perception, appraisal, and expression of emotions; (b) accessing and generating feelings to
facilitate thinking; (c) understanding emotions; and (d) regulating emotions to promote personal
growth. A great progress was made toward the operational definition of EI by Petrides and Furnham
(2000) when they distinguished trait EI from ability EI. Petrides and Furnham coined the term trait
EI to include self-perceived abilities to recognize, process, and utilize emotion-laden information
and proposed to measure the construct through self-report questionnaires. These researchers agreed
with Mayer and Salovey who proposed that ability EI represents the actual ability to recognize,
process, and utilize emotion-laden information and is measured by maximal performance tests. The
current study focuses on the WLESI, which is a trait EI measure. Compared to ability EI tests, trait
EI measures are much more straightforward (Petrides, Frederickson, & Furnham, 2004).
Moderate relationships between academic achievement and EI in college and high school
students were reported in various countries (e.g., Elias, Bruene-Butler, Blum, & Schuyler, 1997;
Parker et al., 2004; Petrides et al., 2004; Wong, Day, Maxwell, & Meara, 1995). Furthermore,
Sternberg, Wagner, and Okagaki (1993) claimed that EI played a significant role during the
transition from high school to college.

Emotional Intelligence and Culture

Parker et al. (2005) cautioned that the EI construct in different cultures might vary because
culture can influence the experience and expression of emotions (Scollon, Diener, Oishi, &

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

162 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(2)

Biswas-Diener, 2004). A meta-analysis of 190 cross-culture quantitative studies on emotions

revealed that the size of cross-cultural differences reported in the literature might be overesti-
mated although different patterns in emotions were noticed along the lines of the distinction
between political systems of countries, individualism versus collectivism values, and religiosity
(Van Hemert, Poortinga, & Van de Vijver, 2007).
The ability to recognize facial expressions is critical to appraise others emotions, but con-
siderable differences exist across cultures (Parker et al., 2005). See Ekman (1993) for a review
of cross-cultural research on facial expressions. European English native speakers and Himba
natives in northern Namibia were found to have similar vocal signals corresponding to facial
expressions for negative emotions but different vocal signals for positive emotions (Sauter,
Eisner, Ekman, & Scott, 2010). Moreover, significant differences in emotion judgments and
emotional expressions were noticed among college students with cultural backgrounds of
White, African American, Hispanic, and Asian ethnicities (Matsumoto, 1993). Therefore, it is
important to examine the validity of an EI instrument across cultures to see if the factor struc-
ture is the same and if differences exist in the general or subconstructs of EI. For example,
Parker et al. (2005) conducted a study in Canada with 384 aboriginal children and adolescents
and a matched sample of 384 nonaboriginal children and adolescents using Bar-Ons (1997) EI
inventory (EQ-i). They reported that the factor structure of EQ-i was the same between two
groups and that the aboriginal participants scored significantly lower on interpersonal, adapt-
ability, and stress management dimensions of EI. Similarly, in a comparative study of 234
Iranian college students and 220 American college students, the factor structure of the EI mea-
sure was similar although differences existed in constructs: American students had more posi-
tive and optimistic ratings (Ghorbani, Bing, Watson, Davison, & Mack, 2002). The authors
speculated that the differences were possibly due to the historical emphasis on the self and
individualism in American culture.

Measurement of EI and the WLEIS Scale

Scholars developed a number of EI measures (e.g., Bar-On, 1997; Boyatzis, Goleman, & Hay/
McBer, 1999; Dulewicz & Higgs, 2001; Jordan, Ashkanasy, Hartel, & Hooper, 2002; Martinez-
Pons, 2000; Palmer & Stough, 2002; Petrides & Furnham, 2003; Salovey, Mayer, Goldman,
Turvey, & Palfai, 1995; Sjoberg, 2001; Tapia, 2001). Tett, Fox, and Wang (2005) had conducted
a comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of these instruments. The number of
items in these instruments ranges from 16 to 789 with the median number of 66 items. The
WLEIS was chosen as the focus of the current study because it is the shortest scale (16 items)
as well as one of the scales that have shown a stable factor structure (Tett et al., 2005).
The WLEIS was developed and validated from three studies with graduate and undergraduate
students in Hong Kong using Mayer and Saloveys (1997) definition of EI (Wong & Law, 2002).
Items were originally generated from 120 undergraduate and graduate students. After removing
overlapping and unclear items, the authors narrowed down to 16 items with exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis. Wong and Law reported that the 16 items captured effectively the
EI dimensions and that the WLEIS was a valid measure of EI.
After the publication of WLEIS, additional empirical studies (e.g., Law et al., 2004; Shi &
Wang, 2007) had confirmed the four EI constructs: Self-emotion Appraisal (SEA), Others
Emotion Appraisal (OEA), Use of Emotion (UOE), and Regulation of Emotion (ROE). Other
than Ng et al. (2008) study that examined the factor structure of the WLEIS on a large sample of
international students studying in the United States, no research has examined the factorial
invariance of the measure across various groups of international students. Additional research is
needed to understand more fully the psychometric properties of the WLEIS among international
students. A valid EI instrument will facilitate EI research on international students and help to

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

Wang et al. 163

further shed light on the relationships between EI and other psychosocial correlates important for
the understanding of the needs and functioning of this student population.

Method
Procedure and Participants

Participants were recruited electronically to respond to an online survey developed to study the
socioemotional functioning of international students attending American universities. E-mail invi-
tations were dispatched to international student advisors in the 20 universities with the highest
enrollment of international students and two other randomly selected universities in each state in
the country. The advisors were requested to forward the research invitations to international stu-
dents in their institutions. Participants were given the choice to enter into a sweepstakes to win one
of 40 US$40 awards on submission of the survey. Names and contact information of those who
entered the sweepstakes were collected. Otherwise, participation of the survey was anonymous.
Out of the 628 respondents, 387 were selected from countries that were either represented
with a large number or could be grouped together based on geographic regions that shared com-
mon cultural backgrounds as recognized in the literature. Data screening revealed a few missing
values in certain items with 12 respondents; but the pattern of missing items was completely
random. As a result, the final sample consisted of 375 international undergraduate (n = 86) and
graduate (n = 289) students. The complete sample of 628 was used in a previous study that
focused on investigating the factorial validity of the WLEIS on international students (Ng et al.,
2008). The students were placed into three groups:

1. The Far East Asian group (n = 169), used as the reference group, comprised students
from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, and mainland China. Confucian heritage cul-
ture is dominant in these Asian societies (Nguyen, Terlouw, & Pilot, 2006).
2. Students (n = 98) from 19 European countries were used as a comparison group.
3. Students from India (n = 108) were used as another comparison group. The Indian soci-
ety is markedly different from Far East Asian countries because of the strong influence
of Hinduism, instead of Confucianism.

An additional rationale for this grouping method was that our previous study suggested
Indian students scored differently on the WLEIS than students from mainland China, Taiwan,
Japan, and Korea, whereas significant differences were not noted between students from these
four Confucian heritage societies (Ng et al., 2008).
Of the 373 students who identified their gender, 200 (54%) were females and 173 (46%) were
males. The average age of these students was 26.31 (SD = 4.42). Both the median and mode of
the length of staying in the United States were 2 years, and 83% of the participants had been in
the United States for less than 4 years at the time of the study. These students were enrolled in
universities across 28 states in the United States.

Instruments
WLEIS is a 16-item self-report measure designed to assess EI in four dimensions (SEA, OEA,
UOE, and ROE). Items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 =
strongly agree (Wong & Law, 2002). All items are positively keyed. A sample item from SEA
(Items 1-4) is I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time. A sample

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

164 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(2)

item from OEA (Items 5-8) is I always know my friends emotions from their behavior.
I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them and I have good control
of my own emotions are items from UOE (Items 9-12) and ROE (Items 13-16) respectively.

Data Analytical Procedure

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was first employed to examine differences in the mean
self-report of EI across the three groups of students. Then, multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was used to see if the groups differ on the combination of the four subconstructs
of EI. Scheffes method was used for post hoc multiple comparisons. CFA was conducted to test
the factorial invariance across the three groups with LISREL 8.8 (Jreskog & Srbom, 2006).
Following our previous research (Ng et al., 2008), a two-level four-subconstruct measurement
model (SEA, OEA, UOE, ROE) was chosen for the CFAs. The first level was EI, and the second
level consisted of the four subconstructs. A single group CFA was first conducted for each group
to assess the overall model fit using the2 statistic, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
(SRMR), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI),
and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). The 2-index presentation strategy (i.e., SRMR coupled with
another index) suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) was not used because they were based on
very restrictive assumptions (Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004) and cautions to use this strategy was
raised by Fan and Sivo (2005). Different levels of factorial invariance between the student
groups were tested through the following three steps: (a) all parameters were freely estimated
(Model 1, baseline model); (b) the factor loadings were constrained to be equal for each pair of
the four dimensions of EI across the groups (Model 2); and (c) factor loadings and error vari-
ances were constrained to be equal for each pair of the four dimensions of EI across the groups
(Model 3). Significant changes in 2 and changes in CFI values of .01 or above were used to
flag significant differences when testing the models (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).
In addition to CFAs, Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis was also used with an
extension of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-square approach (Mantel & Haenszel, 1959;
Zwick, Donoghue, & Grima, 1993) to polytomous items to examine the measurement invariance
at the item level. The Far East Asian student group served as the reference group. The Indian and
European student groups served as the focal group (i.e., group of primary interest). Analyses
were conducted separately for the Indian and European groups. If the results were not statisti-
cally significant (p > .05), the focal and reference groups matched on an ability variable (e.g.,
total score) were similar in their item scores. If the results were statistically significant (p < .05),
the focal and reference groups would differ in their item scores. In addition to statistical signifi-
cance, the standardized mean difference (SMD), a descriptive index (Dorans, Schmitt, &
Bleistein, 1992; Zwick & Thayer, 1996) was obtained. The SMD is the difference between the
unweighted item mean of the focal group and the weighted item mean of the reference group. An
effect size (ES) estimate for the SMD is then obtained by dividing the SMD by the total group
item standard deviation. The present study used the following polytomous DIF classification rule
developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) and used in the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP; as cited in Meyer, Huynh, & Seaman, 2004; Michalis, 2008).

Rule 1: If the chi-square is not significant, p >.05, then classify the item as negligible DIF
(AA). Otherwise, continue with the following rules.
Rule 2: If |ES| is .17, then classify the item as negligible DIF (AA).
Rule 3: If |ES| is >.17 but .25, then classify the item as intermediate DIF (BB).
Rule 4: If |ES| is >.25, then classify the item as large DIF (CC).

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

Wang et al. 165

Table 1. Means (Standard Deviations) of Raw Scores by Group and Constructs

Group n Total EI SEA OEA UOE ROE

Reference 169 5.29 (0.77) 5.43 (0.98) 5.31 (0.95) 5.53 (0.91) 4.90 (1.20)
Indian 108 5.62 (0.80) 5.64 (0.90) 5.55 (0.90) 5.82 (1.10) 5.46 (1.11)
Europe 98 5.36 (0.79) 5.50 (0.93) 5.40 (1.00) 5.65 (1.06) 4.90 (1.25)
Whole sample 375 5.40 (0.79) 5.51 (0.95) 5.40 (0.95) 5.64 (1.01) 5.06 (1.21)
Note: SEA = self-emotion appraisal, OEA = others emotion appraisal, UOE = use of emotion, and ROE = regulation
of emotion.

Items flagged as large or CC-level are recommended further review. A plus (+) sign of ES
indicates that items were in favor of the focal group. A minus () sign of ES indicates that items
are in favor of the reference group.

Results
Mean Comparisons and Factor Structure

Table 1 displays the raw score means and standard deviations by group and constructs.
Levenes test of equality of error variances suggest that the assumption of homogeneity of
variance held for ANOVA. Students from the reference group and the comparison groups scored
significantly differently from each other on the total WLEIS score, F(2, 372) = 5.94, p = .003.
The effect size was small: 2 = .03. Post hoc multiple comparisons using Scheffes method
revealed that Indian students had statistically higher mean WLEIS scores than both the reference
group and the European group. The difference between the reference group and European group
was not statistically significantly different from zero. The Box M test of equality of covariance
matrices yielded a p value of .008, but the outcome was disregarded because this test was notori-
ously known to be sensitive and the robustness of significance tests was expected when the
sample sizes were approximately equal (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Levenes test of equality of
error variances yielded p values of .29, .60, .17, and .38 for the four subconstructs, respectively.
Pillais trace, the pooled effect variances, was used instead of Wilks lambda for multivariate
statistical inference because of the advantage of Pillais criterion in terms of robustness when
there was more than one degree of freedom for effect (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The students were
significantly different from each other on the combination of four EI constructs, F(8, 740) = 2.69,
p = .006. The effect size was small: 2 = .03. Tests of between-subjects effects revealed that the
participants were significantly different from each other on ROE only, F(2, 372) = 8.80 p < .001.
The effect size was also small: 2 = .05. Post hoc multiple comparisons using Scheffes method
suggested that Indian students had significantly higher mean ROE score than both the reference
group and the European group, but the mean ROE scores for the reference group and the European
group were not statistically significantly different from each other.
CFAs were conducted separately for each group to assess the fit of the data to the four-factor
model. Results indicated that the two-level four-construct model was not rejected, suggesting
that the model adequately represented the factorial structure of EI (NNFI = .96, CFI = .97,
RMSEA = .07, and SRMR = .07 for the reference group; NNFI = .94, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .10,
and SRMR = .09 for Indian students; and NNFI = .96, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .07, and SRMR = .09
for European students). In testing factorial invariance, Model 1 was used as the baseline model
with which the more constrained models (i.e., Model 2 and Model 3) were compared.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

166 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(2)

Table 2. Test of Invariance by Group and Model

Model df 2 df 2 CFI CFI SRMR

All three groups Model 1 320 687.27 .95 .10
Model 2 328 687.51 8 0.24 .95 .00 .10
Model 3 368 755.92 40 68.41 .94 .01* .12
Far East versus Indian Model 1 208 473.76 .95 .10
Model 2 212 473.99 4 0.23 .95 .00 .10
Model 3 232 515.62 20 41.63 .95 .00 .12
Far East versus Europe Model 1 208 430.55 .95 .10
Model 2 212 431.06 4 0.51 .95 .00 .10
Model 3 232 461.84 20 30.78 .95 .00 .12
Indian versus Europe Model 1 208 408.60 .95 .09
Model 2 212 408.60 4 0.00 .95 .00 .09
Model 3 232 436.74 20 28.14 .94 .01* .11
Note: CFI = comparative fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.
*p < .05.

Invariance Across Student Groups

The results of the invariance tests are presented in the top part of Table 2.
In Model 1, all fit values showed good fit of the data, suggesting that the factorial pattern of
WLEIS was similar across the three cultural groups. Students from the three groups appeared to
have a similar pattern of the unstandardized factor loadings and error variances. In Model 2, the
factor loadings were imposed to be equal across the groups. The CFI difference (CFI) between
Model 1 and Model 2 was equal to zero and the SRMR fit values stayed the same from Model 1
to Model 2, suggesting that factor loadings were invariant across the groups. When both the
factor loadings and error variances were imposed to be equal across the groups (Model 3), the
CFI was equal to .01, and the SRMR value increased by .02, indicating that Model 3 is worse
than Model 1 and Model 2. Pairwise comparisons showed that the model fit was not acceptable
for the comparison between the Indian group and the European group. The increase of SRMR
values from Model 2 to Model 3 suggested that Model 2 fit our data better than Model 3. In
summary, there was a significant difference in the error variances across the groups, specifi-
cally between Indian and European students, but the factor loadings were the same across the
three groups.

Differential Item Functioning Analysis Results

Table 3 shows the effect size, p value, DIF classification results.
For the group of Indian students, the majority of the items (13 items, 81%) displayed no DIF.
Only three of the 16 items were found to function in a different manner for the reference group
and Indian students. Specifically, both Item 10 I always tell myself I am a competent person
and Item 15, I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry displayed BB-level (inter-
mediate) DIF and favored Indian students, indicating that students in the reference group had a
lower mean item score than Indian students. Item 1, I have a good sense of why I have certain
feelings most of the time displayed CC-level (large) DIF and favored students in the reference
group, indicating that Indian students had a lower mean item score than students in the reference
group. As shown in Table 3, for the European students group, no DIF items were present, with
all items classified as AA-level DIF, suggesting that students in the reference group and European
students had a similar mean item score.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

Wang et al. 167

Table 3. Differential Item Functioning Results

Far East versus Indian Far East versus European
Item Effect size p value Class Effect size p value Class
1 0.294 .010 CC 0.010 .156 AA
2 0.081 .387 AA 0.024 .234 AA
3 0.155 .424 AA 0.213 .305 AA
4 0.089 .238 AA 0.154 .056 AA
5 0.070 .470 AA 0.113 .322 AA
6 0.102 .317 AA 0.115 .062 AA
7 0.078 .054 AA 0.099 .411 AA
8 0.122 .835 AA 0.110 .047 AA
9 0.074 .369 AA 0.014 .562 AA
10 0.242 .046 BB 0.009 .293 AA
11 0.044 .609 AA 0.055 .644 AA
12 0.141 .112 AA 0.121 .080 AA
13 0.050 .026 AA 0.110 .441 AA
14 0.156 .302 AA 0.016 .202 AA
15 0.198 .001 BB 0.061 .107 AA
16 0.118 .277 AA 0.101 .804 AA

Discussions and Implications

Despite the reliability and validity of the WLEIS as a measure of EI provided by previous
research Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), empirical studies on the invariance factorial structure
between students of different cultural backgrounds were scarce. The current study sought to
extend the current knowledge of the WLEIS by verifying the WLEIS factorial invariance across
cultural groups among international students as well as examining the item response pattern of
the measure among these student groups. Findings in this study are consistent with those of
Parker et al. (2005) in that the factor structure of EI is similar between two different cultures
although mean differences between groups exist.
With respect to mean differences, Indian students were noted to report higher levels of EI in
general and ROE in particular when compared to students in the reference group from mainland
China, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea and the European students. This result is also consistent with
our earlier study (Ng et al., 2008). Although the factor structure of EI is the same across student
groups, culture does have an impact on self-report of EI levels (Ghorbani et al., 2002). At the
item level, Indian students reported significantly lower mean score on Item 1, I have a good
sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time. Although there have been extensive litera-
ture about the cross-cultural studies of Asian, Australian, European, and American students with
respect to EI (e.g., Ilangovan, Scroggins, & Rozell, 2007; Wang & Wang, 2010), very few stud-
ies have examined the subtle differences between Asian cultures (Ng et al., 2008). Asian students
were usually believed to be influenced by collectivism culture and European and American stu-
dents were believed to be influenced by the individualism culture (Hofstede, 2001). On the other
hand, Indian students reported higher mean scores on Item 10, I always tell myself I am a
competent person and Item 15, I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry.
Different patterns of anger were noticed between Indian and Chinese when they were in an
experimental study (Bishop & Robinson, 2000). It is important to note that these items came
from different subscales of EI and no significant differences were noticed on the other three
items within each of the subscales. Therefore, the results about group differences at the

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

168 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(2)

item-level are inconclusive. However, EI is likely to vary across cultures as it is influenced by

ones attitudes and beliefs within specific social contexts (Shipper, Kincaid, Rotondo, &
Hoffman, 2003). We believe that the subtle differences between Asian cultures could be account-
able for the differences noted at item levels in this study and call for more studies to examine
differences between Asian countries.
Although this study is limited in that not all groups of international students in the United
States were included and that the fit indices were not impressive for such a short scale, the find-
ings of the study both enhance our understanding of the psychometric performance of the WLEIS
and demonstrate that Far East Asian, Indian, and European students in the United States share the
same pattern of EI as measured by the WLEIS. Based on the findings of factorial invariance and
mean differences across students of a few cultural backgrounds (i.e., Far East Asian, Indian, and
European) at item levels, it is recommended that while researchers now have empirical support
to use the WLEIS with samples in these regions, they should be cautions to examine mean dif-
ferences across these groups with respect to each of the EI dimensions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Bajka, B. (2009). Open doors 2009: Report on international educational exchange. New York, NY: Insti-
tute of International Education.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional intelligence inventory (EQ-i): Techical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Multi-Health System.
Bishop, G. D., & Robinson, G. (2000). Anger, harassment, and cardiovascular reactivity among Chinese
and Indian men in Singapore. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62, 684-692.
Boyatzis, R. E., Goleman, D., & Hay/MacBer. (1999). Emotional competence inventory. Boston, MA:
HayGroup.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Dorans, N. J., Schmitt, A. P., & Bleistein, C. A. (1992). The standardization approach to assessing compre-
hensive differential item functioning. Journal of Educational Measurement 29, 309-319.
Dulewicz, S. V., & Higgs, M. J. (2001). EI general and general 360 user guider. Windsor, UK: NFER-
Nelson.
Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. American Psychologist, 48, 384-392.
Elias, M. J., Bruene-Butler, L., Blum, L., & Schuyler, T. (1997). How to launch a social and emotional
learning program. Educational Leadership, 54, 15-19.
Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indices to misspecified structural or measurement
model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12,
343-367.
Fukuda, E., Saklofske, D. H., Tamaoka, K., Fung, T. S., Miyaoka, Y., & Kiyama, S. (2011). Factor structure
of Japanese versions of two emotional intelligence scales. International Journal of Testing, 11, 71-92.
Ghorbani, N., Bing, M. N., Watson, P. J., Davison, H. K., & Mack, D. A. (2002). Self-reported emotional
intelligence: Construct similarity and functional dissimilarity of higher-order processing in Iran and the
United States. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 297-308.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

Wang et al. 169

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations
across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Ilangovan, A. Scroggins, W. A., & Rozell, E. J. (2007). Managerial perspectives on emotional intelligence
differences between India and the United States: The development of research propositions. Interna-
tional Journal of Management, 24, 541-548.
Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Hooper. G. S. (2002). Workgroup emotional intelligence
scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus. Human Resource
Management Review, 12, 195-214.
Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence
and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 483-496.
Mantel, N. & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of
disease. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 22, 719-748.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing
approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentlers
(1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
Martinez-Pons, M. (2000). Emotional intelligence as a self-regulatory process: A social cognitive view.
Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 19, 331-350.
Martinez-Pons, M. (1997). The relation of emotional intelligence with selected areas of personal function-
ing. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 17, 3-13.
Matsumoto, D. (1993). Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display rule attitudes,
and self-reported emotional expression in an American sample. Motivation and Emotion, 17, 107-123.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.),
Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implication (pp. 4-30). New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Meyer, J. P., Huynh, H., & Seaman, M. A. (2004). Exact small-sample differential item functioning meth-
ods for polytomous items with illustration based on an attitude survey. Journal of Educational Mea-
surement, 41, 331-344.
Ng, K. M., Wang, C., Zalaquett, C. P., & Bodenhorn, N. (2008). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Wong
and Law emotional intelligence scale in a sample of international college students, International Jour-
nal for the Advancement of Counselling, 30, 131-144.
Nguyen, P.-M., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2006). Culturally appropriate pedagogy: The case of group learn-
ing in a Confucian heritage culture context. Intercultural Education, 17, 1-19.
Palmer, B. R., Donaldson, C., & Stough, C. (2002). Emotional intelligence and life satisfaction. Personality
and Individual Differences, 33, 1091-1100.
Palmer, B. R., & Stough, C. (2002). Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (Workplace
SUEIT). Interim technical manual (Version 2). Melbourne,Victoria, Australia: Swinburne University
of Technology.
Parker, J. D. A., Saklofske, D. H., Shaughnessy, P. A., Huang, S. H. S., Wood, L. M., & Eastabrook, J. M.
(2005). Generalizability of the emotional intelligence construct: A cross-cultural study of North American
aboriginal youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 215-227.
Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., & Majeski, S. A. (2004). Emotional intelligence and
academic success: Examining the transition from high school to university. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 163-172.
Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait emotional intelligence in academic
performance and deviant behavior at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277-294.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014

170 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(2)

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality
and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validiation in two stud-
ies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17,
39-57.
Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality
factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273-289.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9,
185-211.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and
repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.),
Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125-154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sauter, D. A., Eisner, F., Ekman, P., & Scott, S. K. (2010). Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions
through nonverbal emotional vocalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 104, 2408-2412.
Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Emotions across cultures and methods.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 304-326.
Sharma, S., Biswal, R., Deller, J., & Mandal, M. K. (2009). Emotional intelligence: Factorial structure and
construct validity across cultures. International Journal of Cross Cultural management, 9, 217-236.
Shi, J., & Wang, L. (2007). Validation of emotional intelligence scale in Chinese university students. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 43, 377-387.
Shipper, F., Kincaid, J., Rotondo, D. M., & Hoffman, R. C. (2003). A cross-cultural exploratory study
of the linkage between emotional intelligence and managerial effectiveness. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 11, 171-191.
Sjoberg, L. (2001). Emotional intelligence: A psychometric analysis. European Psychologist, 6, 79-59.
Sternberg, R., Wagner, R., & Okagaki, L. (1993). Practical intelligence: The nature and role of tacit
knowledge in work and at school. In H. Reese & J. Puckett (Eds.), Advances in lifespan development
(pp. 205-227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tabachnick. B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Tapia, M. (2001). Measuring emotional intelligence. Psychological Reports, 88, 353-364.
Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation of a self-report measure of emo-
tional intelligence as a multidimensional trait domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31,
859-888.
Van der Zee, K., Thijs, M., & Schakel, L. (2002). The relationship of emotional intelligence with academic
intelligence and the Big Five. European Journal of Personality, 16, 103-125.
Van Hemert, D. A., Poortinga, Y. H., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2007). Emotion and culture: A meta-
analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 913-943.
Wang, C., & Wang, X. (2010). Differences on emotional intelligence in negotiation: A cross-cultural inves-
tigation. Advanced Management Science (ICAMS) 2010 IEEE International Conference, 3, 404-408.
doi:10.1109/ICAMS.2010.5553211
Wong, C., Day, J., Maxwell, S., & Meara, N. (1995). A multitrait-multimethod study of academic and
social intelligence in college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 117-133.
Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance
and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-274.
Yoon, E., & Portman, T. A. A. (2004). Critical issues of literature on counseling international students.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 33-44.
Zwick, R., Donoghue, J. R., & Grima, A. (1993). Assessment of differential item functioning for perfor-
mance tasks. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30, 233-251.
Zwick, R., & Thayer, D. T. (1996). Evaluating the magnitude of differential item functioning in polytomous
items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21, 187-201.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at University of Missouri-Columbia on May 16, 2014