Emotion Review Vol. 4, No. 4 (October 2012) 394–402 © The Author(s) 2012 ISSN 1754-0739 DOI: 10.1177/1754073912445811 er.sagepub.com The process of creating, refining, and evaluating a measure of a psychological attribute has long been a mainstay of research in the human sciences. Such work can lay the groundwork for further study, both by clarifying the nature and structure of an attribute and by providing a tool for its quantification, which in turn facilitates empirical study of the attribute and its relationship to other variables. Thus valid measurement of a cognitive attribute such as emotional intelligence (EI) is in many ways a prerequisite for deep exploration of the nature and structure of this ability and the ways in which it connects with other cognitive and behavioral phenomena. Through the lens of a modern, argument-based approach to validation, this review examines the accumulated evidence relevant to the argument for the validity of the Mayer–Salovey– Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT Version 2.0; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) as a measure of the ability of emotional intelligence as articulated by Mayer and Salovey (1997). Although this review finds many aspects of the MSCEIT’s validity argument to be wanting, there is also much that has been learned and can be applied to future research on emotional intelligence and other psychological constructs. A Brief Overview of Emotional Intelligence Although the term emotional intelligence has seen a variety of uses by educators, businesspeople, and the popular press, the scientific literature on EI has focused on definitions that seek consistency with existing psychological conceptions of both emotion and intelligence. Typifying this approach, Mayer and Salovey (1997) proposed a model of emotional intelligence composed of four more specific abilities: (1) the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion (“perceiving emotions”); (2) the ability to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought (“using emotions,” also called “emotional facilitation of thought”); (3) the ability to understand emotion and emotional knowledge (“understanding emotions”); and (4) the ability to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth (“managing emotions”). This model of emotional intelligence guided the construction of the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999) and later, the MSCEIT. The Validity of the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) as a Measure of Emotional Intelligence Andrew Maul University of Oslo, Norway Abstract The concept of emotional intelligence (EI) has drawn a great amount of scholarly interest in recent years; however, attempts to measure individual differences in this ability remain controversial. Although the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) remains the flagship test of EI, no study has comprehensively examined the full interpretive argument tying variation in observed test performance to variation in the underlying ability. Employing a modern perspective on validation, this article reviews and synthesizes available evidence and discusses sources of concern at every level of the interpretive argument. It is argued that a focus on causal explanation of observed variation in test performance would significantly improve the validity of the MSCEIT as a measure of EI. Keywords emotional intelligence, MSCEIT, validity Author note: I am grateful to Maureen O’Sullivan, Mark Wilson, Dacher Keltner, Kimberly Barchard, and anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of this article. Corresponding author: Andrew Maul, University of Oslo, Unit for Quantitative Analysis in Education (EKVA), Postboks 1099 Blindern, Oslo, Norway, 0317. Email: andyemaul@gmail.com 445811EMR 4 4 10.1177/1754073912445811MaulEmotion Review 2012 ARTICLE