Adaptation Procedure of Level of Emotional Intelligence (LEI) Test and its Methodology Problems

Research background and hypothesis. There are only few original psychological methodologies developed in Lithuania, therefore most often foreign test procedure adaptation is undertaken. In Lithuania the iniative of psychologists to develop original methodologies is met with hostility though it is universally agreed that tests developed abroad are marked with strong “cultural charge”. Furthermore, some other problematic aspects of foreign test development become obvious, e. g. free treatment of survey construct, etc. Therefore, while adapting new methodology, in addition to correct implementation of all psychometric procedures, detection of problematic areas of the adapted methodology is relevant. Research aim was to present new adapted methodology of Level of Emotional Intelligence (LEI) test and to demonstrate major problems that arise in the adaptation procedure. Research methods. The survey involved 590 students from seven Lithuanian universities. In the five-step survey LEI test validity and reliability were examined using different statistical analysis methods (authors S. Beliayev, S. Yanovitch and A. Mazurov, 2009). Research results. The authors of the methodology maintain that the psychometric parameters of LEI test are sufficient. However, the authors of the present article have uncovered a number of disputable aspects of the said methodology. All required adaptation procedures of LEI methodology were performed: new scale structure was developed and tested using multi-factor analysis, test internal consistence and resolution were checked, test construct validity and re-test reliability were verified, test construction mistakes were spotlighted. Discussion and conclusions. LEI test adaptation procedure has disclosed important methodological problems that have to be addressed while adapting instruments of psychological research: 1) theoretical concept of methodology suggested by the authors and essential conformity of the said methodology to the universally accepted definition of construct in the science of psychology must be evaluated; 2) statement assessment logic proposed by the authors of methodology must be analyzed; 3) validation methods used by the authors must be critically assessed.