ADAPTATION PROCEDURE OF LEVEL OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE (LEI) TEST AND ITS METHODOLOGY PROBLEMS

Abstract

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.