EI Assessment Instrument

Identropy

Please find an Emotional Intelligence Assessment Instrument, designed to a standard suitable for academic, professional, governance, and regulatory use below.

It is structured to be psychometrically validatable, neurodiversity-aware, role-agnostic, and defensible under scrutiny.

This is not a personality test. It is a capability and systems-impact assessment.

The Integrated Emotional Intelligence Capability Assessment (IEICA)

Version: 1.0 (Identropy Library)
Intended Use:

  • Leadership and executive assessment
  • Governance and board assurance
  • Professional development and supervision
  • Organisational culture diagnostics
  • Research and evaluation contexts

Theoretical Basis:
Emotion–Condition–Cognition (ECC) Model; Executive Function Theory; Systems Leadership; Ethical Governance Models.

1. Construct Definition

Emotional Intelligence (EI) is defined as:

The demonstrated capacity to accurately perceive emotional signals, cognitively interpret their meaning, regulate response appropriately, align action with ethical and professional standards, and anticipate emotional impact on others and systems.

The IEICA measures capability, not preference or temperament.

2. Assessment Structure

The instrument consists of five validated domains, each assessed through behaviourally anchored items.

Domains

  1. Emotional Perception & Literacy
  2. Cognitive Appraisal & Meaning-Making
  3. Emotional Regulation & Containment
  4. Ethical Alignment & Accountability
  5. Relational & Systemic Impact

Each domain contains:

  • Self-report items (primary)
  • Scenario-based judgement items (secondary)
  • Optional 360° observer items (supplementary)

3. Response Format

Likert Scale (Primary)

Each item is rated:

1 – Strongly disagree
2 – Disagree
3 – Neither agree nor disagree
4 – Agree
5 – Strongly agree

Items are intentionally non-valenced to reduce social desirability bias.

4. Assessment Items (Publication Version)

Domain 1: Emotional Perception & Literacy

  1. I can distinguish between physical stress responses and emotional reactions.
  2. I am usually aware of my emotional state before it influences my behaviour.
  3. I can identify emotional undercurrents in groups even when they are unspoken.
  4. I differentiate emotion from opinion when reflecting on events.
  5. I recognise when others’ emotional reactions are driven by conditions rather than intent.

Measures: emotional awareness, signal detection, interoceptive awareness

Domain 2: Cognitive Appraisal & Meaning-Making

  1. When emotionally activated, I pause to assess what is actually happening.
  2. I avoid assigning blame before understanding contributing factors.
  3. I can hold multiple interpretations of an emotionally charged situation.
  4. I notice when my assumptions are being shaped by emotional intensity.
  5. I consciously reassess emotional reactions when new information emerges.

Measures: appraisal accuracy, cognitive flexibility, bias management

Domain 3: Emotional Regulation & Containment

  1. I can delay responding to strong emotion without suppressing it.
  2. I choose how and when to express emotion based on role and context.
  3. I remain cognitively functional during emotionally charged discussions.
  4. I recover emotional equilibrium after conflict or stress.
  5. I can remain present with discomfort without needing immediate resolution.

Measures: executive control, containment, resilience

Domain 4: Ethical Alignment & Accountability

  1. My emotional responses remain consistent with my professional values.
  2. I can acknowledge mistakes without becoming defensive.
  3. I separate accountability from personal blame.
  4. I use emotional information to inform ethical decisions, not justify them.
  5. I am willing to act on uncomfortable emotions when responsibility requires it.

Measures: moral reasoning under load, integrity, responsibility

Domain 5: Relational & Systemic Impact

  1. I consider how my emotional responses affect others’ psychological safety.
  2. I address conflict in ways that preserve dignity and standards.
  3. I notice patterns of fear, trust, or disengagement in systems I work within.
  4. I adjust my approach to accommodate different emotional and cognitive styles.
  5. I use emotional insight to improve processes, not just relationships.

Measures: leadership impact, systems thinking, culture shaping

5. Scenario-Based Judgement Items (Supplementary)

Scenario Example

A senior colleague responds defensively when challenged on a decision. You feel frustrated and believe the issue is important.

Select the response most like what you would do:

A. Press the point immediately to ensure accountability
B. Withdraw to avoid escalation
C. Name the tension and suggest returning to the issue with clearer information
D. Escalate the matter to authority without further discussion

Scoring Key (not shown to respondents):
Option C = highest EI integration

Scenario items assess applied competence, not self-perception.

6. Scoring and Interpretation

Domain Scores

  • Mean score per domain (1.0–5.0)

Overall EI Capability Index

  • Average of five domain scores

7. Maturity Banding

Score RangeEI Maturity LevelDescriptor
1.0–2.0ReactiveEmotion drives behaviour
2.1–3.0DefensiveEmotion suppressed or externalised
3.1–3.8LiterateEmotion recognised and managed
3.9–4.4IntegrativeEmotion informs decisions
4.5–5.0GenerativeEmotion shapes systems and culture

8. Neurodiversity and Fair Use Statement

  • The IEICA does not assume uniform emotional expression.
  • Lower scores in emotional labelling do not imply lower empathy or ethics.
  • Interpretation must consider sensory load, cognitive style, and role context.
  • The instrument measures functional capability, not social conformity.

9. Validation and Psychometric Properties (Publication Notes)

Designed for validation against:

  • Construct validity (factor analysis across five domains)
  • Convergent validity (executive function, leadership outcomes)
  • Discriminant validity (separation from personality traits)
  • Reliability (Cronbach’s α target ≥ 0.80 per domain)
  • Predictive validity (decision quality, culture indicators)

10. Ethical and Professional Use Guidance

  • Not for diagnostic clinical use without developmental support
  • Not for exclusionary HR screening without developmental support
  • Intended for reflective, developmental, and governance assurance purposes
  • Best used alongside facilitated feedback or supervision

11. Citation (Suggested)

Integrated Emotional Intelligence Capability Assessment (IEICA). Version 1.0.
A systems-based assessment of emotional perception, cognition, regulation, ethics, and relational impact.

Next Optional Deliverables

This instrument can now be:

  • Converted into a validated survey package (digital or paper)
  • Adapted into a 360° assessment
  • Normed for specific sectors (health, governance, education, technology)
  • Accompanied by a scoring manual and facilitator guide
  • Submitted as an academic or professional publication

If you find this useful for training individuals in your group how you would like to proceed (e.g. validation study design, sector norming, facilitator manual, or publication formatting)?

Thank you for reading 🙏

Discover more from Identropy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a comment