Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT)

1. Abstract

The Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT), developed by Benjamin R. Palmer and Con Stough in 2001 at the Organisational Psychology Research Unit of Swinburne University of Technology, is an empirically derived, self-report psychometric inventory designed to measure emotional intelligence (EI) within occupational and organizational contexts. Conceived as an empirical resolution to the theoretical fragmentation among competing conceptualizations—specifically the mental ability framework of Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso, the trait-personality model of Reuven Bar-On, and the competency-based framework of Daniel Goleman—the SUEIT synthesizes the fundamental dimensions of EI through rigorous factor analytic investigation. The instrument comprises 64 items evaluated on a 5-point Likert-type frequency scale ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 5 (“Always”). Psychometric structural evaluation indicates a robust five-factor architecture: Emotional Recognition and Expression (ERE), Understanding Emotions External (UE), Emotions Direct Cognition (EDC), Emotional Management (EM), and Emotional Control (EC).

Extensive normative and validation studies across diverse professional cohorts demonstrate that the SUEIT possesses satisfactory to high internal consistency, with subscale Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .63 to .91, and full-scale reliability frequently exceeding .88. The scale demonstrates robust construct, convergent, and discriminant validity against established personality inventories (such as the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised) and general cognitive ability assessments, establishing significant incremental validity in predicting transformational leadership behaviors, occupational stress resilience, work satisfaction, and organizational citizenship performance. Later commercialized and refined into the Genos Emotional Intelligence assessment system, the original 64-item SUEIT remains an influential milestone in the psychometric assessment of workplace emotional competencies.

2. Keywords

Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test, SUEIT, emotional intelligence, workplace emotional competencies, Benjamin Palmer, Con Stough, Emotional Recognition and Expression, Emotional Management, Emotional Control, Emotions Direct Cognition, psychometrics, occupational psychology, transformational leadership, organizational assessment.

3. Authors

The Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Benjamin R. Palmer, Ph.D.: Organisational Psychology Research Unit, Centre for Neuropsychology, School of Biophysical Sciences and Electrical Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Dr. Palmer is an organizational psychologist whose doctoral research focused on integrating divergent models of emotional intelligence, later founding Genos International to implement evidence-based emotional intelligence assessments globally.
• Con Stough, Ph.D.: Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience and Psychology, Director of the Swinburne Centre for Neuropsychology and Brain Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Professor Stough is an authority on human intelligence, cognitive neuroscience, psychometrics, and the biological foundations of emotional intelligence and executive function.

Institutional Origin: Organisational Psychology Research Unit, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT) is to provide an empirically defensible, psychometrically sound, and workplace-tailored assessment of emotional intelligence. At the turn of the 21st century, the field of emotional intelligence was characterized by conceptual ambiguity and empirical contention, split fundamentally between ability-based models (e.g., Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso’s Multi-Factor Emotional Intelligence Scale [MEIS] and MSCEIT) and mixed/trait models (e.g., Bar-On’s EQ-i and Goleman’s Emotional Competence Inventory [ECI]). Palmer and Stough recognized that while ability measures often struggled with scoring consensus and objective ecological validity in corporate settings, mixed self-report models suffered from excessive overlap with traditional “Big Five” personality traits (notably Neuroticism and Extraversion) and lacked a distinct empirical consensus regarding their underlying factor structure.

To overcome these theoretical shortcomings, the SUEIT was engineered to identify the essential, statistically common structural dimensions shared across existing conceptualizations of emotional intelligence. The inventory evaluates how frequently individuals identify, understand, utilize, manage, and regulate emotions within workplace contexts. By isolating five clear dimensions, the SUEIT addresses both theoretical and practical demands across multiple organizational domains:

• Executive Coaching and Leadership Development: The instrument provides actionable, granular diagnostics regarding how managerial leaders process emotional data, express affective states, manage negative stressors, and inspire or persuade team members. Numerous empirical studies have utilized the SUEIT to predict transformational versus transactional leadership styles, demonstrating that managers scoring higher in emotional management and external emotion understanding elicit higher levels of employee engagement and organizational loyalty.
• Personnel Selection and Talent Management: In high-stakes organizational environments characterized by interpersonal complexity, client negotiations, customer service, or high affective burnout, the SUEIT serves as an indicator of an applicant’s capacity to maintain cognitive focus amidst affective stress, manage interpersonal conflict, and navigate emotional workplace climates.
• Occupational Health and Stress Mitigation: The scale serves as a predictive and diagnostic tool in occupational health settings. High scores on Emotional Control (EC) and Emotional Management (EM) function as critical psychological buffers against chronic work stress, burnout, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization.
• Academic and Applied Psychometric Research: The SUEIT was specifically formulated to allow rigorous empirical testing of the incremental validity of emotional intelligence over general cognitive ability (IQ) and standard personality traits (e.g., the Five-Factor Model) when predicting workplace criterion variables.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the SUEIT is emotional intelligence operationalized as a set of five distinct yet intercorrelated competencies that dictate how individuals perceive, integrate, comprehend, and govern emotions in professional and interpersonal environments. Rather than viewing EI as either purely an abstract cognitive ability or a diffuse set of personality traits, Palmer and Stough (2001) conceptualized EI as an organized system of information-processing capacities and self-regulatory behaviors. The five core dimensions measured by the 64-item instrument are detailed below:

1. Emotional Recognition and Expression (ERE)

This dimension encompasses an individual’s capacity to identify their own emotional states and accurately articulate those feelings to others. It involves both internal emotional awareness (interoceptive and affective mindfulness) and external verbal and non-verbal expressive fluency. High scorers are acutely aware of how they feel in real time, possess a nuanced affective vocabulary, and can authentically convey their internal states without repression or distortion. Low scorers display characteristics akin to subclinical alexithymia, experiencing substantial difficulty identifying the precise nature of their emotions and struggling to find appropriate words or physical cues to describe their affective experiences to colleagues. Representative items include “I can describe my feelings on an issue to others” and “I have trouble finding the right words to express how I feel” (reverse scored).

2. Understanding Emotions External (UE)

Understanding Emotions External reflects an individual’s perceptual acuity and socio-emotional competence in perceiving, decoding, and interpreting the emotional expressions, vocal tones, postural cues, and dynamic states of other people, as well as the broader ambient emotional climate of an organization. This subscale measures cognitive and affective empathy. High scorers readily discern concealed motives, social alliances, subtle interpersonal tensions, and team morale without needing overt declarations. Low scorers frequently misread body language, remain oblivious to shifts in group atmosphere, and fail to anticipate how their actions impact the emotional states of coworkers. Representative items include “I can tell how others are feeling” and “I don’t easily pick-up on the emotional overtones of the environment I am in” (reverse scored).

3. Emotions Direct Cognition (EDC)

Emotions Direct Cognition captures the degree to which an individual systematically incorporates emotional information, somatic markers, intuition, and affective values into cognitive problem-solving, strategic prioritization, and decision-making processes. Drawing conceptually upon Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis, this dimension does not view emotions as disruptive impediments to logic, but rather as indispensable informational inputs that enrich rational choice. High scorers consciously weigh affective reactions, use intuitive feelings as diagnostic data, and utilize mood changes to fuel creative ideation and risk assessment. Low scorers adhere to a hyper-rationalist doctrine that actively attempts to decouple affective considerations from logic, viewing feelings as sources of bias that should be systematically suppressed during corporate deliberations. Representative items include “Examination of feelings is useful in solving problems” and “Feelings should be kept at bay when making important decisions” (reverse scored).

4. Emotional Management (EM)

Emotional Management refers to the proactive capacity to regulate, alter, and cultivate affective states both within oneself (intrapersonal) and within other people (interpersonal). It captures proactive emotional self-efficacy: resolving interpersonal disputes, uplifting demoralized colleagues, generating positive internal mood states to overcome frustration, and resolving conflicts through constructive mood management. High scorers are proficient emotional facilitators who create psychologically safe, motivating work atmospheres and readily overcome minor setbacks. Low scorers struggle to shift out of negative emotional inertia, avoid emotionally charged conflicts, and feel powerless to inspire, soothe, or motivate those around them. Representative items include “I generate positive moods and emotions within myself to get over being frustrated” and “I find it easy to comfort others when they are upset about something at work”.

5. Emotional Control (EC)

Emotional Control assesses an individual’s ability to maintain cognitive functioning, behavioral composure, and emotional equilibrium in high-pressure, anxiety-inducing, or conflict-ridden situations. While Emotional Management involves the active cultivation and alteration of emotional states, Emotional Control represents an executive inhibitory capacity—the prevention of strong negative emotions (such as reactive rage, acute panic, and incapacitating anxiety) from hijacking cognitive clarity and professional performance. High scorers possess strong ego-resiliency, remain level-headed under extreme deadline pressure, and prevent their stress from spilling over onto colleagues. Low scorers report that intense emotional experiences paralyze their thought processes, lead to impulsive behavioral reactions, and disrupt their workplace relationships. Representative items include “When I’m anxious I can remain focused on what I am doing” and “I find it difficult to think clearly when I’m feeling anxious about something” (reverse scored).

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the SUEIT is anchored in a comprehensive empirical synthesis of the principal psychological models of emotional intelligence established during the 1990s. Palmer and Stough (2001) conducted an exhaustive factor analytic deconstruction of the leading operational measures of EI to determine whether a unified, scientifically robust factor structure could be established across disparate paradigms.

Theoretical Foundations and Historical Synthesis

Prior to the development of the SUEIT, the emotional intelligence literature was sharply polarized across three dominant paradigms:

1. The Four-Branch Mental Ability Model (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000): Posited that EI is an aptitude consisting of four hierarchical cognitive capacities: (a) Perceiving Emotion, (b) Facilitating Thought Using Emotion, (c) Understanding Emotion, and (d) Managing Emotions. Although conceptually rigorous, performance-based measures (e.g., MEIS) exhibited psychometric limitations, including questionable scoring consensus criteria and modest subscale intercorrelations.
2. The Multifactorial Trait/Well-Being Model (Bar-On, 1997): Defined emotional intelligence as an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that influence an individual’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands. Bar-On’s Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) incorporated 15 subscales spanning intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, stress management, adaptability, and general mood, drawing criticism for blending fundamental cognitive competencies with temperament and subjective well-being.
3. The Competency Framework (Goleman, 1995, 1998): Conceptualized EI as a broad constellation of learned workplace capabilities categorized into self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, and relationship management, operationalized through instruments such as the Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI).

To establish a definitive empirical structural model, Palmer, Manocha, Gignac, and Stough (2003) administered the primary inventories representing these theoretical perspectives—specifically the MEIS, the EQ-i, and additional related trait inventories—to a heterogeneous sample of over 300 participants. Through second-order exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, Palmer and Stough discovered that the collective item pool across these inventories did not converge onto a single general factor ($g_{EI}$), nor did it cleanly replicate the 15 dimensions of Bar-On or the exact 4 branches of Mayer and Salovey. Instead, the empirical data consistently converged upon a stable five-factor latent structure.

These five factors formed the conceptual blueprint of the SUEIT: Emotional Recognition and Expression, Understanding Emotions External, Emotions Direct Cognition, Emotional Management, and Emotional Control. By grounding the SUEIT items strictly within this empirical synthesis, Palmer and Stough created a measurement tool that harmonized the cognitive information-processing focus of Mayer and Salovey with the pragmatic, behavioral self-regulation emphasis of Goleman and Bar-On, explicitly contextualized for organizational environments.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the SUEIT has been thoroughly evaluated across academic samples, commercial organizations, public sector institutions, and multinational corporations.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was initially established through comprehensive exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) during the scale’s standardisation across an Australian workforce sample ($N = 1,111$). Goodness-of-fit indices supported the hypothesized five-factor oblique model over alternative unidimensional and orthogonal structures. CFA investigations have routinely yielded Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values between .048 and .062, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values exceeding .90, and standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR) under .06, confirming that the five subscales represent distinct latent dimensions rather than artifactual manifestations of a single overarching trait.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Extensive studies examining the SUEIT alongside the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) provide robust evidence of convergent and discriminant validity (Palmer et al., 2003; Gardner & Stough, 2002):

• Emotional Control (EC) exhibits a moderate-to-strong negative correlation with Neuroticism ($r = -.58$ to $-.68$, $p < .001$), supporting its theoretical role as an index of emotional stability, while remaining distinct enough to confirm it is not merely redundant with generalized negative affectivity.
• Emotional Recognition and Expression (ERE) correlates positively with Extraversion ($r = .42$ to $.51$) and Openness to Experience ($r = .35$), reflecting expressive fluency and affective introspection.
• Understanding Emotions External (UE) demonstrates significant positive associations with Agreeableness ($r = .38$) and Extraversion ($r = .34$).
• Emotions Direct Cognition (EDC) demonstrates unique divergent validity, displaying near-zero correlations with traditional cognitive intelligence tests (such as Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices and the Wonderlic Personnel Test, $r = -.04$ to $.08$), confirming that emotional decision-making styles represent a construct distinct from psychometric $g$ or fluid reasoning.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The SUEIT exhibits substantial predictive validity regarding critical workplace outcomes:

• Transformational Leadership: In a landmark study of senior corporate executives, Palmer, Gardner, and Stough (2003) demonstrated that overall SUEIT scores and specific subscales (notably Emotional Management and Understanding Emotions External) correlated significantly with the transformational leadership components of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), including Idealized Influence ($r = .45$), Inspirational Motivation ($r = .41$), and Individualized Consideration ($r = .48$). SUEIT scores predicted transformational leadership behaviors beyond the variance accounted for by the Big Five personality traits.
• Occupational Stress and Strain: Research by Darvish and Nasrollahi (2011) and Stough et al. (2004) identified significant negative relationships between SUEIT Emotional Control and Emotional Management dimensions and subjective occupational stress, physiological symptom reporting, and career burnout inventories. Employees possessing higher SUEIT scores reported significantly lower absenteeism and higher role engagement.
• Job Performance and Organizational Citizenship: Longitudinal field evaluations demonstrate that the SUEIT accounts for significant incremental variance (between 5% and 12%) in supervisor ratings of job performance, peer conflict resolution, and customer satisfaction metrics after controlling for cognitive ability and demographic variables.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the SUEIT has been established across multiple independent organizational cohorts, clinical samples, and cross-cultural adaptations.

Internal Consistency

In the initial normative sample of 1,111 working adults (Palmer & Stough, 2001, 2002), the SUEIT demonstrated sound internal consistency across all subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding conventional psychometric thresholds for applied instruments:

• Emotional Recognition and Expression (ERE): $\alpha = .86$
• Understanding Emotions External (UE): $\alpha = .89$
• Emotions Direct Cognition (EDC): $\alpha = .70$
• Emotional Management (EM): $\alpha = .81$
• Emotional Control (EC): $\alpha = .79$
• Total SUEIT Composite Scale: $\alpha = .88$ to $.91$

While the EDC subscale occasionally displays slightly lower alpha values ($lpha pprox .68 – .72$) due to its bidirectional philosophical framing regarding emotional versus purely rational problem solving, its internal consistency remains well within acceptable parameters for multifaceted psychological constructs. Replication studies across diverse industries (e.g., healthcare, education, financial services, engineering) have consistently corroborated these internal consistency values, demonstrating that the 64 items maintain stable inter-item correlations across gender and occupational strata.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments conducted over varying retest intervals demonstrate that SUEIT scores reflect enduring psychological competencies rather than transient affective mood states:

• Over a four-week interval, test-retest reliability coefficients across a cohort of undergraduate and postgraduate management students ranged from $r_{tt} = .82$ to $r_{tt} = .92$ across the five subscales, with the overall composite score yielding $r_{tt} = .91$.
• Over a prolonged six-month interval in an organizational training evaluation study, stability coefficients remained substantial, ranging from $r_{tt} = .74$ to $r_{tt} = .83$, confirming sufficient temporal baseline stability while still remaining sensitive to targeted emotional intelligence coaching and educational interventions.

9. Factor Analysis

The architectural foundation of the SUEIT is derived from extensive empirical factor analytic investigations conducted by Benjamin Palmer and Con Stough. During the late 1990s, the authors systematically deconstructed the item pools of existing emotional intelligence measures to extract a clean, non-redundant latent structure.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the initial scale construction phase, an initial pool of over 100 candidate items reflecting diverse workplace emotional scenarios, affective awareness, and interpersonal dynamics was administered to a developmental sample of Australian working professionals ($N = 310$). Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) were conducted, followed by both Varimax (orthogonal) and Oblimin (oblique) rotations. Because emotional competencies are theoretically interconnected facets of an integrated emotional system, oblique rotation was determined to be the mathematically and conceptually appropriate model.

Scree plot examinations, parallel analyses, and Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalues $> 1.0$) converged upon a distinct five-factor solution accounting for approximately 42% to 48% of the total variance across the item pool. Items exhibiting weak primary loadings ($< .35$) or excessive cross-loadings ($> .30$ on a secondary factor) were systematically eliminated, reducing the instrument to 64 psychometrically robust items. The extracted factors were labeled:

1. Factor 1: Emotional Recognition and Expression (Eigenvalue $\approx 8.4$, accounting for the largest proportion of common variance)
2. Factor 2: Understanding Emotions External (Eigenvalue $\approx 4.8$)
3. Factor 3: Emotions Direct Cognition (Eigenvalue $\approx 3.2$)
4. Factor 4: Emotional Management (Eigenvalue $\approx 2.7$)
5. Factor 5: Emotional Control (Eigenvalue $\approx 2.1$)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

To confirm this structural model, Palmer and Stough administered the finalized 64-item instrument to a national normative validation cohort of 1,111 working adults. Multiple competing structural equations were modeled via Maximum Likelihood Confirmatory Factor Analysis:

• Model 1 (Unidimensional): All 64 items loading onto a single general EI factor. Fit indices: $\chi^2/df = 5.82$, $\text{RMSEA} = .094$, $\text{CFI} = .68$, $\text{SRMR} = .089$. This model was decisively rejected.
• Model 2 (Five-Factor Orthogonal): Five independent, uncorrelated factors. Fit indices: $\chi^2/df = 3.94$, $\text{RMSEA} = .072$, $\text{CFI} = .79$, $\text{SRMR} = .081$. Also deemed an unsatisfactory fit.
• Model 3 (Five-Factor Oblique): Five intercorrelated latent dimensions. Fit indices: $\chi^2/df = 2.18$, $\text{RMSEA} = .051$ (90% CI [.048, .054]), $\text{CFI} = .91$, $\text{TLI} = .90$, $\text{SRMR} = .053$.

The oblique five-factor structure demonstrated superior statistical fit, establishing that while the five dimensions of the SUEIT are moderately intercorrelated (inter-factor correlations ranging from $r = .22$ between EDC and EC to $r = .56$ between EM and UE), each subscale captures a distinct psychological domain. Subsequent cross-validation studies in international organizational samples have corroborated the invariance of this five-factor framework across gender, age brackets, and management tiers.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics, administration parameters, and scoring configurations of the Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test are summarized below:

• Formal Tool Name: Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (SUEIT); also referenced in organizational settings as the Workplace SUEIT.
• Developers: Benjamin R. Palmer and Con Stough (Organisational Psychology Research Unit, Swinburne University of Technology).
• Measurement Paradigm: Self-report psychological inventory measuring typical behavioral frequency and self-perceived competence in workplace emotional functioning.
• Number of Items: 64 items.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or computerized/online administration; self-administered.
• Completion Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes.
• Target Population: Working adults, organizational leaders, managers, corporate employees, and higher-education student cohorts aged 18 and older.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type frequency scale:
  • 1 = Never
  • 2 = Seldom
  • 3 = Sometimes
  • 4 = Usually
  • 5 = Always
• Subscale Breakdown and Item Groupings:
  • Emotional Recognition and Expression (ERE): Measures awareness of one’s own feelings and the capacity to express them to colleagues (e.g., Items 7, 10, 14, 20, 26, 32, 37, 42, 51, 55, 61).
  • Understanding Emotions External (UE): Measures perception and comprehension of others’ emotional states, non-verbal cues, and environmental atmosphere (e.g., Items 1, 5, 8, 13, 16, 17, 22, 27, 29, 34, 38, 43, 45, 48, 52, 56, 59, 63).
  • Emotions Direct Cognition (EDC): Measures the extent to which affective inputs, feelings, and intuition are utilized in problem solving and strategic decision making (e.g., Items 3, 12, 18, 21, 24, 30, 35, 40, 47, 50, 53, 62).
  • Emotional Management (EM): Measures the active regulation and generation of positive moods within oneself and the facilitation/comforting of others (e.g., Items 2, 15, 23, 28, 33, 36, 39, 44, 58, 64).
  • Emotional Control (EC): Measures the capacity to control strong negative emotions, maintain cognitive focus under anxiety, and resist stress (e.g., Items 4, 6, 9, 11, 19, 25, 31, 41, 46, 49, 54, 57, 60).
• Scoring Methodology:
  • Positively keyed items are scored directly from 1 (“Never”) to 5 (“Always”).
  • Negatively phrased / reverse-keyed items (e.g., “I find it difficult to talk about my feelings with others”, “I try to keep emotions out of my decision making”, “When something goes wrong in my life, I find it difficult to remain positive”) are reversed such that: $1 \rightarrow 5$, $2 \rightarrow 4$, $3 \rightarrow 3$, $4 \rightarrow 2$, and $5 \rightarrow 1$.
  • Subscale raw scores are computed by summing the assigned item values within each respective dimension. Raw scores may be converted to standardized $T$-scores ($M = 50, SD = 10$) or percentiles based on established occupational normative tables.
  • A Total Emotional Intelligence composite score can be computed by summing all five subscale scores, though profiling across the five distinct dimensions is recommended for diagnostic and coaching applications.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test was officially formulated in 2001 by Benjamin Palmer and Con Stough, with the release of the SUEIT: Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test Interim Technical Manual (Version 2). An updated workplace technical manual was subsequently published in 2002.

Copyright and Commercialization: Following extensive validation at Swinburne University of Technology, the intellectual property underpinning the SUEIT was refined and commercialized through Genos International Pty Ltd, co-founded by Dr. Benjamin Palmer. In commercial settings, the scale evolved into the Genos Emotional Intelligence Inventory (Genos EI), which is available as a proprietary, fee-based assessment for corporate selection, 360-degree leadership development, and executive coaching.

Academic and Research Permissions: The original 64-item academic research instrument and its interim technical manual were deposited within the Swinburne University Research Bank (Institutional Repository) for scholarly dissemination. Qualified researchers, academic faculty, and postgraduate students may utilize the instrument for non-commercial scientific investigations upon obtaining formal permission from the original authors or the Centre for Neuropsychology at Swinburne University of Technology. Inquiries regarding scholarly research access, normative datasets, and scoring algorithms may be directed to Swinburne University of Technology or Genos International.

12. References

The theoretical conceptualization, empirical derivation, and psychometric validation of the SUEIT are documented in the following peer-reviewed literature and technical manuals:

• Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Multi-Health Systems.
• Darvish, H., & Nasrollahi, A. A. (2011). Studying the relations between emotional intelligence and occupational stress: A case study at Payame Noor University. Petroleum-Gas University of Ploiesti Bulletin: Economic Sciences Series, 63(2), 38–49.
• Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2002). Examining the relationship between leadership and emotional intelligence in senior and middle-level managers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(2), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210419198
• Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
• Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. Bantam Books.
• Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2000). Models of emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 396–420). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807947.019
• Palmer, B. R. (2003). An analysis of the relationships between various models and measures of emotional intelligence (Doctoral dissertation). Centre for Neuropsychology, School of Biophysical Sciences and Electrical Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria, Australia. Swinburne Research Bank Repository
• Palmer, B. R., Gardner, L., & Stough, C. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence, personality and effective leadership. In Proceedings of the 5th Australian Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference (pp. 56–61). Melbourne, Australia.
• Palmer, B. R., Manocha, R., Gignac, G., & Stough, C. (2003). Examining the factor structure of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory with an Australian sample. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55(2), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530412331312994
• Palmer, B. R., & Stough, C. (2001). SUEIT: Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test: Interim technical manual (Version 2). Organisational Psychology Research Unit, Swinburne University of Technology.
• Palmer, B. R., & Stough, C. (2002). Swinburne University Emotional Intelligence Test (Workplace SUEIT): Interim technical manual (Version 2). Swinburne University of Technology.
• Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., & Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730110380174
• Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9(3), 185–211. https://doi.org/10.2190/DUGG-P24E-52WK-6CDG

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)