Post on 06-Oct-2020
CChhaapptteerr FFiivvee
PPrreelliimmiinnaarryy AAnnaallyyssiiss
Introduction to the Psychometric Tools Used in Detail:
IAS, ECI, Spiritual Intelligence
Performance Rating Criterion
214
Chapter One
PREFACE
MATHEW IAS RATING SCALE
MANUAL V. George Mathew, Ph.D.
1995
{Copyright reserved)
The Mathew IAS Rating Scale can be used as an instrument for
measuring personality as well as an aid in developing self-awareness
for personality development and counselling.
The instrument measures three broad behavioural tendencies
(personality components, dimensions): Inertia, Activation and
Stability. They cut across cognitive, temperament and motivational
modalities. The trait descriptions are given below:
1. Inertia:
Lethargic, Lacks energy, Slow, Late
Fear, Anxious, Timid, Not venturing, Inhibited,
Shy, Withdrawn
Weak-willed, Suggestible
Submissive, Unable to assert, refuse or argue
Inability to mix with strangers
Low self-confidence
Blind conformity, No strong emotional ties
Masochistic, Intropunitive
External Locus of control (believing in fate and luck)
233
No strong moral control, No definite values
Collectivistic
2. Activation:
Overactive, Uncontrolled energy, Impatient,
Hasty
Efficient in planning practical things for the future
Analytical
Risk taking, Rash, Adventurous
Go-getting, Acquisitive, Aggressive, Greedy
Competitive
Maniacal
Passionate, Ego-involved
Assertive, Dominant, Inability to be a follower
Thick-skinned, Proud, Egoistic, Values power, rebelling
Extra punitive, Sadistic
Unable to remain alone or be silent
Internal Locus of control (believing in self-effort and
freedom of will)
Needing rigid external moral controls,
Having conflicts
Individualistic
3. Stability:
Controlled, restful, detached action, Meta-motivation
Sensitive
Can be fast or slow as the situation demands
Punctual, Philosophical, Wise (in addition to being practically
efficient)
Self-actualising, Holistic, Intuitive
Taking calculated risks
234
Balanced, Mature, Open, Warm, Even tempered
Dispassionate
Self-sufficient, Self-accepting
Relaxed, Peaceful
Democratic
Can make a show of anger when required
Fair, tolerant, Loving, Unselfish, Altruistic,
Forgiving oneself and others
Enjoys aloneness or company
Transcending sex
Reforms group
Broad minded, Moral sense based on Love
TYPES OF RATING
The instrument can be used to get self-ratings or "Other" (non-
self) ratings. Other ratings include TGM (Typical Group Member
rating, Peer rating (rating of a ratee of equal status), "Superior" rating
(rating made by a rater having a superior or supervisory status in
relation to the ratee), and "Subordinate" rating (the rater being
subordinate to the ratee as when a student is evaluating a teacher).
Another possible type of rating is 'Expert' rating (When a psychologist
makes a rating after an interview or prolonged purposive observation
of a ratee).
No separate provision has been made in the answer sheet for
such a rating, but the column for `Superior rating' can be used for
this.
Since there is no attempt at camouflaging the purpose or trait
concepts, the testee who desires to give a good impression can
wilfully bias his scores or he may be unconsciously influenced by the
social desirability set, particularly in self-rating. Therefore, in many
235
situations, it may be advantageous to get a TGM rating which
involves to some extent operation of the projective principle and
overcomes the above biases.
ADMINISTRATION
The Rating Scale can be administered individually or in
groups. Distribute the Answer Sheet first and request the subject(s)
to fill in their name and other details. Then distribute the booklets.
Read out the instructions, requesting the subjects to follow the
printed instructions in their copy.
Explain that the test can be used to get different types of
ratings and specify the types that are to be filled-in. If ratings other
than self-rating are required, explain them in detail, giving specific
instructions regarding selection of ratees and filling up their names,
relationship to the ratee, etc. in the answer sheet. For example, if
Peer rating is used, specify how to select the peer (e.g. your best
friend, person sitting next to you, person best known to you, etc.).
After reading the three alternatives in one scale, the rater is expect
ed to make all the required types of ratings before proceeding to the
next scale.
SCORING
Check the answer sheet for omissions. Write 1,1,1 for omitted
scales. It is recommended that an answer sheet with more than
three omitted scales should not be scored. Check whether the total
of points for one scale is 3. Fill in blanks or make necessary
corrections to make totals 3. Add the points in each column. Thus
you get three scores (for I, A and S) for each type of rating. The total
of the three scores should be 105.
236
It is possible to average ratings made by different types of
ratings for one trait regarding one ratee.
INTERPRETATION OF SCORES
Scores can be interpreted in an absolute sense by comparing
the relative predominance of the three raw scores of each individual,
or means of a group.
Norms can be prepared for each type of rating for specific
populations for interpreting scores. These can be used for
interpreting scores with reference to a group. Centile norms for self-
rating are given as appendix.
RELIABILITY
Reliabilities may be determined sfor each population for each
type of rating. Reliabilities are in general high, particularly for
reasonably educated adult raters. Vinodkumar (1995) reports split-
half reliabilities of .73, .89 and .86 for the scales I, A & S respectively
in a sample of 43 adult raters for self-rating.
VALIDITY
The trait classification has a high degree of construct validity
as they are based on a highly developed theory anchored on a time-
tested traditional concept of personality. Meaningful mean group
differences have been reported on the three scales in a variety of
studies.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALE
The Scale is a revision of two personality inventories:
The SRT Inventory (Mathew, 1972) and the Mathew
Temperament Scale (Mathew, 1976). The classical trait conceptions
237
of Thamas, Rajas and Sattva in the SRT Inventory and
Thoughtfulness, Gregarious ness and Maladjustment (derived from
factor analysis at the item level) in the Mathew Temperament Scale
have been combined in the present scale to give more psychologically
meaningful, theoretically significant and practically useful trait
concepts. An attempt is made in this instrument to solve the
problem of social desirability by introducing different types of ratings
for assessment.
PERSONALITY THEORY BEHIND THE IAS TRAIT CONCEPTIONS
The three components of personality are mutually exclusive.
Stability is not a mid-point between the two extremes of Inertia and
Activation, but another dimension. Inertia and Activation are two
contrasted types of inabilities (deficiencies and dependencies, while
Stability indicates the degree of freedom.
Inertia is inability to act; Activation is inability to rest, be alone
or be at peace with oneself. Stability is transcendence, self-
sufficiency and meta-motivation and the ability to act or not act mix
with others or be alone with equal ease. Therefore the forced-choice
mode of response is best to measure these three components of
personality.
Modern concepts of introversion involve a mixture of Inertia
and Stability and the concept of extraversion include Activation and
Stability.
Interest in being alone is different from inability to mix with
others. In fact, a man who can effectively mix is one who is not
dependent on mixing. Similarly effective action is not the same as
impulsivity. Therefore we have to differentiate between mixing as a
result of freedom and compulsive mixing and we have to separate a
man who finds happiness in aloneness from one who is alone
238
because of inability to find company. Many popular scales of
introversion pool together interest in aloneness with inability to
socialise and absence of impulsivity with inability to be active.
Similarly, many scales measuring extraversion combine habits of
mixing with inability to be alone and they confuse inability to find
happiness in restful stillness with effective action.
Many popular scales measuring Stability consider stability as
merely the absence of pathological symptoms like anxiety, depression
and so on. The present conception views stability as stress
tolerance, freedom to adjust and find happiness in different types of
situations (aloneness or company) and act or not act as one chooses.
Many popular scales measuring introversion-extraversion ask
questions like whether you mix socially or not, whether you are
active or not, without separating inabilities and dependencies from
freedom and flexibility. This indiscriminate mixing and clubbing
together of theoretically different things at the level of item writing
and basing theory on superficial observed similarities without
separating causes has led to introversion and extraversion appearing
as the same dimension and sociability and impulsivity appearing as
two different factors. On the other hand, when items are written
separating inabilities and dependencies (to mix or be alone as well as
to rest or act) from freedom and flexibility, the resulting position is
tripolar. Most personality inventories treat introversion and
extraversion as value free; here Inertia and Activation are treated as
undesirable, Stability being the desirable position.
Development of Personality
The three components of personality are seen to different
degrees in everybody in every culture. There are group wise
differences and also culture-wise differences. Inertia is the result of
239
overall inhibition (with possible cortical excitation) resulting from
restrictiveness. It is seen in people subjected to a great deal of social
restriction. It is also seen in preliterate societies particularly in
geographical regions having a hot climate because hot climate
probably involves a great deal of restriction on activity.
Activation is seen in people having to be adventurous and
active to survive. It is seen generally in people inhabiting places with
a cold climate where it is necessary to aggressively act upon the
environment (high degree of mechanical ability, manipulative skill,
etc.), to plan ahead, (for winter), purposely organise themselves (for
hunting) and be active and alert (this probably involves inhibition at
the cortical level). Stability is perhaps historically seen mostly in
people inhabiting places with a moderate climate and congenial
environment. This sort of climate produces a philosophical bent of
mind. At the cortical level this involves balance or transcendence.
Early experiences, education, personality of people with whom one
associates all influence change and development of personality.
Deliberate alteration is possible through insight and personality
development programs.
The person with too much of I finds an escape in ceremonious
religiosity. Hyper intellectualism (interest in science) or physical
activation (interest in travel, sports) are two possible channellisations
of the energies of the high I type of person. Aesthetic, philosophical
and social work or truly spiritual orientations are possible directions
of channellisations of the S type of person.
Hypothetical Model of Effect of Stress and Maladjustment
I represents the flight stress response and A, the fight stress
response. In moderate levels the emotions of fear/aggression along
240
with the usual bodily concomitants of these emotions are seen in I/A
type persons.
A man with a great degree of Inertia gives an impression of
apparent balance when not exposed to stress. He has his existential
insecurity or survival anxiety under control through superstitions
and ceremonies. However when he has to face situations which he is
not programmed for, he tends to withdraw or break down as he has a
low level of stress tolerance. He is incapable of having deep emotions.
He has transitory states of anxiety or he resorts to hysteric devices.
When stress is pronged and when these devices are not satisfactory,
he may break down into psychosis. Instinctual collective aggression
is a means of dealing with group stress among such people.
People with Activation as the main component are people with
a great deal of restlessness and ambition. When exposed to
immediate stress, they become manic and aggressive and may show
delinquent, criminal or psychopathic behaviour.
People who have relatively high scores on both I and A, are
subject to moods of excitement (mania) and depression. They may
break down into manic-depressive disorders. People with high
scores on both A and S may become paranoid when exposed to
stress and may break down into paranoid schizophrenia.
People with high I & A seems to be more predisposed for
cancer. High A & S seems to be the type prone to physiological level
somatisation (psychosomatic complaints, heart disease).
A man with a great deal of Stability has the maximum Stress
tolerance. However he has also a very sensitive, discriminating
nervous system. He responds to delicate things like incongruity of
instructions, moral contradictions and so on. He is capable of deep
241
emotions. Though he is capable of adjusting to a variety of new
situations, uncongenial (morally, aesthetically and socially)
situations cause stress in him and create states of intense and
prolonged anxiety or deep depression. Pure S types however, seldom
break down.
Schizophrenia is viewed as total break down. Persons with any
combination of I, A & S values may ultimately break down into
Schizophrenia if the earlier, more adaptive defences prove to be
inadequate. In modern cultures I + S combination is the root
personality type having schizophrenia as the primary defence.
REFERENCE
Vinodkumar, P. (1995). A Study of Spontaneous Psi Experience,
Personaity and Materialism - Spiritualism Orientation of Yoga
Practitioners. Unpublished M.Phil Dissertation, Dept. of Psychology,
University of Kerala.
242
TENTATIVE NORMS: CENTILE NORMS FOR SELF-RATING
Norms for Males Norms for Females
Raw Scores Centiles Raw Scores Centiles
I A S I A S
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 4 0 0 5 7 1 0
10 12 1 0 10 20 3 0
15 35 6 1 15 29 10 0
20 51 15 2 20 40 45 0
25 63 31 6 25 60 67 1
30 76 55 10 30 75 82 3
35 85 85 14 35 86 93 5
40 92 92 19 40 94 98 10
45 96 97 26 45 99 99 14
50 97 98 40 50 100 100 21
55 98 99 56 55 38
60 99 99 68 60 53
65 99 100 78 65 64
70 100 86 70 73
75 94 75 82
80 96 80 90
85 98 85 96
90 99 90 99
95 100 95 100
243
PERFORMANCE RATING CRITERION
LIC affixes the targets for the development officer in the following
ways:
Sum assured:
First year premium:
Number of policies:
From 2007 – 08 financial year, LIC has abolished ‘sum
assured’ target for the development officers and divided ‘first year
premium’ target into two, namely ‘single’ premium and ‘non single’
premium.
The performance of the development officer(s) has been
obtained in the following manner. Firstly, development officers were
asked to mention about their individual targets assigned by their
respective LIC branch for the last five financial years starting from
2002 – 03. They were also asked to mention about their targets
achieved too.
Following table is an example of how a low performer
development officer was identified.
Low performance (example)
Approximate target assigned by the respective LIC branch
Financial Years Target Criteria
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Sum Assured (in Crores) 4.5 5 5.5 5.75 6.25
First year Premium (in Lakhs) 15.20 18 18.50 21 24.5
Number of policies 565 650 670 715 800 Average of Sum Assured (in Crores) - 4.5+5+5.5+5.75+6.25 = 27/5 = 5.4 crores. Average of 1st year Premium (in Lakhs)-15.2+18+18.5+21+24.5=97.2/5=19.4 lakhs. Average of number of policies-565+650+ 670+715+800=3400/5=680
244
Approximate target achieved by the respective Development Officer
Financial Years Target Criteria
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Sum Assured (in Crores) 3.0 4.15 2.0 4.25 4.0
First year Premium (in Lakhs) 9.7 7.24 10.74 9.3 10.23
Number of policies 571 287 356 473 348 Average of Sum Assured (in Crores)-3.0+4.15+2.0+4.25+4.0=17.4/5 = 3.48 crores. Average of 1st year Premium (in Lakhs)-9.7+7.24+10.74+9.3+10.23=47.21/5=9.44 lakhs Average of number of policies – 571 + 287 + 356 + 473 + 348 = 2035/5 = 407
()
0.64444 56.9 36.66889
×
= × =
Target Achieved Target Assigned
Highest Target Assigned Average of five financial
years in each performance criterion
3.48 CroresSum Assured = Crores5.4 Crores
First year Pre 0.48659 77.51 37.71621
0.5985 1333 798
= × =
= × =
9.44 Lakhsmium = Lakhs19.4 Lakhs407Number of Policies = Policies680
Following table is an example of how a high performer
development officer was identified.
High performance (example)
Approximate target assigned by the respective LIC branch
Financial Years Target Criteria
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Sum Assured (in Crores) 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.0
First year Premium (in Lakhs) 15.5 17.5 20.0 21.2 23.0
Number of policies 600 645 690 705 760 Average of Sum Assured (in Crores)-3.5+4.5+5.5+6.5+7.0 = 27/5 = 5.4 crores. Average of 1st year Premium (in Lakhs)-15.5+17.5+20.0+21.2+23.0=97.2/5=19.4 lakhs Average of number of policies – 565 + 650+ 670 + 715 + 800 = 3400/5 = 680
245
Approximate target achieved by the respective Development Officer
Financial Years Target Criteria
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Sum Assured (in Crores) 5.0 6.5 7.2 9.0 9.71
First year Premium (in Lakhs) 25.73 26.02 26.92 27.97 29.55
Number of policies 730 699 902 776 863 Average of Sum Assured (in Crores)-5.0+6.5+7.2 + 9.0 + 9.71 = 37.41/5 = 7.5 crores Average of 1st year Premium (in Lakhs)-25.73+26.02+26.92+27.97+29.55=136.19/5 = 27.24 lakhs Average of number of policies – 730 + 699 + 902 + 776 + 863 = 3970/5=794
()
1.88889 56.9 79.02778
×
= × =
Target Achieved Target Assigned
Highest Target Assigned Average of five financial
years in each performance criterion
7.5 CroresSum Assured = Crores5.4 Crores
First year Prem 1.40412 77.51 108.8334
1.1676 1333 1556
= × =
= × =
27.24 Lakhsium = Lakhs19.4 Lakhs794Number of Policies = Policies680
NB: From 2007 – 08 financial year onwards, LIC abolished ‘sum assured target to achieve’ for the development officers and divided ‘first year premium’ target into two category, namely ‘single’ premium and ‘non single’ premium.
Emotional competence inventory
The ECI is a 360-degree tool designed to access the emotional
competencies of individuals and organisations. It is based on
emotional competencies identified by Dr. Daniel Goleman in working
with emotional intelligence (1998), and on competencies from
Hay/McBer's Generic Competency Dictionary (1996) as well as
Dr.Richard Boyatzis Self Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ).
246
Hay/McBer's Generic Competency Dictionary was originated by
Lyle and Signe Spencer as documented in their book Competence at
Work (1993) and revised by psychologist David McCleelland after an
extensive review of the literature. It is based on over 20 years
initiated by Dr. McCllelland in 1973 with his seminal article, "Testing
for competence rather than Intelligence". Hay/McBer and other
researchers have established that every core competency in the
Dictionary reliably differentiates performance in a variety of
organisations.
The Self Assessment Questionnaire was initially developed by
Dr.Boyatzis in 1991 for use with MBA and executive students to
assess competencies in the Generic Model of Management used at
the Weather head school of Management, Case Western Reserve
University. The SAQ has shown a high degree of construct validity
against a variety of behavioural and questionnaire measure. Since
1991, it ahs been used in numerous studies, including longitudinal
research (Boyatzis, Cowen, and Kolb, 1995; Boyatzis, Leonard, Rhee,
and Thompson, 1995; Boyatzis, Leonard, Rhee and Wheeler, 1996).
Expanding upon Dr. Boyatzis's well-established evaluation
measure, Dr.Boyatzis and Dr. Goleman developed a pool of items
designed to capture the full spectrum of emotional competencies.
Items were selected from this pool based on conceptual and logical
considerations. Hay/McBer consultants further refined these items
to reflect developmental scaling characteristic of Hay/McBer's
Generic Dictionary of Competencies. Developmental scales were
designed and target levels were identified based on expert opinion
and prior studies.
Boyatzis, Goleman, Rhee (1999) outlined the rational for the
clustering and organisation of emotional intelligence competencies. A
247
more detailed explanation for the development of the ECI and the
theoretical structure from which it is based is mentioned in the
following part.
Emotional intelligence is the capacity for recognising our own
feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves and for
managing emotions effectively in others and ourselves. An emotional
competency is a learned capacity based on emotional intelligence
that contributes to effective performance at work.
The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) measures 20
competencies organised into four clusters: Self Awareness, Self-
management, Social Awareness, and Social Skill.
Self-Awareness concerns knowing one's internal states,
preferences, resources, and intuitions. The Self - awareness cluster
contains three competencies.
• Emotional Awareness: Recognising one's emotions and their
effects.
• Accurate Self -Assessment: knowing one's strength and limits
• Self Confidence: A strong sense of one's self-worth and
capabilities
Self-Management refers to managing one's internal states,
impulses, and resources. The Self-Management cluster
contains six competencies.
• Self-control: Keeping disruptive emotions and impulses in
check
• Trustworthiness: Maintaining standards of honesty and
integrity
248
• Conscientiousness: Taking responsibility for personal
performance
• Adaptability: Flexibility in handling change.
• Achievement Orientation: Striving to improve or meeting a
standard of excellence
• Initiative: Readiness to act on opportunities.
Social Awareness refers to how people handle relationships
and awareness of others' feelings, needs, and concerns. The
Social awareness cluster contains three competencies.
• Empathy: Sensing other's feelings and perspective, and taking an
active interest in their concerns.
• Organisational Awareness: Reading a group's emotional currents
and power relationships.
• Service Orientation: Anticipating, recognising, and meeting
customers' needs.
Social Skills concerns the skill or adeptness at inducing desirable
responses in others. The social skills cluster contains eight
competencies.
Developing Others: Sensing other's development needs and
bolstering their abilities.
Leadership: Inspiring and guiding individuals and groups.
Influence: Wielding effective tactics for persuasion.
Communication: Listening openly and sending convincing
messages.
249
Change Catalyst: Initiating or managing change.
Conflict Management: Negotiating and resolving disagreements.
Building Bonds: Nurturing instrumental relationships.
Teamwork & Collaboration: Working with others toward shared
goals. Creating group synergy in pursuing collective goals.
Reliability
Reliability generally refers to the consistency or stability of
measures or observations. Essentially, if a person is measured twice
on the same measure it should roughly yield the same score both
times, that is, it should be reliable. For example, more than one
judge (i.e., rater) might rate the behaviour of the same person or
event and the correlation between those ratings would give an
indication of the reliability of ratings, or observer agreement.
Alternatively, correlations between ratings by the same judge at
different times would provide some indication of stability. It might
indicate the consistency of the behaviour, the consistency of the
rater, or both over time (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991).
When assessing the reliability of survey instruments, typically
two indicators are provided; test-retest reliability and internal
consistency. Test-retests reliability refers to the stability of a
measure over time. For example, a survey is administered twice to
the same individuals with a period of time between assessment
(typically two weeks to four months), and correlations are computed
to determine how stable the test is from one administration to
another. Internal consistency refers to the average of the inter
correlations among all the single test items. Chronbach's alpha is
the most commonly used indicator of internal consistency. This
250
procedure estimates reliability from the consistency of item
responses from a single assessment.
Internal Consistency
Table No. 4 presents Chronbach's alpha internal consistency
coefficients for the ECI clusters and competencies. For total others'
ratings, the alpha coefficients range from 0.73 (Trustworthiness) to
0.92 (Empathy) with an overall average internal consistency
coefficient of 0.82. For self-ratings, the alpha coefficients range from
0.61 (Accurate Self Assessment) to 0.85 (Service Orientation) with an
overall average internal consistency coefficient of 0.75. These results
suggest that total others' ratings are more stable and reliable than
self-ratings although no statistical tests were conducted to determine
whether the difference is meaningful. These findings do support our
general contention that self-ratings are less reliable and
consequently less valid (i.e., poor predictor of performance relative to
total others ECI ratings). Research presented later in this manual
presents predictive validity evidence for both self and total others
ratings on the ECI. This pattern of results also suggests that total
others responses may be subject to a general halo effect, commonly
seen in multi-rater (i.e., 360) instruments. The tendency for raters to
apply an overall impression of a person may contribute to inflated
reliability estimates on total other's ratings. These results, however,
indicate very good internal consistency reliability for the ECI.
251
TABLE NO: 4
Chronbach’s alpha coefficients for self and total others ECI ratings from the Hay
North American Database. Scores based on average item scores
Total Others Rating
(N=3,931)
Self Rating (N=4,001)
ECI Cluster Competency Alpha
Coefficient Alpha
Coefficient
Emotional Self-Awareness 0.74 0.81
Accurate Self-Awareness 0.83 0.68 Self Awareness
Self Confidence 0.88 0.80
Self-control 0.89 0.78
Trustworthiness 0.73 0.74
Conscientiousness 0.90 0.81
Adaptability 0.77 0.60
Achievement Orientation 0.87 0.78
Self Management
Initiative 0.83 0.72
Empathy 0.92 0.81
Organisational Awareness 0.84 0.75 Social Awareness
Service Orientation 0.81 0.85
Developing Others 0.88 0.77
Leadership 0.80 0.69
Influence 0.83 0.73
Communication 0.86 0.77
Change Catalyst 0.91 0.84
Conflict Management 0.86 0.75
Building Bonds 0.84 0.75
Social Skills
Team work & Collaboration 0.91 0.81
Self-Awareness 0.76 0.61
Self-Management 0.88 0.79
Social Awareness 0.81 0.71 ECI Clusters
(N=5,354)
Social Skills 0.96 0.92
252
Test-Retest Reliability
Although no specific test-retest reliability studies have been
conducted with the ECI, other pre-and post-assessment research
provides reasonable evidence for adequate levels of test-retest
reliability. A sample of 20 Brazilian executives from a large
consumer retail organisation was assessed twice on the ECI with
seven months between assessments. This period of time is higher
than what is typically recommended (Anastasi, 1982). Further more,
between assessments, the executives participated in an EI
development program; therefore results must be interpreted with
caution. This data also suggests that the ECI may be sensitive to
change because stability coefficients for the total others ratings were
only moderately high, while stability coefficients for self-scores were
very low.
253
TABLE NO: 5
Test – retest stability coefficients for self and total others ECI ratings with Brazilian consumer
Total Others Rating Self Rating
ECI Cluster Competence Stability
Coefficient Stability
Coefficient
Emotional Self-Awareness 0.55 0.23
Accurate Self-Awareness 0.58 0.26 Self Awareness
Self Confidence 0.69 0.33
Self-control 0.49 0.43
Trustworthiness 0.67 0.22
Conscientiousness 0.92 0.56
Adaptability 0.52 0.55
Achievement Orientation 0.60 0.19
Self Management
Initiative 0.45 0.15
Empathy 0.62 0.61
Organisational Awareness 0.82 0.22 Social Awareness
Service Orientation 0.41 0.05
Developing Others 0.75 0.55
Leadership 0.56 0.47
Influence 0.56 0.73
Communication 0.56 0.08
Change Catalyst 0.69 0.35
Conflict Management 0.39 0.43
Building Bonds 0.72 0.44
Social Skills
Team work & Collaboration 0.57 0.82
254
Validity
The validity of the psychological tests generally refers to the
degree to which a measure or questionnaire actually measures what
it is supposed to measure. For example, a grade in a math course
might typically be thought to reflect (measure) math ability, but it
might also reasonably reflect other characteristics (e.g., motivation,
career goals, work ethic, parents' educational background, family
income, etc.). In fact, math grades might generally relate to grades in
other courses, which in turn might correlate with more psychological
characteristics like self-esteem, self-efficacy, and even lack of
depression. In other words, understanding the true nature of a
construct can be complicated.
Two types of validity research help us address these issues:
content and construct validity. Content validity addresses whether a
test adequately samples the relevant material it purports to cover.
This is typically done qualitatively by a team of 'experts' within a
field.
Alternatively, construct validity refers to the degree to which a
test or questionnaire is a measure of the characteristic of interest.
This type of evidence typically takes the form of discriminant and
convergent validity. This simply refers to whether the test correlates
with other measures that ought to be conceptually related while
correlating less with those that it should not be associated. For
example, the ECI ought to correlate positively with self-esteem
(convergent) and negatively with depression (convergent), and not
correlate with cognitive ability (discriminant).
255
SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE
Dr. Michael Guillen was born in East Los Angeles, earned his
B.S. from UCLA and his Ph.D. from Cornell University in physics,
mathematics and astronomy. For eight years he was an award-
winning physics instructor at Harvard University. In 2000, he was
elected to the renowned Explorers Club.
Michael grew up in East Los Angeles in a Christian home
in the heart of the Mexican barrio. His father and grandfather
were Pentecostal ministers.
When he was nine years old, Michael’s dad came home
with a paperback book called Nuclear Forces. Not realizing it
was a college textbook; Michael read it and fell in love with
science. He says the Lord mysteriously put the overwhelming
desire on his heart to become a scientist.
Everyone assumed he would follow in his father and
grandfather’s footsteps in ministry. His vision took him from
East Los Angeles to University of California Los Angeles,
Cornell, and Harvard and eventually his IQ (Intelligence
Quotient) overcame his SQ (Spiritual Quotient).
Dr. Guillen is the president of Spectacular Science
Productions. He is also the host of Where Did It Come From? An
exciting new weekly, one-hour, prime-time series for The History
Channel. The series is scheduled to debut in the summer, 2006
season.
Over the years, Dr. Guillen has written hundreds of articles for
numerous distinguished publications, including Science News and
Psychology Today magazines and The New York Times and
256
Washington Post. For fourteen years, he was the Emmy-award-
winning Science Correspondent for ABC News. He appeared regularly
on Good Morning America, 20/20, Nightline, and World News
Tonight.
Dr. Guillen is the best-selling author of two critically acclaimed
books for the general public about mathematics: Bridges to Infinity: the Human Side of Mathematics and Five Equations that Changed the World: the Power and Poetry of Mathematics. Another book title Can Faith and Logic Co-Exist was also very popular.
In his latest book “Can a Smart Person Believe in God?” Dr.
Guillen tells of his lifelong attempt to reconcile his scientific career
with his deeply religious upbringing. In it he uses the term SQ,
which stands for Spiritual Quotient - the spiritual counterpart to IQ.
Dr. Guillen believes that only when we use both our IQ and SQ, we
perceive ourselves, others, and the universe in their full, multi-
dimensional splendour.
In his latest book "Can a Smart Person Believe in God?"
Guillen describes about his successful attempt to reconcile his
scientific career with his deeply religious upbringing.
Guillen uses the term SQ, which stands for Spiritual Quotient,
the spiritual counterpart to IQ. According to Guillen, our SQ should
matter to us just as much as our IQ.
Guillen says that our journey through life works best when we
get our IQ to work right alongside our SQ.
Then, Guillen points out; we acquire what he calls
"stereoscopic faith", a faith that allows us to see the world in stereo.
"With stereoscopic faith," Guillen says we will see reality in its
full, multidimensional glory: space and time on the one hand,
meaning and purpose on the other.
257
According to Guillen, so much time has been spent nurturing the
idea that science and religion are incompatible and we have to make
a choice. According to him, one should learn how to reconcile the two
and that one doesn’t have to make a choice. The mind and spirit can
come together in some coherent way.
Guillen says one can’t choose between intelligence and
spirituality. But when one does that, he or she is tearing his or her
mind away from his or her spirit and one can't be a whole person
until one learns to integrate the two. Our mind cannot be at war with
our spirit.
Guillen strongly tries to make people understand that the
mind and the spirit are not only compatible but they are
synergistic.
His scientific studies, mainly, the studies ‘how the
universe operates’; ‘how the world was put together’, made
Michael Guillen understood that the creation of the universe
was not an accident.
He lists out three statements to justify his thoughts or beliefs:
1. The universe has a beauty that is more than skin deep
(artificial). For example: the one-celled organism or the
choreography of the cosmos.
2. If a person can believe in black holes and multiple
universes then it would be no big deal to believe in God.
3. In science there is one truth and one set of laws. This
showed Michael Guillen the uncompromising truth that
258
there is one truth, one standard of right and wrong. It was
easy for him to believe in SQ more thoroughly.
Presently Dr. Guillen is the Chief Consultant for Science and
Religion for the Crystal Cathedral Ministries, which includes the
Hour of Power television show, and Chief Science Advisor for the
Central Committee of American Rabbis. He lives outside of Boston.
TABLE NO: 6
Item analysis of Dr. Michael Guillen’s Spiritual Quotient Questionnaire
Questions ‘t’ value 1 -6.37** 2 -10.42** 3 -9.33** 4 -14.45** 5 -16.04** 6 -10.45** 7 -6.73** 8 -3.96** 9 -8.40** 10 -9.61** 11 -9.70** 12 -12.66** 13 -2.66** 14 -8.67** 15 -10.30** 16 -15.50** 17 -12.55** 18 -13.43** 19 -12.04** 20 -17.16**
*P < 0.05 level **P < 0.01 level
259
Item analysis was done for the Michael Guillen’s Spiritual
Quotient Questionnaire, and it was found that all the questions were
significant at 0.01 level. The questionnaire has likert five point
scaling technique. In order to avoid the communication gap and
other language barrier, the questionnaire was translated into
vernacular language Malayalam, after consulting with the respective
language expert.
The main purpose of doing item analysis is to find out the
relevance of each question in the Indian (in Kerala) context. In order
to find out this, the questionnaire was first distributed to 400
different segments of the public such as youths, working woman,
housewives, senior citizens, business people, teachers, bank
employees, people working in LIC, Doctors, artists etc. After
collecting the filled questionnaire, scoring was done and the whole
data was then sorted into ascending order, where first 200 responses
were treated as low response group one, and remaining 200
responses were treated as high response group two. Then
independent ‘t’ test was applied to find out each question’s
significance. The results showed that each question is significant at
0.01 level.
Again, the same process was repeated and questionnaire was
distributed to 300 LIC development officers (the original sample unit
of the study) and their responses was sorted into ascending order,
where first 175 responses were treated as low response group - one,
and remaining 175 responses were treated as high response group -
two. Then independent ‘t’ test was applied to find out each question’s
significance. The results showed that each question is significant at
0.01 level. The above Table No. 6 describes the results.
Spiritual intelligence questionnaire consist 20 questions
altogether.
260