Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to perceive, express, understand, and manage emotions. Current research indicates that it may protect against the emotional burden experienced in certain professions. This article aims to provide an updated systematic review of existing instruments to assess EI in professionals, focusing on the description of their characteristics as well as their psychometric properties (reliability and validity). A literature search was conducted in Web of Science (WoS). A total of 2761 items met the eligibility criteria, from which a total of 40 different instruments were extracted and analysed. Most were based on three main models (i.e., skill-based, trait-based, and mixed), which differ in the way they conceptualize and measure EI. All have been shown to have advantages and disadvantages inherent to the type of tool. The instruments reported in the largest number of studies are Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i), Schutte Self Report-Inventory (SSRI), Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test 2.0 (MSCEIT 2.0), Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS), Wong and Law's Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS), and Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue). The main measure of the estimated reliability has been internal consistency, and the construction of EI measures was predominantly based on linear modelling or classical test theory. The study has limitations: we only searched a single database, the impossibility of estimating inter-rater reliability, and non-compliance with some items required by PRISMA. In the ability model, developed by Mayer and Salovey, EI is seen as a form of innate intelligence made up of several capacities that influence how people understand and manage their own emotions and those of others. These emotion processing skills are: (1) perception, evaluation and expression of emotions, (2) emotional facilitation of thought, (3) understanding and analysis of emotions, and (4) reflective regulation of emotions [ 3 , 4 ]. Consistent with this conceptualization, the measures were designed as performance tests. Subsequently, the model proposed by Petrides and Furnham [ 5 ], the trait model, was developed. items: 34 Dimensions and items: · Perception of emotions in other people (11) · Perception of own emotions (11) · Emotion management (12) Spanish (Venezuela) Internal consistency: α = 0.90 Test–retest: None Internal structure: Exploratory factor analysis Principal component analysis Convergent: (+/−): IRI, and Scale of Emotional Sensitivity Content: Content of items reviewed by expert judges – – Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale (SREIS) [ 48 ] Format: scale (five-point Likert) Num. items: 24 Dimensions and items: · Perception and appraisal of emotions (6) · Facilitating thinking with emotions (6) · Understanding emotion (6) · Regulation and management of emotion (6) English (USA) Internal consistency: α = 0.91 Test–retest: r = 0.75–0.83 (after 2 weeks) Internal structure: Confirmatory factor analysis Convergent: (+): WLEIS and SREIS (+/−): BFP Discriminant: Acceptable discriminant validity vis-à-vis the Big Five Personality variables because of the criticism from scholars that EI is “little more than a repackaging of personality characteristics” – – Greek Emotional Intelligence Scale (GEIS) [ 50 ] Format: scale Num. items: 24 Dimensions and items: · Perception (6) · Understanding (6) · Facilitation (6) · Management (6) Polish (Poland) Internal consistency: α = 0.88 Test–retest: None Convergent: (+): SSRI and SIE-T Discriminant: Not correlated with NEO-FFI Construct: Women scored significantly higher than men – – Videotest of Emotion Recognition [ 59 ] Format: test (6-point Likert) Num. items: 18 Dimensions and items: · Perception, evaluation and emotional expression (4) · Emotional facilitation of thought (5) · Emotional understanding and analysis (6) · Emotion regulation (3) Portuguese (Portugal) Internal consistency: α = 0.70–0.77 Test–retest: None Internal structure: Exploratory factor analysis Confirmatory factor analysis – – Three-Branch Emotional Intelligence Forced-Choice Assessment (TEIFA) [ 61 ] Format: forced-choice assessment Num. items: 18 Dimensions and items: · Emotion perception (6) · Emotion understanding (6) · Emotion management (6) English (USA) Reliability of TEIFA is not reported as reliability for forced-choice tests is artificially high Internal structure: Confirmatory factor analysis Convergent: (+/−): SSRI – – Three-Branch Emotional Intelligence Rating Scale Assessment (TEIRA) [ 61 ] Format: scale (6-point Likert) Num. items: 18 Dimensions and items: · Emotion perception (6) · Emotion understanding (6) · Emotion management (6) English (USA) Internal consistency: α = 0.79–0.90 Test–retest: None Internal structure: Confirmatory factor analysis Convergent: (+): STEU-B, STEM-B and SREIS – – North Dakota Emotional Abilities Test (NEAT) [ 62 ] Format: test (rate-the-extent) Num. items: 30 Dimensions and items: · Perception (10) · Understanding (10) · Management (10) English (USA) Internal consistency: α = 0.74–0.90 Test–retest: None Internal structure: Confirmatory factor analysis Predictive: NEAT scores predicted the ability to decode facial expressions of emotion, the ability to assign accurate evaluations to word stimuli, and the ability to make judgments consistent with appraisal theories of emotion Convergent: (+): DANVA 2-AF, STEU and STEM – – Perceived Emotional Intelligence Inventory (IIEP) [ 63 ] Format: inventory (five-point Likert) Num. items: 42 Dimensions and items: · Perceiving emotions · Understanding emotions · Managing emotions Spanish (Spain) Internal consistency: α = 0.91 Test–retest: None Internal structure: Confirmatory factor analysis Convergent: (+): TMMS-24, RAVEN and SWLS – – Emotional Intelligence Test (EIT) [ 65 ] Format: test Num. items: Dimensions and items: · Perceiving emotions · Facilitation of thought using emotions · Understating and analyzing emotions · Conscious

Emotion decoding accuracy (EDA) plays a central role within the emotional intelligence (EI) ability model. The EI-ability perspective typically assumes personality antecedents and social outcomes of EI abilities, yet, traditionally, there has been very limited research to support this contention. The present paper argues that the way in which EDA has been conceptualized and operationalized in EI research has ignored developments in social perception theory and research. These developments point, on one hand, to the importance of embedding emotion expressions in a social context and, on the other, to reformulating the definitions of emotion decoding accuracy. The present paper outlines the importance of context in the framework of a truth and bias model of the social perception of emotions (Assessment of Contextualized Emotions, ACE) for EI abilities.

A growing body of research suggests that empathy predicts important work outcomes, yet limitations in existing measures to assess empathy have been noted. Extending past work on the assessment of empathy, this study introduces a newly developed set of emotion-eliciting film clips that can be used to assess both cognitive (emotion perception) and affective (emotional congruence and sympathy) facets of empathy in vivo. Using the relived emotions paradigm, film protagonists were instructed to think aloud about an autobiographical, emotional event from working life and relive their emotions while being videotaped. Subsequently, protagonists were asked to provide self-reports of the intensity of their emotions during retelling their event. In a first study with 128 employees, who watched the film clips and rated their own as well as the protagonists' emotions, we found that the film clips are effective in eliciting moderate levels of emotions as well as sympathy in the test taker and can be used to calculate reliable convergence scores of emotion perception and emotional congruence. Using a selected subset of six film clips, a second two-wave study with 99 employees revealed that all facet-specific measures of empathy had moderate-to-high internal consistencies and test-retest reliabilities, and correlated in expected ways with other self-report and test-based empathy tests, cognition, and demographic variables. With these films, we expand the choice of testing materials for empathy in organizational research to cover a larger array of research questions.