Medical Teacher

ISSN: 0142-159X (Print) 1466-187X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/imte20

The emotional intelligence of medical students: An

exploratory cross-sectional study
Mathew Todres, Zoi Tsimtsiou, Anne Stephenson & Roger Jones
To cite this article: Mathew Todres, Zoi Tsimtsiou, Anne Stephenson & Roger Jones (2010)
The emotional intelligence of medical students: An exploratory cross-sectional study, Medical
Teacher, 32:1, e42-e48, DOI: 10.3109/01421590903199668
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01421590903199668

Published online: 22 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 870

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=imte20
Download by: [180.232.145.171]

Date: 29 September 2016, At: 15:58

2010; 32: e42e48

WEB PAPER

The emotional intelligence of medical students:

An exploratory cross-sectional study
MATHEW TODRES, ZOI TSIMTSIOU, ANNE STEPHENSON & ROGER JONES
Kings College, London, UK

Abstract
Background: Emotional intelligence (EI) may be related to student characteristics (such as conscientiousness and empathy), and
performance at medical school, although few studies have so far been conducted.
Aim: To investigate the association of EI with students age, sex, ethnicity and stage of study at a London medical school.
Methods: All medical students were invited to complete an online EI instrument, the MayerSaloveyCaruso Emotional
Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) version 2, a 141-item measure of the ability to perceive, use, understand and manage emotions. An
additional questionnaire to gather demographic data was linked to the MSCEIT.
Results: We analysed 263 responses from a population of 2114 medical students after three reminders (12.3% response rate).
Aggregated EI scores were similar through the curriculum. Age, sex and ethnicity explained 9.2% of the variance in aggregated EI
scores. In terms of managing emotions, 6.7% of the variance was explained by the stage of study, with significantly higher scores
for students in their final year compared to those in the first two years.
Conclusion: This exploratory study provides preliminary data on EI scores for UK medical students identifies factors associated
with higher and lower scores and suggests that aggregated EI scores remain stable during medical training.

Introduction

Practice points

The term emotional intelligence (EI) describes the ability to

monitor ones own and others feelings and emotions, to
discriminate between them and to use the information to guide
ones thinking and actions (Mayer et al. 1990). A recent
definition includes the various ways in which emotions may be
monitored, through the ability to perceive, use, facilitate and
understand emotions, and to reflectively regulate emotions to
promote emotional and intellectual growth (Mayer & Salovey
1997). Approaches to measuring EI have included self-report-,
informant- and ability-based assessments (Conte 2005). The
ability-based MayerSaloveyCaruso emotional intelligence
test (MSCEIT, that we chose to use, demonstrates stronger
discriminant validity than self-report measures which are more
highly correlated than ability-based measures with personality
constructs such as extroversion and neuroticism (Bracket &
Mayer 2003).
Different methods have been used to study EI in a variety of
educational settings. From a study of 373 Spanish undergraduate students working towards different degrees, using the
perceived emotional intelligence (PEI) scale, a Spanish version
of the trait meta-mood scale, perceived EI and high-perceived
general self-efficacy were significantly linked (Duran et al.
2006). Those students with higher PEI scores were less
threatened by examinations. A Belgian study conducted in a
psychology undergraduate setting, using the trait emotional
intelligence questionnaire (a self-report inventory), reported
that trait EI significantly moderated the relationship between
stress and self-reported health, where those with high EI

. In medical education settings, EI has been shown to be

moderately related to academic performance.
. Our preliminary findings suggest that females and older
respondents tend to achieve higher EI scores and that
aggregated EI scores remain stable throughout the
undergraduate curriculum, although EI scores for the
ability to manage and regulate emotions were higher in
the final year of the course.
. Questions remain about whether EI has any relationship
to clinical communication skills, quality of patient care
or preservation of personal emotional well being.
. Future work in medical educational settings could
evaluate the impact of an intervention programme as
well as the longitudinal links between EI and academic
performance in medical school, and the impact of
interventions to develop EI.
. Further research is also required to develop a more
user-friendly and less time-consuming version of the
MSCEIT.

appraised the examination period as less threatening. EI was

found to predict better self-reported mental and physical
health (Mikolajczak 2006). A study of secondary school
students in England (Petrides & Furnham 2003) reported that
trait EI was significantly related to scholastic achievement as
measured by the trait EI questionnaire, key stage 3

Correspondence: , R. Jones, Kings College London, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, 5 Lambeth Walk, London SE11 6SP, UK.
Tel: 44 (0) 20 74844111; fax: 44 (0) 20 78484102; email: roger.jones@kcl.ac.uk

e42

ISSN 0142159X print/ISSN 1466187X online/10/0100427 2010 Informa Healthcare Ltd.

DOI: 10.3109/01421590903199668

The emotional intelligence of medical students: An exploratory cross-sectional study

assessments (KS3) and general certificate of secondary education (GCSE) marks. In two studies of Spanish high school
students, both using a Spanish version of the MSCEIT, one
reported that high EI was significantly associated with
academic performance and pro-social behaviour (Marquez
et al. 2006) and the other reported that strategic EI was
significantly correlated with how many times female students
were nominated as friends by their peers and with teacher
ratings of male students academic behaviour and performance
(Mestre et al. 2006). A study applying the MSCEIT to a sample
of undergraduate business students in the United States found
that EI was significantly related to public speaking effectiveness. Moreover, there was a high correlation between EI and
conscientiousness and that these features interacted significantly with group behaviour and public speaking effectiveness, as well as academic performance (Rode et al. 2007).
Several authors report the impact of demographic variables
on EI scores. In a study (using a Spanish version of the
MSCEIT) of 946 college and high school students (Extremera
et al. 2006), significantly higher EI scores were obtained by
females and older respondents. This finding has been echoed
in other studies (Mayer et al. 1999; Ciarrochi et al. 2000; Mayer
et al. 2002; Palmer et al. 2005; Wong et al. 2007). Using the
multifactor emotional intelligence scale (MEIS), a precursor of
the MSCEIT, an American study of adults and adolescents
found that EI ability levels increased significantly with age, and
that females significantly outscored males (Mayer et al. 1999).
A further study applying the MEIS to Australian psychology
undergraduates (Ciarrochi et al. 2000) also reported that
females significantly outscored male students, females tending
to be better at perceiving emotions. In another Australian
study, applying the MSCEIT to a sample of adolescents and
adults drawn from the general population, females significantly outscored males on all measures (Palmer et al. 2005).
The MSCEIT user manual (Mayer et al. 2002), presents
evidence in support of younger respondents scoring significantly lower than their older counterparts in their ability to use,
understand and manage emotions. In an exploratory study of
undergraduate psychology and business management students
in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan, using Wongs emotional intelligence scale (WEIS), an EI measure developed for
Chinese respondents, older age was found to be significantly
related to higher EI scores (Wong et al. 2007). Few studies
have investigated the relationship between ethnicity and EI.
An American study of undergraduate psychology students
using the emotional intelligence scale (EIS) found that
Hispanic students significantly outscored their white counterparts (Van Rooy et al. 2005). A further study from the United
States (Trinidad et al. 2004) found that Asian/Pacific Islander
adolescents scored significantly higher on the MEIS than their
white, Hispanic/Latino and multiethnic colleagues. Mayer et al.
(2002) assert that EI scales may, to a certain extent, lack
cross-cultural applicability and are developing, what they
believe to be, a more sensitive measure of EI amongst ethnic
minorities.
Although some information is available about the normative values of EI in student populations (Conte 2005), very little
is known about EI in medical students. We have identified
a small number of articles which have looked at EI and

medical students. EI has been measured in first year medical

students in Edinburgh (Austin et al. 2005), which reported a
significant gender by cohort effect with male empathy scores
increasing between years 1 and 2, and where as a whole,
females scored significantly higher on all three measures,
namely overall EI, empathy and the utilisation of emotions
subscale. A recent review, containing some new data, from the
Peninsula Medical School in UK and the University of
Adelaide, has criticized the use of EI in a medical setting
(Lewis et al. 2005), based on questions concerning the
construct validity and psychometric properties of EI measures.
A further study from the Peninsula Medical School focused on
students views of the utility of this measurement (Lewis et al.
2004), reported that the majority of the students welcomed the
opportunity to learn about the psychology of EI, and also
valued identifying (using the emotional competency inventory) their competencies and areas for development. A study
from Kentucky (Stratton et al. 2005) using the trait meta-mood
scale and Davis interpersonal reactivity index, found empathic
concern to be a significant predictor of students physical
examination skills. Finally, a study from Ohio (Carrothers et al.
2000) using a semantic differential instrument for measuring
medical students EI, reported that higher EI was related to
being female and graduating from a university that values the
social sciences and humanities.
The MSCEIT has recently emerged as the preferred
measure (Spector 2005) and even a sceptical review of EI
from Peninsula Medical School (Lewis et al. 2005) acknowledged that the MSCEIT possesses acceptable validity. Daus
and Ashkenazy (2005), in their review article arguing the case
for the MEIS/MSCEIT, report strong overall internal consistency reliability ranging from an r value of 0.900.96 with
branch score reliabilities ranging from 0.76 for facilitating
emotions to 0.98 for understanding and perceiving emotions.
In preparation for undertaking further empirical work on
factors associated with student progression, we decided to
conduct a cross-sectional survey of EI among students in the
Kings College London School of Medicine at Guys, Kings
and St Thomas Hospitals to obtain normative values in each
year, to compare mean values in successive years and
between various demographic groups, and to enable us to
use these data as the basis for further work on EI and other
factors likely to be associated with success and failure at
medical school.

Methods
We used an online version of the MSCEIT, a 141-item
instrument that measures the ability to perceive, facilitate,
understand, and manage emotions in ourselves and others
(Mayer et al. 2002). In this measure, perceiving (PEIQ) and
facilitating (FEIQ) branches combine to form the experiential
emotional intelligence (EEIQ) area, whilst the understanding
(UEIQ) and managing emotions (MEIQ) branches combine to
form the strategic emotional intelligence (SEIQ) area (Mayer
et al. 2002). Table 1 provides a summary of these features and
Table 2 outlines the psychometric properties of the MSCEIT.
All four scores combine to form an aggregated EI score

e43

M. Todres et al.

Table 1. Four-branch model of emotional intelligence.

Area
Experiential (EEIQ): The degree
to which one takes in
emotional experience,
recognises it, compares it to
other sensations, and
understands how it interacts
with thought
Experiential area comprises
perceiving and facilitating
branches
Strategic (SEIQ): The degree to
which one can understand
emotional meanings, their
implications for relationships, and how to manage
emotions in oneself and
others
Strategic area comprises
understanding and
managing branches

Branch

Question types

How the ability may be used

Perceiving emotions (PEIQ):

Accurately identify emotions of
people and elicited by objects

Identify emotions in faces, landscapes and designs

Read peoples moods for

feedback

Facilitating thought (FEIQ): Generate

an emotion and solve problems
with that emotion
Understanding emotions (UEIQ):
Understand the causes of
emotions

How moods impact on thinking;

relate feelings to thoughts
Multiple choice emotion, vocabulary
questions

Create the right feeling to assist in

problem solving, communicate a
vision, and lead people
Be able to predict how people will
react emotionally

Managing emotions (MEIQ): Stay

open to emotions and integrate
emotions with thinking

Indicates effectiveness of various

solutions to problems

Integrate emotion and thought to

make effective decisions

Source: Adapted from Mayer et al. (2002).

Table 2. Psychometric properties of the MSCEIT.

Study
OConnor and Little (2003)
Barchard (2003)
Bracket and Meyer (2003)

Sample and setting

Findings

90 psychology undergraduates at Grand Valley State

University, USA
150 undergraduate students at the University of
Nevada, USA
207 undergraduate psychology students at the
University of New Hampshire, USA

MacCann et al. (2004)

102 psychology undergraduates at the University of

Sydney, Australia

Palmer et al. (2005)

431 adults from the general population in Victoria and

New South Wales, Australia

Marquez et al. (2006)

77 high school students in Cadiz, Spain

computed as an empirical percentile, where 100 is an average

score with a standard deviation (SD) of 15.
All 2114 medical students were invited to complete the
MSCEIT online via an institutional email circular, followed by
three reminders. We linked a short questionnaire to the
MSCEIT, asking respondents to provide details of their age,
sex, ethnicity and stage of study. In order to test the influence
of age on the MSCEIT scores independent of the stage of study,
a dichotomous variable was created using a cut-off point of
25 years to distinguish between older students, for whom
medicine was likely to be their second degree, and students at
a later stage of the medical course. The cut-off point of
25 years of age has also been chosen by the developers of
MSCEIT (Meyer et al. 2002), who report that young adults
(under 25 years) score significantly lower than those aged over
e44

The MSCEIT correlated highly with indices of cognitive

ability, but minimally with personality dimensions
An overlap was found between EI measures and
traditional measures of intelligence and personality
The MSCEIT was discriminable from personality and
well-being measures. Ability and self-report EI were
weakly related and yielded different measurements
of the same person
Faces and designs (aspects of perceiving emotions
branch in the MSCEIT) showed weak correlations
with personality dimensions, crystallised intelligence
and with visualisation abilities
There was a high level of convergence between the
consensus and expert scoring methods. The reliability of the MSCEIT at total, area and branch levels
was found to be good, although the reliability of most
of the subscales was relatively low.
The MSCEIT was discriminable from well-established
measures of personality (the big five personality
traits, as well as a social competence inventory) and
intelligence (factoral general intelligence)

25 years. Finally, ethnicity was defined using the UK National

Statistics interim standard classification of ethnic groups: white,
black or black British, Asian or Asian British, mixed, Chinese
and other ethnic groups (Office for National Statistics 2008).

Statistical analysis
Data were analysed using SPSS version 15.0. The one-sample
KolmogorovSmirnov test was used to check whether the
continuous variables of the study were normally distributed.
Independent sample t-tests were conducted to compare means
of MSCEIT scales between the sexes, different age groups and
groups created according to time taken to complete the test.
The KruskalWallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
test was used to compare the time of completion between

The emotional intelligence of medical students: An exploratory cross-sectional study

different ethnic groups, and the Spearman correlation procedure was used in order to measure the association between
completion time and MSCEIT scores. One-way ANOVA tests
were used to determine whether significant differences existed
among the means of MSCEIT scales in different ethnic groups
or stage of study, based on the post hoc Tukeys test. Finally,
multivariate analysis was conducted for all MSCEIT scales
using linear regressions, based on the Enter method, to identify
factors predictive of MSCEIT scores. Although the descriptive
statistics for all the MSCEIT scales have been calculated and
presented for all the different ethnic groups (white, black or
black British, Asian or Asian British, mixed, Chinese and other
ethnic groups), in the multiple linear regression models, the
ethnic groups with the lower numbers of representatives have
been treated as one group (i.e., the results of Black or black
British, ethnically mixed students, Chinese and other ethnic
groups, have been analysed as one group). Assuming that the
ethnic group membership (in one of the above three groups,
white, Asian or Asian British and other) would add another 5%
in the proportion of variance explained, our tests had adequate
power (0.80) to detect the ethnic group differences in MSCEIT
scores, at a significance level of 0.05.

Table 3. Characteristics of the study sample and the total

medical school population.

Characteristic
Number of students
Sex
Male
Female
Age
525 years
25 years
Ethnicity
White
Asian or Asian British
Black or Black British
Chinese or other South-East Asian
Mixed
Unknown
Stage of study
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5

Study Sample

Medical
school
population

263 (12.3%)

2114 (100%)

75 (28.5%)
188 (71.5%)

824 (39.0%)
1290 (61.0%)

191 (72.6%)
72 (27.4%)

1403* (66.5%)
707* (33.5%)

161
43
10
22
27
0

(61.2%)
(16.3%)
(3.8%)
(8.4%)
(10.3%)
(0%)

938
487
138
283
87
177

(44.5%)
(23.1%)
(6.5%)
(13.4%)
(4.1%)
(8.4%)

56
37
59
72
39

(21.3%)
(14.1%)
(22.4%)
(27.4%)
(14.8%)

442
427
403
433
409

(20.9%)
(20.2%)
(19.1%)
(20.5%)
(19.3%)

Note: *Four missing, transferred or dropped out.

Results
A total of 358 students completed the demographic questionnaire and 265 of these also completed the MSCEIT. Two
students who completed the questionnaire in less than 10 min
were eliminated from the analysis because they had scored
more than 3 SDs below the mean on the aggregated scale,
suggesting they had made random responses. A total of 93
students who completed the demographic questionnaire, but
not the MSCEIT were also excluded from the study.
Two-hundred and sixty-three responses (a response rate of
12.3%) were, therefore, included in the final analysis.
Completion times were not normally distributed. The mean
completion time was 31.5 min (SD 15.5, range 11135). No
association was found between completion time and the
scores of any of the subscales of MSCEIT, or with age group,
sex, ethnicity or stage of study. Fifty-six percent of students
(146/263) completed the MSCEIT in less than 30 min, and their
mean aggregated EI score, did not differ significantly from the
rest of the students (101.5 vs. 100.8, p 4 0.05). 12.2% of
students (32/263) completed the questionnaire in less than
20 min, and, similarly, their scores did not differ significantly
from the rest of the students (99.3 vs. 101.5, p 4 0.05).

Respondents
Table 3 presents the students demographic details and their
stage in the medical curriculum. Females, white students and
ethnically mixed students were over-represented in our
sample. Additionally, year 2 and final year students were
under-represented and year 4 students were over-represented
compared with the total number of students at each stage of
the curriculum. As a check on possible sampling bias, means
and standard errors for the principal outcomes (MSCEIT
aggregate and branch scores), were recalculated using a
weighting system (for sex, ethnicity and stage of study). They

were found to be very close to the unweighted values which

we used in our analysis.

MSCEIT scores
All MSCEIT scores in our sample were normally distributed.
The mean aggregated MSCEIT score was 101.2 (SD 13.7, range
72147), while the mean experiential area score was 98.8 (SD
14.6, range 66139) and the mean strategic area score was 104
(SD 12.1, range 71150). For the branch scores, the perceiving
emotions mean score was 98.4 (SD 14.7, range 32141),
facilitating thought mean score was 100.9 (SD 15.2, range
65152), understanding emotions mean score 107.3 (SD 12.5,
range 76145) and managing emotions mean score 98.1 (SD
12.2, range 66143). Table 4 shows the means and SDs
according to age group, sex, ethnicity and stage of study for
the aggregated score, the two-area scores and the four-branch
scores.
Women scored slightly higher than men on all of the scales,
with their aggregated score and scores in the experiential area
and in perceiving emotions branch reaching statistical significance (95% CI:1.48.8, 2.19.7 and 1.39.3, respectively).
Analysis of age differences in MSCEIT scores indicated that
younger students (under 25 years) scored significantly lower in
the strategic area and its two branches, understanding and
managing emotions (95% CI: 8.9 to 2.7, 8.2 to 1.6 and
7.4 to 1.2, respectively). The effect of stage of study was
significant in the managing emotions branch, with final year
students scoring significantly higher compared to those in
years 1 and 2 (95% CI: 0.813.7 and 1.215.5, respectively).
However, no significant differences in aggregate EI scores
across the year groups were noted. Students from the Asian or
Asian British group scored significantly lower than those from
the white group on the strategic area and on the understanding

e45

M. Todres et al.

Table 4. Mean scores and SDs on all MSCEIT scales.

Characteristics
Sex
Male
Female
Age
525 years
25 years
Ethnicity
White
Asian or Asian British
Black or Black British
Chinese or other South-East Asian
Mixed
Stage of study
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5

Perceiving
mean (SD)

Facilitating
mean (SD)

Experiential
mean (SD)

Understanding
mean (SD)

Managing
mean (SD)

94.6 (15.1)
99.9 (14.2)*

98.4 (16.7)
102 (14.4)

94.6 (13.9)
100.4 (14.6)*

106.8 (13.1)
107.5 (12.3)

96.1 (12.4)
98.9 (12.1)

100.3 (15.2)
102.8 (15.1)

97.9 (14.8)
101.1 (13.9)

105.9 (12.5)
110.8 (11.9)*

96.8 (12.0)
101.5 (12.2)*

97.5 (14.9)
100.7 (13.8)

Strategic
mean (SD)

Aggregate
mean (SD)

102.6 (12.6)
104.5 (11.8)

97.5 (13.7
102.6 (13.4)*

102.4 (12.1)
108.2 (11.0)**

99.6 (13.6)
105.4 (13.1)*

99.9
93.1
99.1
98.8
97.3

(14.3)
(13.2)
(13.5)
(14.6)
(18.4)

101.6
98.9
100.6
99.7
101.5

(14.7)
(15.3)
(14.5)
(16.8)
(17.3)

100.2
93.6
98.9
98.3
99

(14.3)
(13.6)
(14.8)
(14.7)
(16.9)

109.2
101.9
110.4
103.9
105.9

(12.4)*
(12.1)*
(16.6)
(11.4)
(10.0)

99.7
95.4
95.4
94.5
96.6

(12.6)
(10.9)
(11.3)
(10.9)
(12.8)

106.2
98.9
104.2
99.6
102.4

(12.2)*
(10.9)*
(12.5)
(10.6)
(11.0)

103.3
95.1
101.7
98
100.8

(13.4)*
(12.5)*
(15.6)
(10.5)
(15.6)

97
95.3
102.2
98
98.2

(13.9)
(13.7)
(16.4)
(15.1)
(12.4)

99.4
100.3
102
102.7
98.9

(13.9)
(16.1)
(13.9)
(16.4)
(15.8)

96.8
96.2
101.9
99.6
97.8

(13.8)
(14.9)
(14.9)
(15.3)
(13.4)

108
103.2
107
107.6
109.9

(9.7)
(12.4)
(13.9)
(13.2)
(12.0)

95.2
93.9
98.2
100.1
102.5

(12.6)*
(10.4)*
(12)
(10.5)
(14.9)*

102.6
99
103.9
105.6
107.6

(10.6)*
(11.1)*
(12.9)
(12.2)
(11.9)*

99.2
96.3
103.4
102.9
102.3

(12.6)
(12.7)
(15.1)
(14.5)
(11.0)

Note: *p 5 0.05 and **p 5 0.001.

emotions branch (95% CI:12.5 to 1.8 and 13.1 to 1.6,

respectively).

Multiple regression models

Although the response rate was low, the size of the
responders population was adequate to provide our study
the power (0.78) to explain even small proportions of variance
of MSCEIT (R2 0.05) at a significance level of 0.05 (Cohen
1988.).
Three variables explained 9.2% of the variation in
aggregated MSCEIT score. Being a female student, over 25
years and white (compared to Asian or Asian British) was
predictive of higher aggregated scores. In the perceiving
branch, sex and ethnicity (white compared to Asian or Asian
British) accounted for 4.4% of the variance, while in the
understanding branch, 5.4% of the variance was explained by
ethnicity (white compared to Asian or Asian British). A total of
6.7% of the variance in the managing emotions branch is
explained by the stage of study (higher in final year compared
to both years 1 and 2). Our analysis did not explain any of the
variation for the facilitating thoughts branch. The adjusted
regression coefficients for our models are summarised in
Table 5, showing the effect of each variable when adjusted for
confounding variables.

Discussion
Our exploratory study to the best of our knowledge is the first
to report on the use of the MSCEIT in measuring EI in an
undergraduate medical population, and provides information
on the utility of the online version of the instrument and
preliminary data on EI across a medical school population.
The use of an online instrument provided several potential
benefits including speed and ease of data collection, and
students ability to complete the test at a time and place
convenient to them. However, our response rate was low and
e46

there may be several reasons for this, including lack of interest,

problems with email communication, and lack of access to
advice on completing the MSCEIT. Since 93 students
completed the demographic questionnaire, and then started
(but did not complete) the MSCEIT, this may suggest that the
length of the MSCEIT was prohibitive and in future, studies
using a shorter instrument could be considered. For example,
one study (Tapia & Marsh 2006) discusses the validation of a
41-item scale, the emotional intelligence inventory (EII), based
on the MSCEIT. More recently, a revision of the EII has been
discussed (Kempenaers et al. 2008) suggesting that further
work is required in the development of this instrument.
The overall MSCEIT scores for the entire sample are
average and this may be of concern given that the medical
profession requires professionals with well-developed EI. Our
findings that female and older respondents tend to obtain
higher EI scores are consistent with the literature (Mayer et al.
1999; Carrothers et al. 2000; Ciarrochi et al. 2000; Mayer et al.
2002; Palmer et al. 2005; Van Rooy 2005; Extremera et al. 2006;
Wong et al. 2007). Since students in their final year of study
significantly outperform year 1 and 2 students in managing
emotions, this finding might suggest a positive impact of the
curriculum, or at least an indication that students do not
become less emotionally intelligent as they progress. Because
we distinguished between students aged under 25 and those
aged 25 years and above, we avoided the possibility of a
confounding variable (i.e., age and increasing age associated
with each progressive year), with older students in the earlier
years outperforming their younger counterparts. As far as
ethnic differences are concerned, it is possible that because of
the linguistic and visual specificity of some of the questions,
the current version of the MSCEIT may lack cross-cultural
application. In a previous study, it has been suggested that
language differences may explain the poorer objective
structured clinical examination (Wass et al. 2003) performance
of some ethnic minority, as opposed to ethnic majority
students, and this may have been the case here. Items related

The emotional intelligence of medical students: An exploratory cross-sectional study

Table 5. Multiple regression models for all MSCEIT scales.

Adjusted regression coefficient

Total EIQ (adjusted R2 0.092)
Constant
Ethnicity (Asian/Asian British)
Sex (female)
Age group (over 25 years)
Strategic area (adjusted R2 0.092)
Constant
Year of study (year 2)
Ethnicity (Asian/Asian British)
Age group (over 25 years)
Strategic area (adjusted R2 0.092)
Constant
Year of study (year 2)
Ethnicity (Asian/Asian British)
Age group (over 25 years)
Perceiving emotions branch (adjusted R2 0.044)
Constant
Sex (female)
Ethnicity (Asian/Asian British)
Understanding emotions branch (adjusted R2 0.054)
Constant
Ethnicity (Asian/Asian British)
Managing emotions branch (adjusted R2 0.067)
Constant
Year of study (year 1)
Year of study (year 2)

93.9
7.1
4.5
4.3

Standardised B coefficient
(95% CI)

(86.3101.5)
(11.5 to 2.6)
(0.98.1)
(0.58.0)

88.8 (80.597.1)
5.1 (1.29.0)
5.8 (10.7 to 0.90)

104.3
6.9
6.4
3.7

(97.6111)
(12.2 to 1.5)
(10.4 to 2.5)
(0.4 to 7.0)

0.19
0.15
0.14

0.16
0.15

0.20
0.20
0.14

90.6 (82.298.9)
4.4 (0.5 to 8.4)
6 (10.9 to 1)

0.14
0.15

108.9 (101.8115.9)
6.7 (10.8 to 2.5)

0.20

97.4 (90.5104.3)
6.2 (11.2 to 1.2)
7.3 (12.7 to 1.8)

0.21
0.21

to understanding emotions in the MSCEIT call for a subtle

understanding of the differences between seemingly similar
terms, indicating that the MSCEIT at certain points may be a
measure of language comprehension rather than EI. Again, the
question of the cross-cultural applicability of the MSCEIT is
raised.
Our preliminary cross-sectional study examined a small
sample from one medical school and it would be valuable to
conduct more research in collaboration with other medical
schools. There is a paucity of research measuring EI over time
and a recognition of the importance of conducting longitudinal
studies (Brotheridge 2006). Longitudinal studies could, therefore, investigate changes as students progress. Moreover, our
study did not examine the link between EI and measures of
academic performance and future studies could investigate
this. Several studies report interventions that can successfully
develop EI (Slaski & Cartwright 2003; Satterfield & Hughes
2007; Ulutas & Omeroglu 2007), but this begs the question
about whether EI has any relationship to clinical communication skills, quality of patient care or preservation of personal
emotional well being. Future work in medical educational
settings could evaluate the impact of an intervention programme. Our findings provide new information on the use of
the MSCEIT in a medical school setting, upon which subsequent research may be based.

Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to our department e-resources developer,
Stevo Durbaba, and our department statistician, Paul Seed, for
their valuable assistance with this study, and for the support

given to us by the KCL Medical Education Committee, with

particular thanks to professor John Rees.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of
interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and
writing of the article.

Notes on contributors
MATHEW TODRES is a research associate in medical education in the
Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Kings College London.
ZOI TSIMTSIOU is an honorary research fellow in the Department of
General Practice and Primary Care, Kings College London. She is also a
general practitioner currently working in the NHS in Greece.
ANNE STEPHENSON is a senior lecturer and director of community
education in the Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Kings
College London. She is also a general practitioner working in Southeast
London.
ROGER JONES is a Wolfson professor and head, Department of General
Practice and Primary Care, Kings College London. He is also a general
practitioner working in Southeast London.

References
Austin EJ, Evans P, Goldwater R, Potter V. 2005. A preliminary study of
emotional intelligence, empathy and exam performance in first year
students. Pers Individ Dif 39:13951405.
Barchard KA. 2003. Does emotional intelligence assist in the prediction of
academic success? Educ Psychol Meas 63(5):840858.
Bracket MA, Mayer JD. 2003. Convergent discriminant, and incremental
validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Pers Soc
Psychol Bull 29:11471158.
Brotheridge CM. 2006. The role of emotional intelligence and other
individual difference variables in predicting emotional labor relative to
situational demands. Psicothema 18:139144.

e47

M. Todres et al.

Carrothers RM, Gregory SW, Gallagher TJ. 2000. Measuring the emotional
intelligence of medical school applicants. Acad Med 75(5):445446.
Ciarrochi JV, Chan AC, Caputi P. 2000. A critical evaluation of the emotional
intelligence construct. Pers Individ Dif 28:539561.
Cohen J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences.
2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp 118.
Conte JM. 2005. A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures.
J Organ Behav 26:433440.
Daus CS, Ashkanasy NM. 2005. The case for the ability-based model of
emotional intelligence in organizational behaviour. J Organ Behav
26:453466.
Duran A, Extremera N, Rey L, Fernandez-Berrocal P, Montalban FM. 2006.
Predicting academic burnout and engagement in educational settings:
Assessing the incremental validity of perceived emotional intelligence
beyond perceived stress and general self-efficacy. Psicothema
18:158164.
Extremera N, Fernandez-Berrocal P, Salovey P. 2006. Spanish version of the
Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test (MSCEIT) version 2.0:
Reliabilities, age and gender differences. Psicothema 18:4248.
Kempenaers C, Rosseel Y, Braun S, Schwannauer M, Jurysta F, Luminet O,
Linkowski P. 2008. Confirmatory factor analysis of the French version of
the emotional intelligence inventory. Encephale 34(2):139145.
Lewis NJ, Rees CE, Hudson N. 2004. Helping medical students identify their
emotional intelligence. Med Educ 38:563.
Lewis NJ, Rees CE, Hudson N, Bleakley A. 2005. Emotional intelligence in
medical education: Measuring the unmeasurable? Adv Health Sci Educ
Theory Pract 10:339355.
MacCann C, Roberts RD, Matthews G, Zeidner M. 2004. Consensus scoring
and empirical option weighting of performance-based emotional
intelligence (EI) tests. Pers Individ Dif 36:645662.
Mayer JD, Caruso D, Salovey P. 1999. Emotional intelligence meets
traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence 27:267298.
Mayer JD, DiPaolo MT, Salovey P. 1990. Perceiving affective content in
ambiguous visual stimuli: A component of emotional intelligence. J Pers
Assess 54:772781.
Mayer JD, Salovey P. 1997. What is emotional intelligence? In: Salovey P,
Sluyter D, editors. Emotional development and emotional intelligence:
Educational implications. New York: Basic Books. pp 331.
Mayer JD, Salovey P, Caruso DR. 2002. MSCEIT users manual version 2.0.
Toronto, ON: MHS Publishers.
Mestre JM, Guil R, Lopes PN, Salovey P, Marquez PG-O. 2006. Emotional
intelligence and social and academic adaptation to school. Psicothema
18:112117.
Mikolajczak M, Luminet O, Menil C. 2006. Predicting resistance to stress:
Incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence over alexithymia and
optimism. Psicothema 18:7988.

e48

OConnor RM, Little IS. 2003. Revisiting the predictive validity of emotional
intelligence: Self-report versus ability-based measures. Pers Individ Dif
35:18931902.
Office for National Statistics. 2008. Available from www.ons.gov.uk/
about-statistics/user-guidance/lm guide/concepts/character/ethnicity/
index.html
Marquez PG-O, Martin RP, Brackett MA. 2006. Relating emotional
intelligence to social competence and academic achievement in high
school students. Psicothema 18:118123.
Palmer BR, Gignac G, Manocha R, Sough C. 2005. A psychometric
evaluation of the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso emotional intelligence test
version 2.0. Intelligence 33:285305.
Petrides KV, Furnham A. 2003. Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural
validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood
induction. Eur J Pers 17:3957.
Rode JC, Mooney CH, Arthaud-Day ML, Near JP, Baldwin TT, Rubin RS,
Bommer WH. 2007. Emotional intelligence and individual performance:
Evidence of direct and moderated effects. J Organ Behav 28:399421.
Satterfield JM, Hughes E. 2007. Emotion skills training for medical students:
A systematic review. Med Educ 41:935941.
Slaski M, Cartwright S. 2003. Emotional intelligence training and its
implications for stress, health and performance. Stress Health
19:233239.
Spector PE. 2005. Introduction: Emotional intelligence (Point/
Counterpoint). J Organ Behav 26:409410.
Stratton TD, Elam CL, Murphy-Spencer AE, Quinlivan SL. 2005. Emotional
intelligence and clinical skills: Preliminary results from a comprehensive clinical performance examination. Acad Med 80(10):S34S35.
Tapia M, Marsh GE. 2006. A validation of the emotional intelligence
inventory. Psicothema 18:5558.
Trinidad DR, Unger JB, Chou C, Azen SP, Johnson CA. 2004. Emotional
Intelligence and smoking risk factors in adolescents: Interactions on
smoking intentions. J Adolesc Health 34:4655.
Ulutas I, Omeroglu E. 2007. The effects of an emotional intelligence
program on the emotional intelligence of children. Soc Behav Pers
35(10):13651372.
Van Rooy DL, Alonso A, Viswesvaran C. 2005. Group differences in
emotional intelligence scores: Theoretical and practical implications.
Pers Individ Dif 38:689700.
Wass V, Roberts C, Hoogenboom R, Jones R, Van der Vleuten C. 2003.
Effect of ethnicity on performance in a final objective structured clinical
examination: Qualitative and quantitative study. BMJ 326:800803.
Wong C, Foo M, Wang C, Wong P. 2007. The feasibility of training and
development of EI: An exploratory study in Singapore, Hong Kong and
Taiwan. Intelligence 35:141150.