Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,

Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

Adapting the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire

Short Form (TEIQUE-SF) into Indonesian Language
and Culture

Silvia Kristanti Tri Febriana

Psychology Study Program of Medical Faculty of Lambung Mangkurat University Banjarmasin
Indonesia
[email protected]

Fajrianthi
Psychology Faculty of Airlangga University Surabaya Indonesia
[email protected]

Abstract

This study aimed to adapt the TEIQue-SF 1.50 measuring instrument to the Indonesian culture.
This research was conducted in two studies. In Study 1, the translation process and the equivalence
testing were carried out, involving six translators, three expert reviewers, and ten laypeople for
cognitive debriefing. Study 2 involved 200 subjects who were workers in Indonesia and tested the
TEIQue-SF 1.50 measuring instrument with confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS version 22.
The entire adaptation process referred to the International Test Commission (ITC) Guidelines for
Test Adaptation 2016. The CFA results showed that the TEIQUE-SF 1.50 measurement model was
fit to the one-factor model. Overall, this study showed that the Indonesian version of TEIQue-SF
1.50 was valid and reliable so that it can be used to measure the Trait Emotional Intelligence in
Indonesia.

Keywords: Trait Emotional Intelligence, instrument adaptation Indonesia.

Received 13 September 2021/Accepted 18 October 2021 ©Author all rights reserved

Introduction

Emotional intelligence is a concept that is still reaping controversy both in the realm of
Management and Industrial-Organizational Psychology. It, however, plays a critical role in
individual career performance and success and greatly influences organizational performance
(Yin, 2018). Individuals with high emotional intelligence can actively control stress and regulate
their emotions well and adopt positive coping strategies to deal with and overcome problems
(Fteiha & Awwad, 2020). According to Mayer, Salovay, & Caruso (2008) emotional intelligence
is part of social intelligence that involves individual's ability to monitor controlling feelings and
emotions in himself/herself and others and then differentiate and use this ability to direct the
individual thoughts and behaviours. In line with this opinion, Fajrianthi and Zein (2017)

578
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

identified Emotional Intelligence as the ability of individuals to evaluate, interpret, and regulate
emotional responses to produce the right actions.

The originator of Emotional Intelligence, Cherniss and Goleman (2001), explained that this
concept is a combination of abilities, competencies, and personality traits that as a whole
allows individuals to better understand and control the emotions of themselves and others.
On the other hand, Petrides and Furnham (2001) divided Emotional Intelligence based on its
nature into trait and ability, by different measures. Emotional intelligence, which is cognitive-
related ability to understand emotions, is measured by performance tests, while that in the
form of traits (Trait Emotional Intelligence), which is related to personality and behavioural
tendencies to feel, is measured using self-reports (Petrides & Furnham, 2001).

Trait Emotional Intelligence is a collection of emotional self-perceptions that fall under the
hierarchy of personality or, more specifically, is a collection of personality traits regarding an
individual's perception of his emotional abilities (Petrides, 2010). This concept consists of 15
aspects, namely adaptability, assertiveness, emotional expression, emotion management,
emotion perception, emotion regulation, trait empathy, trait happiness, low-impulsiveness,
trait optimism, relationships with others, self-esteem, self-motivation, social awareness, and
stress management (Petrides, 2010; Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Furthermore, a psychometric
investigation study conducted by Petrides and Furnham (2001) has compared two models of
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The first model classified 15 aspects into the dimensions of
intrapersonal, interpersonal, adaptability, stress management and general mood. The results
of this study explained that although the fit parameter was higher in the second-order model,
compared to the first-order analysis, the second-order model showed that the very-high item
loading factor and the composite reliability values for each dimension indicate the existence
of a redundancy layer, recommending a single-factor model with 15 indicators more adequate
for the data. Petrides (2009) conducted a study of psychometric properties by grouping 15
aspects of Trait Emotional Intelligence into four dimensions: emotionality, self-control,
sociability, and well-being. This study proved that the highest internal consistency value was in
the measurement of the global trait emotional intelligence (Global Trait EI). Furthermore, it
also explained that the four dimensions could be derived through a prior assessment based on
the completed form. But, the additional dimensions, consisting of aspects of self-motivation
and adaptability, can only contribute to the measurement of the global trait emotional

579
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

intelligence (Global Trait EI). These findings were in line with Zampetakis's study (2011),
showing that the Global Trait EI scoring process was done by adding up the total score, which
was then divided by the number of items. However, items 3, 18, 14 and 29 only contributed
to the Global Trait EI score and did not form part of each dimension. The psychometric
analysis study was again carried out using the item response theory approach. This study
revised items 8, 9, 23 and 24 that showed the result of strong unidimensionality in both
TEIQue-SF versions 1.00 and 1.50 with high item discrimination parameters, making it
relatively easy to understand (Cooper & Petrides, 2010). In line with Cooper and Petrides'
findings, Zampetakis (2011) also proved the existence of a strong unidimensionality in the
TEIQue-SF concept. However, both Cooper and Petrides (2010) and Zampetakis (2011)
studies explained the existence of multidimensional indications in the TEIQue-SF structure.

TEIQue-SF has been adapted into Italian, German, Serbian, Georgian, French and the original
English versions (Andrei et al., 2016). Even in the Asian region, TEIQue-SF has good reliability
or above 0.7. For example, the study by Gökçen et al. (2014) that adapted this measurement
to Chinese culture showed that the TEIQue-6) YHUVLRQ KDV D &URQEDFK·V DOSKD YDOXH RI
0.91. Furthermore, the study of Swami, Begum, and Petrides (2010) also showed this
measuring LQVWUXPHQW KDV D &URQEDFK·V DOSKD YDOXH RI ,Q VWXGLHV ZLWK ,QGRQHVLDQ VDPSOHV
this measure has a reliability value of 0.73 (Fauziyah, 2016) dan 0.78 (Hasnah, Hendra, &
Hapsah, 2016). Unfortunately, no detailed information has been obtained about the process
of adaptation of TEIQue-SF into the Indonesian language and culture, which is very much
needed for the interpretation of research results. Scale adaptation is necessary since
inappropriate translation procedures and cross-cultural instrument adaptation can lead to
concluding a construct that is inappropriate as well (Ali, 2016). For instance, the confirmatory
study of the Trait Emotional Intelligence, by Tresnawaty (2018), stated that 11 out of 30
TEIQue-SF items were declared invalid to be used in the Indonesian sample. There were some
irregularities in this study, namely a) some adaptation items lacked the meaning of equality
with those at the original scale, b) the confirmatory analysis process was not in accordance
with the psychometric test properties of Petrides (2009) and Zampetakis (2011), where items
14 and 30, which were indicators of adaptability, and item 18 originally of self-motivation were
tested to explain the self-control dimension, c) the confirmatory test process was somewhat
confusing in terms of choosing the first-order model or the second-order one, because the
initial step was carried out to each dimension while the second step was carried out

580
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

simultaneously to multi-dimensions, and d) although this study explained the existence of

multi-dimensions in the construct of trait emotional intelligence, but in fact, the fit model
results showed the inter-correlation between all dimensions.

Based on this problem, this study aimed to adapt the Indonesian version of the TEIQue-SF
measuring instrument. According to Epstein, Santo, and Guillemin (2015), the process of
adapting the measuring instrument is to ensure the equivalence between the new and the
original questionnaires, in terms of characteristics and functions. Therefore, we need a
standardised TEIQue-SF measurement tool that is adapted to the Indonesian language and
culture but still has equality with the original questionnaire.

Study 1 (Process of Adapting TEIQue-SF Version 1.50)

Method
Participants
Study 1 was the process of scale translation from the original to the translated scales (in Bahasa
Indonesia). In the background of the TEIQue-SF translation process, back and forth, the
researchers involved six translators selected based on English and Indonesian language skills,
psychology education background, cultural understanding of the research subjects, and
knowledge of the constructs of measuring instruments. Besides, the researchers asked help
from three (3) expert reviewers who had expertise in emotional intelligence expertise. In
cognitive discussions, the researchers could talk with 10 laypeople who were leaders or,
moreover, those who had work members.

Instruments
In this study, the measurement instrument of trait emotional intelligence will be adapted
using the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questioner Short Form (TEIQue-SF) version 1.50.

Procedures
The adaptation steps for TEIQue-SF version 1.50 was carried out with a cross-cultural
approach based on the International Test Commission (ITC) Guidelines for Test Adaptation
2016.

581
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

Pre-condition

At this stage, the researcher reviewed several measuring devices on each variable in the study,
and then selected the measuring tool that best suited the study. In the trait emotional
intelligence variables, it had been known that there were two measuring instruments, namely
TEIQue-SF version 1.00 compiled by Petrides and Furnham (2001), in which in 2010, revisions
and improvements to items were made by Cooper and Petrides (2010) to become TEIQue-
SF version 1.50. Therefore, this study used the TEIQue-SF version 1.50. After determining the
scale to be used in the study, the researchers then sought permission from the makers of the
measuring instrument by sending messages via email. After getting permission, then, the writer
looks for translators for the forward and backward translations. The selection was based on
their English and Indonesian proficiencies, psychology education background, cultural
understanding of the research subjects, and knowledge of the construct of the measuring
instrument.

Figure 1. TEIQue-SF versom 1.50 Adaptation Process Scheme

Forward translation
The forward translation is the process of translating the scale into the Indonesian version. This
process was carried out by two translators, both of whom did not know each other. The
translators chosen were those who were experts in English and Indonesian so well that

582
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

misinterpretation would not occur. Translators were given information about the research
objectives, operational definitions of each variable and a research sample plan so that they
could better understand the aims and objectives of the translation.

The synthesis of the forward translation

The results of the forward translation from the two translators were then discussed with one
person who had a Masters in Psychology background and had English language skills and
understood the construct of the measuring tool to get an Indonesian translation scale, called
the synthesis of the forward translation.

Backward translation
The backward translation is the process of translating the synthesis of the forward one into
English. It was done to ensure the translated version in Bahasa Indonesia does not deviate
from the original scale. The process was carried out by two translators who were experts in
Indonesian and English, respectively, and didn't know each other. Both translators did not see
the original scale but were only given the synthesis of the forward translation.

The synthesis of the backward translation

The results of the backward translation were then discussed with one person who had a
background in Masters in Psychology and has English language skills and understood the
construct of the measuring instrument to get backward translation synthesis. The translator
of the backward translation synthesis was a different person from the translator of the forward
one.

Expert Reviewer
At this stage, the role of the expert committee was to consolidate the forward and backward
versions and the synthesis of measuring instruments, as well as develop a prefinal version of
the measuring instruments that would be used for field testing. (Beaton, Bombardier,
Guillemin, & Ferraz, 2000). The expert reviewers selected were three people who had a
psychology education background and understood the concept of emotional intelligence,
cultural context, and Indonesian and English languages well. They were given a brief description
related to the research topic and an explanation of the reasons for selecting them, including
their assignments as expert reviewers. Furthermore, they were given forms of the statement
of willingness to become an expert reviewer, and then were given a brief description regarding

583
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

the construct and operational definitions of each variable. They were also given two (2)
assessment forms, namely 1) Comparability and Equality between the original and the
backward translation versions and 2) the Content Validity assessment form. Furthermore, in
the language comparison form, Comparability shows the level of Similarity of language, phrases,
terms, words, and sentences between the two versions. Items of statements that were very
identical and had no differences were given a score of 1, while those that were completely
different in terms of language were given a score of 7. Similarity means the degree of similarity
in meaning between the two versions of the scale, even though the terms used are different.
Items of statement that have identical meanings were given a score of 1, while those with very
different meanings were given a score of 7. This scoring refers to the rating scales proposed
by Jeanrie & Bertrand (1999) and Sperber (2004) with rating ranges ranging from 1 until 7, as
suggested in the ITC Guidelines for Adaptation (2016). At this stage, the Content Validity was
also assessed. The expert reviewers were asked to rate each item related to the extent to
which the items matched or were relevant to its construct and the function of the
measurement tool (Relevancy), how important were they when related to the construct and
the research context (Importance), and whether they were sufficiently clear and can be
understood (Clarity) (Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995; Rubio, Weger, Tebb, Lee, & Rauch,
2003). Referring to Lynn (1986, in Polit & Beck, 2006), a minimum of three experts is needed
to conduct an assessment. Each item is given a score from 1-4, good items are rated 3 and 4,
while unfavourable items are rated 1 and 2. Furthermore, assessments are given a score of 1
(for those 3 and 4) and 0 (for those 1 and 2). The I-CVI score is done by adding up the rating
values on each item and then divided by the number of expert reviewers. The S-CVI score is
determined by calculating the average I-CVI, i.e. the total I-CVI score divided by the total
number of items. The I-CVI and S-CVI assessments refer to Polit & Beck (2006) and Polit,
Beck, & Owen (2007).

Final scale draft formulation

The final draft scale was given to 10 laypeople who had positions of leadership or, at least, as
chairpersons who had work members. The pilot study was initiated by asking respondents to
provide an initial assessment of the final draft questionnaire. In this process, respondents were
asked to assess whether they find problems difficult to understand, confusing,
inappropriate/cannot represent situations/conditions/habits existing in Indonesian work
culture, by circling the "T" mark (Tidak/No) on the column provided. On the other hand, if

584
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

the questions are easily understood, clear, and following the work culture of Indonesia, then
the respondents were asked to circle the "Y" (Ya/Yes), and be allowed to comment on items
that were deemed necessary. After completing the questionnaire, the FGD process was then
carried out to discuss the clarity of each questionnaire's instructions and the intent or
understanding of the questionnaire questions, the compatibility of the questionnaire questions
with local cultural conditions, and the questionnaire display format (size and type of letters,
including the arrangement).

Results
Overall, from the results of a series of the backward and forward translation processes,
followed by the assessment of Comparability-Similarity and Content Validity by the expert
reviewers, a summary of the translation items was obtained as follows:

Table 1
TEIQue-SF version 1.50 Scale Translation Results

No. Item Orisinal Sintesa Sintesa Suggestion

Item Forward Item Backward Expert Reviewer
(FT1 & FT2) (BT1 & BT2)
1. Expressing my Mengungkapkan emosi Expressing my emotion Saya tidak kesulitan
emotions with saya dengan kata-kata through words is not a untuk mengungkapkan
words is not a tidak masalah bagi saya. problem for me emosi saya dengan
problem for me. kata-kata
2. , RIWHQ ÀQG LW Saya sering kesulitan I often get difficulty in
GLIÀFXOW WR VHH melihat sesuatu dari seeing things from
things from sudut pandang orang RWKHUV· SHUVSHFWLYH
DQRWKHU SHUVRQ·V lain.
viewpoint.
3. On the whole, Secara keseluruhan, saya Overall, I am a highly
,·P D KLJKO\ adalah orang yang motivated person
motivated person bermotivasi tinggi
4. , XVXDOO\ ÀQG LW Saya biasanya kesulitan I usually have difficulty
GLIÀFXOW WR mengendalikan emosi controlling my emotions
regulate my saya
emotions
5. I generally GRQ·W Saya biasanya tidak 8VXDOO\ L GRQ·W IHHO WKDW Secara umum, saya
ÀQG OLIH HQMR\DEOH merasa hidup itu life is fun tidak menikmati hidup
menyenangkan.
6. I can deal Saya bisa menghadapi I can deal with people
effectively with orang dengan efektif effectively.
people
7. I tend to change Saya cenderung sering I tend to change my Saya cenderung untuk
my mind mengubah pikiran saya mind frequently sering berubah pikiran
frequently

585
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

8. Many times, I Seringkali, saya tidak )UHTXHQWO\ , FRXOGQ·W

FDQ·W ILJXUH RXW dapat memahami emosi figure out the feeling of
what emotional apa yang saya rasakan my own emotion
,·P IHHOLQJ
9. I feel that I have Saya merasa memiliki I feel that I have a
number of good sejumlah kelebihan number of capabilities
qualities
10. , RIWHQ ÀQG LW Saya sering kesulitan I often find it difficult to Saya sering kesulitan
GLIÀFXOW WR VWDQG untuk memperjuangkan fight for my rights mempertahankan hak-
up for my rights hak-hak saya hak saya
11. ,·P XVXDOO\ DEOH WR Saya biasanya mampu I am usually able to
LQÁXHQFH WKH ZD\ mempengaruhi perasaan influence other people's
other people feel orang lain. feelings.
12. On the whole, I Secara keseluruhan, saya Overall, I have a gloomy Secara keseluruhan,
have a gloomy punya sudut pandang perspective in most saya memiliki
perspective on yang suram tentang things perspektif/ pandangan
most things kebanyakan hal yang suram pada
banyak hal
13. Those close to Orang-orang terdekat The people closest to
me often saya sering mengeluh me often complain that I
complain that I bahwa saya tidak do not treat them
GRQ·W WUHDW WKHP memperlakukan mereka properly.
right. dengan benar.
14. , RIWHQ ÀQG LW Saya sering kesulitan I often get difficulty in
GLIÀFXOW WR DGMXVW menyesuaikan hidup adjusting my life to the
my life according saya dengan keadaan circumstances
to the
circumstances
15. On the whole, Secara keseluruhan, saya Overall, I am able to deal Saya mampu
,·P DEOH WR GHDO mampu menghadapi with stress. menghadapi stres
with stress stres
16. , RIWHQ ÀQG LW Saya sering kesulitan I often get difficulty
GLIÀFXOW WR VKRZ menunjukkan perasaan showing my feelings to
my affection to saya kepada orang-orang the people closest to
those close to terdekat saya me.
me.
17. ,·P QRUPDOO\ DEOH Saya biasanya mampu ,·P XVXDOO\ DEOH WR Biasanya, saya bisa
WR ´JHW LQWR membayangkan posisi LPDJLQH RWKHU·V berempati dan
VRPHRQH·V orang lain dan condition and feel their memahami emosi
VKRHVµ DQG merasakan emosi emotion orang lain
experience their mereka
emotions
18. , QRUPDOO\ ÀQG LW Saya biasanya kesulitan I usually face difficulties Saya biasanya
GLIÀFXOW WR NHHS memotivasi diri saya to keep myself motivated kesulitan memotivasi
myself motivated. sendiri diri sendiri
19. ,·P usually able to Saya biasanya mampu I am usually able to find
ÀQG ZD\V WR menemukan cara untuk way to control my
control my mengendalikan emosi emotions if it is
emotions when I saya jika diperlukan. necessary
want to.
20. On the whole, Secara keseluruhan, saya Overall, I am happy with
,·P SOHDVHG ZLWK senang dengan hidup my life.
my life saya
21. I would describe Saya menganggap diri I consider myself as a Saya menganggap diri
myself as a good saya adalah negosiator good negotiator saya sebagai
negotiator. yang baik negosiator yang handal

586
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

22. I tend to get Saya cenderung untuk I tend to be involved in Saya cenderung untuk
involved in things terlibat dalam hal-hal things that I want to terlibat dalam hal-hal
I later wish I yang kemudian ingin leave behind. yang kemudian saya
could get out of. saya tinggalkan. sesali

23. I often pause and Saya sering merenung I often muse and think
think about my dan memikirkan about my feelings
feelings perasaan saya
24. , EHOLHYH ,·P IXOO RI Saya percaya bahwa I believe that I have my
personal saya memiliki kelebihan own strengths
strengths saya sendiri
25. , WHQG WR ´EDFN Saya cenderung untuk I tend to step back even Saya cenderung untuk
GRZQµ HYHQ LI , mundur meskipun saya though I know I am in a mengalah meski saya
NQRZ ,·P ULJKW tahu saya benar right side tahu bahwa saya
benar
26. , GRQ·W VHHP WR Saya sepertinya tidak It seems that I have no Rasanya saya tidak
have any power punya kekuatan atas power at all of other punya kendali atas
at all over other perasaan orang lain SHRSOH·V IHHOLQJ perasaan orang lain
SHRSOH·V IHHOLQJV sama sekali sama sekali

27. I generally believe Saya biasanya percaya I usually believe that Saya percaya bahwa
that things will bahwa segala hal akan everything will be fine in segala hal dalam hidup
ZRUN RXW ÀQH LQ baik-baik saja dalam my life saya akan baik-baik
my life. hidup saya saja
28. , ÀQG LW GLIÀFXOW WR Saya kesulitan menjalin I have trouble in building
bond well even hubungan bahkan bonds even with the
with those close dengan orang-orang people closest to me.
to me. terdekat saya.
29. *HQHUDOO\ ,·P Umumnya, saya mampu Generally, I am able to
able to adapt to beradaptasi dengan adapt with new
new lingkungan baru. environment
environments.
30. Others admire Orang lain mengagumi Other people admire me
me for being saya karena ketenangan because of my calmness.
relaxed saya.

Table 2
Expert Reviewer Assessment Results

Comparibility Similarity
Scale Mean Score Mean Score I-CVI S-CVI
Total Range Total Range
TEIQUE 2,23 1,00 ² 2,66 2,10 1,00 ² 2,66 1 1

Table 2 shows the results of the expert reviewers' assessment of the levels of Comparability
and Similarity. No item has a mean score of more than 3. A mean of > 3 (7 is for the worst
deal; 1 is for the best deal) requires a formal review of the translated items. However, the
items number 7, 18, 21, 27 which have a mean value > 2.5, needs to be observed. Each mean

587
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

between 2.5 and 3 in the Similarity column is also considered problematic and needs to be
reviewed for, possibly, revised. In theory, the re-translated items might differ from the original
questionnaire in the assumed linguistic form and the meaning conveyed. Ideally, the
appropriate items have a similar meaning and form of language. However, the similarity in
meaning is preferred, while the form of language can be varied to ensure equality of meaning
(Sperber, 2004). In addition to calculating the mean scores of Comparability and Similarity,
the results of discussions with the three expert reviewers also provided input and suggestions
related to items on a scale to make them more easily understood by the research sample. In
TEIQue-SF, there were suggestions for improvement on items 1, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21,
DQG ,WHP ZDV FRUUHFWHG GXH WR IRUZDUG WUDQVODWLRQ VWDWLQJ ´Mengungkapkan
emosi saya dengan kata-kata tidak masalah bagi sayaµ +e was considered inaccurate in terms of
ZULWLQJ RUGHU VR LW ZDV FKDQJHG WR ´Saya tidak kesulitan untuk mengungkapkan emosi saya
dengan kata-kataµ ,Q LWHP RI WKH IRUZDUG WUDQVODWLRQ VWDWLQJ ´Saya biasanya tidak merasa hidup
itu menyenangkanµ D VHULHV RI ZRUGV ´tidak merasa hidup itu menyenangkanµ VHHPHG FRQIXVLQJ
VR LW ZDV FODULILHG LQWR ´Secara umum, saya tidak menikmati hidupµ ,Q LWHP RI WKH forward
translation VWDWLQJ ´Saya cenderung sering mengubah pikiran sayaµ WKH ZRUGLQJ ´sering
mengubahµ ZDV FRQVLGHUHG LQDSSURSULDWH VR WKDW LW ZDV FKDQJHG WR ´Saya cenderung untuk sering
berubah pikiranµ. In item 10 of the forward translation VWDWLQJ ´Saya sering kesulitan untuk
memperjuangkan hak-hak sayaµ WKH ZRUG ´memeperjuangkanµ ZDV FRQVLGHUHG LQDSSURSriate to
WKH RULJLQDO LWHP ´stand upµ ZKLFK PHDQV WR VXUYLYH VR WKDW WKH VHQWHQFH ZDV FODULILHG WR EH
´Saya sering kesulitan mempertahankan hak-hak sayaµ ,Q LWHP RI WKH forward translation
VWDWLQJ ´Secara keseluruhan, saya punya sudut pandang yang suram tentang kebanyakan halµ WKH
ZRUG ´sudut pandangµ ZDV FRQVLGHUHG WR KDYH D QDUURZ PHDQLQJ VR WKDW LW ZDV FODULILHG E\
DGGLQJ WKH ZRUG ´perspectifµ WR WKH VHQWHQFH WR EH ´Secara keseluruhan, saya memiliki perspektif/
pandangan yang suram pada banyak halµ ,Q LWHP RI WKH forward translation VWDWLQJ ´Secara
keseluruhan, saya mampu menghadapi stresµ WKH ZRUGV ´secara keseluruhanµ ZHUH QRW
DSSURSULDWH WR XVH VR WKDW WKH VHQWHQFH ZDV FODULILHG PRUH VWUDLJKWIRUZDUGO\ WR EH ´Saya
mampu menghadapi stresµ In item 17 of the forward translation VWDWLQJ ´Saya biasanya mampu
membayangkan posisi orang lain dan merasakan emosi merekaµ WKH ZRUG ´membayangkanµ
seemed ambiguous so it was clarified to be ´Biasanya, saya bisa berempati dan memahami emosi
orang lainµ In item 18 of the forward translation VWDWLQJ ´Saya biasanya kesulitan memotivasi diri

588
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

saya sendiriµ WKH ZRUG ´sayaµ experienced unnecessary repetition so that the sentence slightly
FKDQJHG WR ´Saya biasanya kesulitan memotivasi diri sendiriµ ,Q LWHP of the forward translation
VWDWLQJ ´Saya menganggap diri saya adalah negosiator yang baikµ WKH ZRUG ´baikµ LV QRW TXLWH
ULJKW LQ H[SODLQLQJ WKH QHJRWLDWRU VR WKDW LW ZDV FODULILHG E\ UHSODFLQJ ZLWK ´Saya menganggap
diri saya sebagai negosiator yang handalµ ,Q LWHP RI WKH forward translation VWDWLQJ ´Saya
cenderung untuk terlibat dalam hal-hal yang kemudian ingin saya tinggalkanµ WKLV VHQWHQFH ZDV
FRQIXVLQJ VR LW ZDV FODULILHG WR EH PRUH VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG ZLWK ´Saya cenderung untuk terlibat
dalam hal-hal yang kemudian saya sesaliµ ,Q LWHP RI WKH forward translation VWDWLQJ ´Saya
cenderung untuk mundur meskipun saya tahu saya benarµ WKH ZRUG ´mundurµ ZDV FRQVLGHUHG WR
be less explaining the choice of attitude so that it as clarified by using the word ´mengalahµ WR
EH ´Saya cenderung untuk mengalah meski saya tahu bahwa saya benarµ ,Q LWHP RI WKH forward
translation VWDWLQJ ´Saya sepertinya tidak punya kekuatan atas perasaan orang lain sama sekaliµ
WKH ZRUG ´kekuatanµ ZDV FRQVLGHUHG inappropriate to explain the meaning of the sentence so
WKDW LW ZDV FODULILHG WR EH ´Rasanya saya tidak punya kendali atas perasaan orang lain sama sekaliµ
In item 27 of the forward translation VWDWLQJ ´Saya biasanya percaya bahwa segala hal akan baik-
baik saja dalam hidup sayaµ WKH ZRUG ´biasanyaµ LV FRQVLGHUHG XQQHFHVVDU\ VR WKDW WKH VHQWHQFH
VWUXFWXUH EHFDPH ´Saya percaya bahwa segala hal dalam hidup saya akan baik-baik sajaµ

Furthermore, the results of the I-CVI item selection assessment, as shown in Table 2, showed
a score of 1. Referring to Polit et al. (2007), an item is considered good if it has an I-CVI of
0.78 or more and if vice versa, it is considered as a candidate for revision or deletion. The
results of the S-CVI assessment on TEIQue-SF also showed a score of 1. Associated with S-
CVI, Polit et al. (2007) recommend an S-CVI value of 0.90 or more. Therefore, it can be
concluded that TEIQue-SF version 1.50 in this study has good Content Validity because it has
the same scores of I-CVI and S-CVI, namely 1.

After obtaining the final draft of the Indonesian version of the TEIQue-SF 1.50 scale, the next
step was to conduct a Cognitive Debriefing on 10 laypeople who held positions as leaders to
be asked to read the final draft items and to find out whether these items can be understood
by laypeople according to the aim of the assessment of the scale. The result of this cognitive
debriefing process showed that the 10 respondents stated that the items on the final draft
scale were easily understood, so there was no revision needed. The measurement tool trial

589
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

was then done after that.

Study 2 (Confirmatory Factor Analysis)

Method
Participants
Confirmatory factor analysis of the Indonesian version of TEIQue-SF 1.50 was aimed at 200
subjects who were characterised as workers and those who occupied positions as leaders of
the sectors of education, industry/manufacturing, marketing, IT, financial services, Government
Agencies, and Creative Industries in Indonesia. The subjects consisted of 109 women (54.5%)
and 91 men (45.5%) with the average age of 36.9 years (SD 8.64, min: 20 years, max: 64 years),
in which of 58.2% had received their master's education while 34% had a bachelor's education
background.

Instruments
The Trait Emotion Intelligence measuring instrument that would be used in Study 2 was the
Indonesian version of the Emotional Intelligence Questioner Short Form (TEIQue-SF) version
1.50 with the blueprint arrangement as follows table 3. Conceptually, Petrides (2001) defined
Trait Emotional Intelligence as a collection of one's personality traits in perceiving his/her
emotional abilities. Based on this definition, the researchers operationalised the construct of
Trait Emotional Intelligence as a degree of individual perception of their emotional abilities.
The higher the score, the more positive the perception of the emotional abilities, and Vice
Versa. Trait Emotional Intelligence consists of 15 aspects, namely Adaptability which is related
to being flexible and willing to adapt to new conditions, Assertiveness related to being
forthright, honest, and willing to defend rights, Emotion Expression related to being able to
communicate feelings to others, Emotion Management to others related to being able to
influence the feelings of others, Emotion Perception of self and others related to the clarity of
one's own feelings and those of others, Emotion Regulation related to being able to control
emotions, Trait Empathy related to being able to understand the perspectives of others, Trait
Happiness related to being cheerful and satisfied with life, Low-impulsiveness related to the
reflectiveness and the tendency to not following the desire, Trait Optimism related to
confidence and tend to see life from the positive side, Relationships related to the ability to

590
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

maintain satisfying personal relationships, Self-esteem related to success and confidence, Self-
motivation related to encouragement and the tendency to not give up in the face of difficulties,
Social-awareness related to the ability to reach a wide network with superior social skills, and
Stress-management related to the ability to withstand pressure and manage stress.

Table 3
Blueprint of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Scale

Aspect Item number Number

F UF
Trait Optimism 27 12 2
Trait Happiness 20 5 2
Self-esteem 24 10 2
Trait Emphaty 17 2 2
Emotional perception (self 23 8 2
and others)
Emotion expression 1 16 2
Relationships 6 28 2
Emotion regulation 19 4 2
Low-impulsiveness 30 22 2
Stress management 15 25 2
Emotion management 11 26 2
Assertiveness 9 7 2
Social awareness 21 13 2
Adaptability 29 14 2
Self-motivation 3 18 2
Total 15 15 30

Furthermore, responses were made using a 7 Likert scale. Scales range from 1 (strongly
disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat disagree), 4 (neutral), 5 (somewhat agree) 6 (agree), and
7 (strongly agree). The items in each aspect were added up so that the total TEIQue-SF score
will be obtained by doing reverse scoring on unfavourable items. The higher the total score
on TEIQUE-SF the higher the trait emotional intelligence, and vice versa.

Procedures
In this study, the construct Validity and Reliability tests were performed with a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA), which aimed to find out how precisely manifest variables (indicators)

591
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

can explain latent variables using AMOS version 22.

Results
The results of the assessment of the goodness of fit on the Indonesian version of TEIQue-SF
1.50 in the current study (table 4). Hair et al. (2014) explained that the characteristics of the
goodness of fit index differ in various situations. In the number of samples below 250 (<250;
in this study the number of samples was 200) and the total number of indicators above 30 (>
30; in this study the total number of indicators was 77), the GOF indications are the significant
p-values, CFI and TLI are above 0.92, RNI is above 0.92, SRMR is <0.9, and RMSEA is <0.8.
The goodness of fit test results indicated that it was fit (CFI = 0.921; RMSEA = 0.076; CMINDF
= 2.141, p-value = 0,000). Although the Chi-square value was not fit, the researchers,
according to Hair et al. (2014), must report at least one (1) incremental index (represented
by CFI) and one (1) absolute index (represented by CMINDF). Therefore, it could be
concluded that the Trait Emotional Intelligence model in this study was following the
theoretical model of Cooper and Petrides (2010). The final result of the goodness of fit of the
trait construct of the Trait Emotional Intelligence with first-order confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) can be seen in the figure.

Table 4
The Goodness of fit of the Indonesian version of TEIQue-SF 1.50

Goodness of Fit Acceptable level of Estimated Annotation

criteria conformity results
Chi-square p > 0.05 0.000 Not fit
CMIN/DF ” 2.141 fit
RMR ” 0.037 fit
CFI • 0.921 fit
RMSEA ” 0.076 fit

592
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

Figure 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis TEIQue-SF version 1.50

Furthermore, the results of the construct Validity test showed that the Emotional Trait
Intelligence scale item has an estimated loading factor value between 0.643 - 0.875. Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, (2014) explained that the estimated standardized loading item must be 0.5
or higher, and ideally is 0.7 or higher. Therefore, it could be concluded that all Indonesian
TEIQue-SF 1.50 items were declared valid. The results of the construct Validity test are as
follows table 5.

593
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

Table 5
Loading Factor of Trait Emotional Intelligence Scale

Aspect/Item Loading Factor Number of Item

Trait Optimism
Item 27 0.820 2
Item 12 0.831
Trait Happiness
Item 20 0.749 2
Item 5 0.779
Self-esteem
Item 24 0.832 2
Item 10 0.799
Trait Empathy
Item 17 0.848 2
Item 2 0.773
Emotional Perception (self and others)
Item 23 0.643 2
Item 8 0.835
Emotion expression
Item 1 0.769 2
Item 16 0.805
Relationships
Item 6 0.833 2
Item 28 0.675
Emotion regulation
Item 19 0.875 2
Item 4 0.653
Low-impulsiveness
Item 30 0.798 2
Item 22 0.850
Stress management
Item 15 0.855 2
Item 25 0.790
Emotion Management
Item 11 0.831 2
Item 26 0.821
Assertiveness
Item 9 0.786 2
Item 7 0.820
Social awareness
Item 21 0.790 2
Item 13 0.827
Adaptability
Item 29 0.835 2
Item 14 0.806
Self-motivation
Item 3 0.783 2
Item 18 0.810
Total 30

594
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

Furthermore, the Indonesian version of the TEIQue-SF 1.50 reliability test showed that the
construct reliability value was 0.981 (> 0.70). Hair et al. (2014) explained that the rule of
thumb for estimating reliability is 0.7 or higher, showing good reliability. This evidence proved
that all TEIQue-SF 1.50 internal measurements consistently represented the same latent
construction. Meanwhile, the average variance extracted for the Indonesian version of
TEIQue-SF 1.50 showed a value of 0.638 (> 0.50). Hair et al. (2014) recommended that the
average variance extracted test limit value is> 0.50. Therefore, this evidence showed that the
amount of variance of the indicators extracted by the TEIQue-SF 1.50 latent construct was
more than the error variance (Hair et al. 2014)). Therefore, it could be concluded that the
Indonesian version of TEIQue-SF 1.50 showed good convergence. Table 6 are the results of
construct reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) test

Table 6
Reliability Test Results

Construct Contruct Reliability AverageVariance Annotation

(CR) Extracted (AVE)
TEIQue-SF 1.50 0.981 0.638 Reliable

Discussion
This study aimed to adapt the TEIQue-SF version 1.50 instrument into the Indonesian language
and culture. The translation validation process aimed to obtain a standard scale of TEIQue-SF
version 1.50, which can be used for research subjects in Indonesia. Sperber (2004) explained
that an instrument or questionnaire is not enough by just translating literally from the native
language to that of the target, but it requires a process of adaptation and translation in a form
that is relevant and easily understood culturally while still maintaining the meaning and purpose
of the original instrument (Sperber, 2004). It should be noted that the adaptation test of an
instrument is different from the translation test. Adaptation test involves the process of
deciding whether an instrument that has been adapted in a particular language and culture can
measure the same construct in the native language, then choosing translators and evaluate
their background (like forward and backward translations), examining the equality of
instruments in a second language and culture, and conducting the necessary Validity studies.
Meanwhile, the translation of the test has a more limited meaning with a very simple approach

595
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

to change an instrument from one language to another without regard to education or

psychological equivalence (International Test Commission, 2017).

In the translation validation process, the results showed that no items were having a mean
score of more than 3, but Sperber (2004) said if there are items with mean scores between
2.5 to 3 in the interpretability column, a review needs to be done. The validation results
showed that items number 7, 18, 21, and 27 needed to be examined and improved to have
the same meaning as the original ones. In item 7, there was no difference in language and
meaning between the original item and the backward translation. However, a slight
improvement was made in the wording ´VHULQJ PHQJXEDK SLNLUDQµ WR EH ´VHULQJ EHUXEDK
SLNLUDQµ /LNHZLVH LWHP VKRZHG WKH VLPLODULW\ RI PHDQLQJ EHWZHHQ LWV RULJLQDO LWHP DQG LW LQ
the backward translation, but the expert reviewers suggest an improvement so that the word
´VD\Dµ LV QRW UHSHDWHG LQ RQH VHQWHQFH 7KH FRUUHFWLRQ ZDV IURP ´Saya biasanya kesulitan
memotivasi diri saya sendiriµ WR EH ´Saya biasanya kesulitan memotivasi diri sendiriµ ,Q LWHP
21, a slight difference was found between that in the original and the backward translation in
language structure, but they had the same meaning. In this item, the expert provided
VXJJHVWLRQV IRU UHSODFLQJ ZRUGV ´EDLNµ E\ ´KDQGDOµ 7KH UHDVRQ IRU FKRRVLQJ WKH ZRUG ´KDQGDOµ
was because the word can represent someone's ability whiOH WKH ZRUG ´EDLNµ LV OHVV VSHFLILF
VR WKDW WKH VHQWHQFH ZDV LPSURYHG IURP ´Saya menganggap diri saya adalah negosiator yang
baikµ WR EH ´Saya menganggap diri saya sebagai negosiator yang handalµ ,WHP DOVR VKRZHG
a difference in language structure, but the meanings between the original item and backward
translation are the same. In this item, the experts suggested a little change in the sentence
structure but with the same meaning with the original item to make it easier to understand.
The sentence was LPSURYHG IURP ´Saya biasanya percaya bahwa segala hal akan baik-baik saja
dalam hidup sayaµ WR EH ´Saya percaya bahwa segala hal dalam hidup saya akan baik-baik sajaµ
Indeed, in theory, the re-translated items might have differences in terms of the linguistic and
meaning from the original questionnaire. But, ideally, they have similar meaning and form of
language. However, in this case, the similarity of meaning was preferred, while the form of
language could be varied to ensure equality of meaning (Sperber, 2004). Furthermore, the
TEIQue-SF content validation process showed that the assessment of item selection I-CVI and
S-CVI produced the same score, namely 1. Referring to Polit et al. (2007), an item is considered
good if it has an I-CVI of 0.78 or more, so it can be said that TEIQue-SF in this study had good

596
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

content validity.

Understanding the psychometric properties of a construct is very important as a basis for

consideration in the development, testing and use of a measuring instrument (Furr &
Bacharach, 2014). Related to this, as the results of the TEIQue-SF version 1.50 literature
review described earlier, the psychometric properties of the Trait Emotional Intelligence
constructs are unidimensional so that the scoring process was done by adding up the total
scores, which were then divided by the number of items. Furthermore, Hair et al. (2014)
explained that determining whether a measurement model is valid or not can be done in two
ways, namely 1) building an acceptable level of the goodness of fit for the measurement model
and (2) finding specific evidence of construct Validity. The goodness of fit test results indicated
that it was fit (CFI = 0.921; RMSEA = 0.076; CMINDF = 2.141, p-value = 0,000), meaning that
the Trait Emotional Intelligence model in this study was following the theoretical model of
Cooper and Petrides (2010). Meanwhile, the construct Validity test showed items 4, 23, and
28 had loading factors of less than 0.7. However, Hair et al. (2014) explained that at least the
load factor of an item must be statistically significant with an estimated standardised loading of
0.5 or higher. In addition to having an adequate loading factor score, the Indonesian version
of TEIQue-SF version 1.50 was proved to be valid with a construct reliability score of 0.981
(above 0.70) and an average variance extracted score of 0.638 (above 0.50). This evidence
proved that all internal measurements of TEIQue-SF 1.50 consistently represented the same
latent construction and good item convergence because the amount of variance of the
indicators extracted by the latent construct was greater than the error variance. The limitation
of this study was that respondents came from among workers who occupied positions as
leaders. As such, further studies can replicate this study with different respondents'
backgrounds.

Conclusion
The Indonesian version of the TEIQue-SF 1.50 instrument is valid and can be used to measure
the Trait Emotional Intelligence constructs of respondents in Indonesia. Carrying out the
adaptation process by considering the equivalence of meaning and language, as well as
understanding the psychometric literature property of an instrument correctly, are an absolute

597
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

process to be carried out. An adaptation instrument that has been adapted to the culture and
language of the intended respondents while still representing the meaning of the original scale
will be easier to understand.

One of the limitations of this study was that the survey was conducted online, in which the
researchers must carefully and accurately ensure that the participants met the research criteria
and ensure that there was no double data due to participants filling out the questionnaire more
than once. The researchers suggested that further research apply a paper-based test survey.
Furthermore, the Indonesian version of the role stressor scale was only specific to a sample
of workers who occupied the leadership/supervisor level. For this reason, the researchers
suggested that further research carry out the adaptation process involving those occupying
positions other than the leadership level (e.g., staff, members, secretaries, and executives).

References
Ali, M. M. (2016). Are we asking the same questions in different contexts: Translation
techniques in cross-culture studies in science education? Journal of Turkish Science
Education, 13(1), 31²44. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10155a
Andrei, F., Siegling, A. B., Aloe, A. M., Baldaro, B., Petrides, K. V,. (2016). The incremental
validity of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire ( TEIQue ): A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 261²276.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1084630

Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the Process
of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. SPINE, 25(24), 3186²3191.
Cherniss, C. & Goleman, D. (2001). The emotionally intelligent workplace. Jossey Bass A Willey
Company, San Fransisco
Cooper, A., & Petrides, K. V. (2010). A psychometric analysis of the trait emotional intelligence
questionnaire ² short form ( TEIQue ² SF ) Using Item Response Theory. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 92(5), 449²457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.497426
Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for cross-cultural
adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 68(4), 435²441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021

Fajrianthi, & Zein, R. A. (2017). Development of a psychological test to measure ability-based

emotional intelligence in the Indonesian workplace using an item response theory.
Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 10, 339²352.
Fauziyah, N. R. (2016). Pengaruh moral judgment dan kecerdasan emosi terhadap perilaku
siswa sekolah menengah kejuruan pengakses pornografi di internet. Jurnal Ilmiah Penelitian

598
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

Psikologi: Kajian Empiris & Non-Empiris, 2(1), 17²27.

Fteiha, M., & Awwad, N. (2020). Emotional intelligence and its relationship with stress coping
style. Health Psychology Open, 7(2). doi: 10.1177/2055102920970416

Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2014). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA, US:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Gökçen, E., Furnham, A., Mavroveli, S., & Petrides, K. V. (2014). A cross-cultural investigation
of trait emotional intelligence in Hong Kong and the UK. Personality and Individual
Differences, 65, 30²35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.053
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis.
Hasnah, Hendra, D. A., & Hapsah. (2016). Correlational between emotional intelligence and
problem solving skill of health students of faculty of medicine Universitas Hasanuddin.
Indonesian Contemporary Nursing Journal, 3(1), 22²30.

Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological
assessment a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assesment, 7(3),
238²247.
International Test Commission. (2016). ITC Guidelines for translating and adapting tests
(Second Edition), 1²40.
International Test Commission. (2017). ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests
(Second Edition) International. International Journal of Testing.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2017.1398166
Jeanrie, C., & Bertrand, R. (1999). Translating WHVWV ZLWK WKH LQWHUQDWLRQDO WHVW FRPPLVVLRQ · V
guidelines×: Keeping validity in mind. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15(3),
277²283. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.15.3.277
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence. American Psychologist,
63(6), 503²517. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.6.503

Petrides, K. V. (2009). Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence

questionnaire ( TEIQue ). In C. Stough et al. (eds.), Assessing Emotional Intelligence, The
Springer Series on Human Exceptionality (pp. 85²101). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-
387-88370-0
Petrides, K. V. (2010). Trait emotional intelligence theory. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 3, 136²139.

Petrides, K. V, & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence×: Psychometric investigation

with reference to established trait taxonomies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 425²
448.
Petrides, K. V, Vernon, P. A., Schermer, J. A., Ligthart, L., Boomsma, D. I., & Veselka, L. (2010).
Relationships between trait emotional intelligence and the big five in the Netherlands.
Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 906²910.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.02.019

599
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2006). The content validity index×: Are you sure you know what · s
being reported×? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health Health, 29,
489²497. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur
Polit, D. F., Beck, T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Focus on research methods is the CVI an acceptable
indicator of content validity×? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing &
Health, 30, 459²467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur
Rubio, D. M., Weger, M. B., Tebb, S. S., Lee, E. S., & Rauch, S. (2003). Objectifyng content
validity×: Conducting a content validity study in social work research. Social Work Research,
27(2), 94²104. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/27.2.94
Sperber, A. D. (2004). Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural
research. Gastroenterology, 126, 124²128. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.016

Swami, V., Begum, S., & Petrides, K. V. (2010). Associations between trait emotional
intelligence, actual ² ideal weight discrepancy , and positive body image. Personality and
Individual Differences, 49(5), 485²489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.009
Tresnawaty, Y. (2018). Penggunaan confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) dalam pengembangan
alat ukur trait emotional intelligence questionnaire-short form (TEIQUE-SF). Jurnal Ilmiah
Penelitian Psikologi: Kajian Empiris & Non-Empiris, 4(1), 33²41.
Yin, Y. (2018). Emotional intelligence and extra-role behavior: the mediating effect of role stressors
and organizational justice in a construction company in China (ISCTE Business School,
Instituto Universitario de Lisboa). Retrieved from https://repositorio.iscte-
iul.pt/handle/10071/17935

Zampetakis, L. A. (2011). The measurement of trait emotional intelligence with TEIQue-SFï: An

analysis based on unfolding item response theory models. Research on Emotion in Organizations
(Vol. 7). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1746-
9791(2011)0000007016

600
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

Instruksi : Jawablah setiap pernyataan di bawah ini dengan memilih salah satu lingkaran di bawah angka yang
menggambarkan tingkat persetujuan atau ketidaksetujuan Anda dengan pernyataan tersebut. Terdapat 7 pilihan
jawaban untuk masing-PDVLQJ SHUQ\DWDDQ GHQJDQ UHQWDQJ SLOLKDQ ´6DQJDW 7LGDN 6HWXMXµ DQJND VDPSDL ´6DQJDW
6HWXMXµ DQJND
Jangan berpikir terlalu lama mengenai makna dari setiap pernyatan, karena tidak ada jawaban yang benar atau salah.
Bekerjalah dengan cepat dan cobalah untuk menjawab dengan seakurat mungkin.

TEIQue-SF 1.50 versi Indonesia

Pilihan Jawaban
Sangat Agak
No. Pernyataan Tidak Agak Sangat
tidak tidak Netral Setuju
setuju setuju setuju
setuju setuju
Saya tidak kesulitan
untuk
1. mengungkapkan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
emosi saya dengan
kata-kata
Saya sering kesulitan
melihat sesuatu dari
2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sudut pandang orang
lain
Secara keseluruhan,
saya adalah orang
3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
yang bermotivasi
tinggi
Saya biasanya
kesulitan
4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
mengendalikan emosi
saya
Secara umum, saya
5. tidak menikmati 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hidup
Saya bisa
6. menghadapi orang 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
dengan efektif
Saya cenderung untuk
7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sering berubah pikiran
Seringkali, saya tidak
dapat memahami
8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
emosi apa yang saya
rasakan
Saya merasa memiliki
9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sejumlah kelebihan
Saya sering kesulitan
10. mempertahankan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hak-hak saya
Saya biasanya
mampu
11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
mempengaruhi
perasaan orang lain

601
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

Secara keseluruhan,
saya memiliki
perspektif/
12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
pandangan yang
suram pada banyak
hal
Orang-orang terdekat
saya sering mengeluh
13. bahwa saya tidak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
memperlakukan
mereka dengan benar
Saya sering kesulitan
14. menyesuaikan hidup 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
saya dengan keadaan
Saya mampu
15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
menghadapi stres
Saya sering kesulitan
menunjukkan
16. perasaan saya 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
kepada orang-orang
terdekat saya
Biasanya, saya bisa
berempati dan
17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
memahami emosi
orang lain
Saya biasanya
18. kesulitan memotivasi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
diri sendiri
Saya biasanya
mampu menemukan
19. cara untuk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
mengendalikan emosi
saya jika diperlukan.
Secara keseluruhan,
20. saya senang dengan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hidup saya
Saya menganggap diri
saya sebagai
21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
negosiator yang
handal
Saya cenderung untuk
terlibat dalam hal-hal
22. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
yang kemudian saya
sesali
Saya sering merenung
23. dan memikirkan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
perasaan saya
Saya percaya bahwa
24. saya memiliki 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
kelebihan saya sendiri
Saya cenderung untuk
mengalah meski saya
25. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
tahu bahwa saya
benar

602
 Journal of Educational, Health and Community Psychology Febriana,
Vol 10, No 4, 2021 E-ISSN 2460-8467 Fajrianthi

Rasanya saya tidak

punya kendali atas
26. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
perasaan orang lain
sama sekali
Saya percaya bahwa
segala hal dalam
27. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hidup saya akan baik-
baik saja
Saya kesulitan
menjalin hubungan
28. bahkan dengan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
orang-orang terdekat
saya
Umumnya, saya
mampu beradaptasi
29. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
dengan lingkungan
baru.
Orang lain
mengagumi saya
30. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
karena ketenangan
saya

603