Beyond Emotional Intelligence: Validation of a Model of Emotional Competence Applied to Teachers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript aimed at validating Rodríguez’s (2018) theoretical model of competent “emocreativity” and to study the psychometric properties of the instrument that measures the emotional competencies included in this model.

The acceptance of manuscript would depend on making special revision:

 

• The question is original and well defined.
• The aim of the study is well defined.
• The results are well defined and totally justified.

 

• Methodology is well defined.

 

• The quality of presentation had met many standards of presenting.
• English language is appropriate and understandable.
• The conclusion and policy implication are too short and there are not totally justified.
• The manuscript has an interest for the readers because it provides not only a reliable and valid assessment tool, but also a useful empirical model from a competency-based perspective.

 

Author Response

We appreciate your comments and assessments of our work. We will now respond to the reviewer's request.

 

1.- ‘The conclusion and policy implications are too brief and not fully justified.’

 

We have expanded the conclusions and discussion section, taking into account the policy implications of the results obtained in our work. We transcribe the paragraphs that have been added or modified

 

 

We believe that our research provides implications from which to formulate an empirically proven training proposal aimed at teachers, enabling them not only to help their students learn how to manage their complex and increasingly damaged emotional world, but also to take on the urgent challenge of protecting themselves by looking after their professional and personal well-being.

The above has not only practical implications, but also consequences for the design of training policies. As we have shown, the importance of introducing emotional intelligence into initial teacher training has been present in the literature for twenty years (Bisquerra, 2005; Bueno et al., 2005; Fernández-Berrocal and Ruiz, 2008; Teruel, 2000); however, the majority of teachers have not had training opportunities to develop their emotional skills. And although the range of training options has increased in recent years (Palomera et al., 2008), there is no guarantee that these proposals are based on research results, nor that they are experiential (Kostiv, 2022) and skills-based, as we propose in the model validated in this work.

In conclusion, this study has provided empirical evidence for approaching teacher training from an emotional intelligence model which, without claiming to be superior to traditional models (because this was not what we sought to prove with our research), offers an alternative focused on emotional skills that can be acquired through systematic teaching-learning processes by both students and teachers.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the interest and work done on emotional intelligence and competencies in teaching. This paper demonstrates the need for ongoing research. Below, I outline a few issue that I feel need to be clarified to improve this work.

1. There are three approaches to EI outlined. How does the first (skill) differ from the competency approach? Skills are developed, no? In fact, the first approach of Mayer & Salovey includes 4 skills. All that are developed. I am not seeing the difference in the two approaches as presented under the heading of Approaches to Emotional Intelligence. Are there really only two approaches?

2. Page 2 line 63, I think you meant to have the reference to Rodriguez in parantheses.

3. Is emotional creativity the same as emocreativity? You introduce “competent emocreativity” but from then on you refer to emotional creativity in the text and only to emocreativity in the model. Why the switch? It is confusing. You begin the section on emotional competicies by presenting a theoretical proposal that "we name" 'competent emocreativity' but then you cite Rodriguez and use his model, which is labeled 'competent emocreativy'. This needs to be cleared up to make it clear who owns that concept/ model. It is confusing as to who is the original creator of the model that follows as you cite Rodriguez. Are you just using parts of his model? I tried to look up the original article but was unable to find it.

4. Please follow APA guidelines for correct heading and citations for the model to make it clear where the model comes from.

5. Page 2 line 86: please clarify "relationship between emotional and creative aspects" of what?

6. What is the original name of the CACE? (I’m assuming the title is in Spanish because this acronym does not match the stated title of Self- Assessment Questionnaire on Emotional Competencies).

7. It seems to me that rather than validating Rodriguez’s model, you have updated it, by combining emotional regulation with emotional recycling into emotional change. Does the model change due to your findings?

8. Page 15, line 492 states “once empirical confirmation of our model was achieved…” are you referring to Rodriguez’ model here? If not, which is your model? Where can it be found?

9. By the end of the paper I was not sure of the purpose of the study—was it just to validate the model or was it to determine the difference between new and veteran teachers in terms of EI?

Author Response

REVIEWER 2:

 

We appreciate your comments and suggestions for improvement. We will now respond to the reviewer's requests.

 

1. "Three approaches to EI are described. How does the first (skills) differ from the competencies approach? Skills are developed, aren't they? In fact, Mayer and Salovey's first approach includes four skills. All of them are developed. I don't see the difference between the two approaches, as presented in the section ‘Approaches to Emotional Intelligence’. Are there really only two approaches?"

 

ANSWER:

 

As we have indicated, the distinction established by Petrides and Furnham (2003) between the two conceptions of EI (ability versus trait) has been supported by various meta-analyses (Joseph and Newman, 2010; Martins et al., 2010; Matthews et al., 2012; Petrides, 2011; Van Rooy et al., 2005; Kostiv, 2022). The third approach, to which we have assigned the model validated in this study, was formulated by Mikolajczak (2009), who understands that the competency-based approach integrates cognitive and personality components, adding the contextual dimension of performance adjusted to the demands of the task and the circumstances of the environment.

 

Mikolajczak (2009) offers an integrative view of the competency concept, establishing that emotional competence would function on three interrelated levels: the level of emotional knowledge (what one knows about emotions), the level of emotional intelligence capacity (what one can do), and the dispositional or trait level (what one is and does on a daily basis).

 

Therefore, in our proposal, we talk about competence and not just skills because it is a complex ‘know-how’ that coherently integrates a series of competence elements (knowledge, abilities, attitudes, skills, etc.) to be put into practice effectively in different life contexts. It is therefore the criteria of practicality (know-how), contextualisation (in a given environment) and effectiveness (achieving the established objective) that define and differentiate the competency-based approach from other training proposals.

As Rodríguez (2018) points out, emotional competence would be the coherent integration of a set of knowledge, abilities, procedures, skills and attitudes that enable people, in a specific task context, to effectively manage their emotional world, both in relation to themselves and to others.

 

The main difference between EI skill and our proposal is that while emotional intelligence as a general construct refers to the potential to deal with one's feelings using reason (skill) and other motivational and personality dispositions (trait), emotional competence refers to a person's ability to apply that potential to effectively resolve different situational demands (Kostiv, 2022).

 

Thus, while ‘EI skill’ only takes cognitive abilities into account, ‘EI competence’ synergistically integrates personal components (knowledge, motivations, cognitive processes and personality qualities) and situational components related to adjusting to task demands. This differential conception translates, in turn, into a different way of evaluating the constructs. This is the conclusion we have reached in our study, when we carried out the predictive validation of the instrument used.

 

It follows from the above that, although skills can be developed to a greater or lesser extent, competencies, being associated with effectively solving the demands of a specific task in a given context, are more susceptible to being modifiable and, therefore, educable, given their greater link to the context, in our case the school context.

 

2. “Page 2, line 63, I think what you meant to say was that the reference to Rodríguez was in brackets”.

 

Modified

 

3. “Is emotional creativity the same as emocreativity? You introduce ‘competent emocreativity,’ but from there on, you refer to emotional creativity in the text and only to emocreativity in the model. Why the change? It is confusing. You begin the section on emotional competencies by presenting a theoretical proposal that we call ‘competent emocreativity,’ but then you quote Rodríguez and use his model, called ‘competent emocreativity.’ This needs to be clarified so that it is clear who is the original creator of that concept/model. It is unclear who is the original creator of the model that follows when you cite Rodríguez. Are you only using parts of his model? I tried to find the original article, but I couldn't find it.”

 

ANSWER:

 

The original theoretical model cited as Rodríguez (2018), authored by one of the signatories of this paper, Professor Antonio Rodríguez, has been called ‘competent emocreativity’ because, as we indicated in the introduction, one of its innovations is that it introduces emotional creativity (Averill, 1999a; Averill, 199b; Ivcevic, Z., Brackett, M. and Mayer, D., 2007; Rodríguez, 2022), which refers to the ability to feel emotionally unique, affirming oneself in that uniqueness, opening oneself up to discovering new experiences and undertaking life projects. Therefore, the term ‘emocreativity’ refers to the general model, and ‘emotional creativity’ is associated with a particular competence of that model.

The citation used to reference it is from a book entitled ‘EducaEMOción. La Escuela del Corazón’ (EducaEMOtion. The School of the Heart), which is where the first version of the conceptual model was originally presented; this is the first scientific article through which the model in question is empirically validated.

 

 

4. ‘Follow APA guidelines for correct header and citation formatting to clearly indicate the source of the model.’

 

We have followed the format specified by the journal according to the journal template: education-template

 

5. ‘Page 2, line 86: please clarify “relationship between emotional and creative aspects” of what?’

 

We have incorporated the following text

 

Since the end of the last century, it has been suggested that there is a relationship between emotional aspects themselves and emotional creativity. As Averill (1999a, 1999b) points out, people who have greater emotional competence tend to be perceived as more creative, based, according to the author, on their everyday behaviour. Hernández-Jorge et al. (2020) also argue that deeper levels of emotional awareness, i.e. those that involve recognising and understanding emotions, have a greater impact on emotional creativity than more superficial levels, such as the mere perception of emotions.

 

6. ‘What is the original name of CACE? (I assume the title is in Spanish, as this acronym does not match the official title: Cuestionario de Autoevaluación de Competencias Emocionales [Emotional Competencies Self-Assessment Questionnaire])”

 

ANSWER:

 

It corresponds to the acronym in Spanish: Cuestionario de Autoevaluación de Competencias Emocionales. In English, it would be Emotional Competencies Self-Assessment Questionnaire. However, we intend to keep the original acronym and have indicated in the text that it is the acronym in Spanish.

 

7. “It seems to me that, rather than validating Rodríguez's model, you have updated it, combining emotional regulation with emotional recycling to generate emotional change. Does your model change as a result of your findings?”

 

ANSWER:

 

As we have indicated above, this work has provided empirical validation of the theoretical model formulated by Rodríguez (2018); but, indeed, this validation has also led to an update of the model, since, as you have rightly pointed out, the competencies of emotional regulation and recycling have been integrated into a single one, called ‘emotional change’. Therefore, yes, the theoretical model has been modified based on the findings obtained in our research.

 

8. “On page 15, line 492, it states: ‘Once empirical confirmation of our model has been obtained...’ Does this refer to Rodríguez's model? If not, what is your model? Where can it be found?”

 

Clarified in the text. We have written

 

‘Once confirmation of the model has been obtained’, which we believe clarifies that it is Rodríguez's model (2018).

 

9. At the end of the article, I wasn't sure what the purpose of the study was: was it simply to validate the model or to determine the difference between new and veteran teachers in terms of EI?

 

Answer:

 

At the beginning of the discussion, the objective included at the end of the introduction was literally replicated.