情绪健康的测量：Wong和Law情绪智力量表的修订及其信效度评价

doi:10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2025.10.15

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的对Wong和Law情绪智力量表（WLEIS）中文版进行修订并评价其测量学性能。方法对Wong和Law情绪智力量表（WLEIS）中文版的11个条目内容表述进行了修改，形成了Wong和Law情绪智力量表中文修订版（WLEIS-CR），使用广泛性焦虑障碍量表（GAD-7）、9条目病人健康问卷（PHQ-9）和心盛量表（FS）为效标对1546名成年被试进行施测，对192名大学生被试进行重测，用所得数据对WLEIS-CR进行项目分析、验证性因素分析、信度、效度检验和等值性检验。结果 WLEIS-CR的16个项目鉴别力指数均在0.4以上（r=0.570~0.764，P<0.001）；验证性因素分析所得结构方程模型具有良好的拟合度（χ²/df=4.610，GFI=0.965，PGFI=0.674，RMR=0.028，NFI=0.975，CFI=0.980，RMSEA=0.048）。WLEIS-CR与FS 、GAD-7，PHQ-9的效标相关分别为0.674、-0.347、-0.368（P<0.001）。WLEIS-CR总量表α系数为0.913，各分量表的α系数在0.867~0.916之间，总量表的分半信度为0.956，各分量表的分半信度在0.865~0.924之间。总量表的重测信度为0.701，各因子的重测信度在0.610~0.684之间。制定并检验了WLEIS-CR结果解释标准，情绪智力为低水平者占7.6%、较低水平者占19.3%、中等水平占22.3%、较高水平占34.3%、很高水平占16.5%。WLEIS-CR具有跨性别、跨年龄和跨身份的等值性。结论 WLEIS-CR具有良好的信、效度和测量等值性，适用于对中国成年人的情绪智力进行评估，测量他们的情绪健康状况。

关键词: 情绪健康, 情绪智力, Wong和Law情绪智力量表, 信度, 效度, 测量等值

Abstract:

Objective To revise and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Wong and Law's Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS). Methods The 11 items of the original WLEIS were modified to form the WLEIS-CR, with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and Flourishing Scale (FS) as the validity criteria. A total of 1546 adult participants were evaluated using all these scales, and a retest was conducted among 192 college students to assess the item discrimination, reliability, validity and measurement invariance of the modified WLEIS-CR. Results All the 16 items of the modified WLEIS-CR demonstrated good discriminative power (r=0.570 -0.764, P<0.001). The structural equation model from a confirmatory factor analysis showed excellent fit indices (χ²/df=4.610, GFI=0.965, PGFI=0.674, RMR=0.028, NFI=0.975, CFI=0.980, RMSEA=0.048). The criterion-related validity of the modified WLEIS-CR with FS, GAD-7, and PHQ-9 was 0.674, -0.347, and -0.368, respectively (P<0.001). The internal consistency (Cronbach's α) was 0.913 for the total scale and ranged from 0.867 to 0.916 for the subscales. The split-half reliability was 0.956 for the total scale and 0.865-0.924 for the subscales. Test-retest reliability was 0.701 for the total scale and 0.610-0.684 for the subscales. Normative interpretation criteria were established: 7.6% of participants had "low", 19.3% had "below average", 22.3% had "moderate", 34.3% had "above average", and 16.5% had "very high" emotional intelligence. The scale demonstrated a good measurement invariance across gender, identity, and age groups. Conclusion The modified WLEIS-CR has good reliability, validity and measurement invariance, and is suitable for evaluating emotional intelligence of Chinese adults to assess their emotional health.

Key words: emotional health, emotional intelligence, Wong and Law's Emotional Intelligence Scale, reliability, validity, measurement invariance

肖蓉, 吕夏. 情绪健康的测量：Wong和Law情绪智力量表的修订及其信效度评价[J]. 南方医科大学学报, 2025, 45(10): 2191-2198.

Rong XIAO, Xia LÜ. The modified Chinese version of Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale for measurement of emotional health: revision and psychometric evaluation[J]. Journal of Southern Medical University, 2025, 45(10): 2191-2198.

图/表 9

参考文献 44

[1]	Tian W, Yan GC, Xiong SZ, et al. Burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in China and its provinces, 1990-2021: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021[J]. Br J Psychiatry, 2025: 1-11. doi：10.1192/bjp.2024.267
[2]	Wang XQ, Zhang DJ, Wang JL. Dual-factor model of mental health: surpass the traditional mental health model[J]. Psychology, 2011, 2(8): 767-72.
[3]	Xiao R, Zhang C, Lai QZ, et al. Applicability of the dual-factor model of mental health in the mental health screening of Chinese college students[J]. Front Psychol, 2021, 11: 549036. doi：10.3389/fpsyg.2020.549036
[4]	Mayer JD, Caruso DR, Salovey P. The ability model of emotional intelligence: principles and updates[J]. Emot Rev, 2016, 8(4): 290-300. doi：10.1177/1754073916639667
[5]	Martins A, Ramalho N, Morin E. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and health[J]. Pers Individ Differ, 2010, 49(6): 554-64. doi：10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.029
[6]	桑青松, 李楠楠, 童张梦子. 羞怯在中学生情绪智力与社会适应间的中介作用: 基于阶层回归分析和Bootstrap法的检验[J]. 安徽师范大学学报: 人文社会科学版, 2016, 44(5): 646-54.
[7]	肖凤, 李爽, 任英, 等. 临床护士情绪智力、自我效能感、工作环境与关怀行为的相关性[J]. 护理研究, 2021, 35(3): 396-401.
[8]	Guerra-Bustamante J, León-Del-Barco B, Yuste-Tosina R, et al. Emotional intelligence and psychological well-being in adolescents[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2019, 16(10): 1720. doi：10.3390/ijerph16101720
[9]	Martínez-Monteagudo MC, Inglés CJ, Granados L, et al. Trait emotional intelligence profiles, burnout, anxiety, depression, and stress in secondary education teachers[J]. Pers Individ Differ, 2019, 142: 53-61. doi：10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.036
[10]	Suslow T, Hoepfel D, Günther V, et al. Positive attentional bias mediates the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and trait affect[J]. Sci Rep, 2022, 12(1): 20733. doi：10.1038/s41598-022-25317-9
[11]	Wong CS, Law KS. The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude An exploratory study[J]. Leadersh Q, 2002, 13(3): 243-74. doi：10.1016/s1048-9843(02)00099-1
[12]	Shi JQ, Wang L. Validation of emotional intelligence scale in Chinese university students[J]. Pers Individ Differ, 2007, 43(2): 377-87. doi：10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.012
[13]	Libbrecht N, Lievens F, Schollaert E. Measurement equivalence of the wong and law emotional intelligence scale across self and other ratings[J]. Educ Psychol Meas, 2010, 70(6): 1007-20. doi：10.1177/0013164410378090
[14]	Jeong H, Choi H, Park M. The reliability and validity of Korean version of wong and law emotional intelligence scale (K-WLEIS)[J]. J Korean Acad Nurs, 2020, 50(4): 611-20. doi：10.4040/jkan.20109
[15]	Rathore D, Chadha NK. Psychometric evaluation of Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) in Indian college students[J]. Int J Indian Psychol, 2021(1).
[16]	Carvalho VS, Guerrero E, Chambel MJ, et al. Psychometric properties of WLEIS as a measure of emotional intelligence in the Portuguese and Spanish medical students[J]. Eval Program Plann, 2016, 58: 152-9. doi：10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.06.006
[17]	刘薇. 变革型领导对工作场所员工学习的影响: 员工情绪的中介作用和情绪智力的调节作用[J]. 管理评论, 2018, 30(10): 128-40.
[18]	李永占. 情绪智力在身体自尊与进食障碍倾向间的调节作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 570-6.
[19]	杨婷, 周戈耀, 程远芬, 等. 硕士研究生情绪智力与生活满意度的关系: 压力知觉与孤独感的链式中介作用[J]. 现代预防医学, 2024, 51(12): 2228-34.
[20]	高莹, 李义, 乔俊英, 等. 突发公共卫生事件中正念对一线护士心理健康的影响: 情绪智力的中介作用[J]. 中国护理管理, 2024, 24(2): 266-71.
[21]	王叶飞. 情绪智力量表中文版的信效度研究[D]. 长沙: 中南大学, 2010.
[22]	黄明明, 王立君. 基于WLEIS情绪智力测验的IRT分析[J]. 心理技术与应用, 2015, 3(3): 21-6.
[23]	毕重增. 心理测量学[M]. 重庆: 西南师范大学出版社, 2016: 132-139.
[24]	Diener E, Wirtz D, Tov W, et al. New well-being measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings[J]. Soc Indic Res, 2010, 97(2): 143-56. doi：10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y
[25]	Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure[J]. J Gen Intern Med, 2001, 16(9): 606-13. doi：10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
[26]	Levis B, Benedetti A, Levis AW, et al. Selective cutoff reporting in studies of diagnostic test accuracy: a comparison of conventional and individual-patient-data meta-analyses of the patient health questionnaire-9 depression screening tool[J]. Am J Epidemiol, 2017, 185(10): 954-64. doi：10.1093/aje/kww191
[27]	Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7[J]. Arch Intern Med, 2006, 166(10): 1092-7. doi：10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
[28]	Rutter LA, Brown TA. Psychometric properties of the generalized anxiety disorder scale-7 (GAD-7) in outpatients with anxiety and mood disorders[J]. J Psychopathol Behav Assess, 2017, 39(1): 140-6. doi：10.1007/s10862-016-9571-9
[29]	吴明隆. 问卷统计分析实务: SPSS操作与应用[M]. 重庆: 重庆大学出版社, 2010.
[30]	Chamizo-Nieto MT, Arrivillaga C, Rey L, et al. The role of emotional intelligence, the teacher-student relationship, and flourishing on academic performance in adolescents: a moderated mediation study[J]. Front Psychol, 2021, 12: 695067. doi：10.3389/fpsyg.2021.695067
[31]	Sánchez-Álvarez N, Extremera N, Fernández-Berrocal P. The relation between emotional intelligence and subjective well-being: a meta-analytic investigation[J]. J Posit Psychol, 2016, 11(3): 276-85. doi：10.1080/17439760.2015.1058968
[32]	李杰. 临床医学专业本科生情绪智力、自尊与主观幸福感的关系[J]. 首都医科大学学报, 2020, 41(3): 428-32.
[33]	潘明军, 钱兵. 大学生情绪智力与心理健康的关系[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2012, 33(1): 43-5.
[34]	周立业, 原雅彬, 刘瑞华. 肿瘤科护士情绪智力与焦虑、抑郁情绪的相关性研究[J]. 中国卫生产业, 2015, 12(3): 147-9.
[35]	田奥, 陈宝利, 张萌. 情绪智力对新入狱罪犯抑郁和焦虑水平的影响[J]. 中国监狱学刊, 2022(4): 109-15.
[36]	Sun JW, Zhang X, Wang Y, et al. The associations of interpersonal sensitivity with mental distress and trait aggression in early adulthood: a prospective cohort study[J]. J Affect Disord, 2020, 272: 50-7. doi：10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.161
[37]	戴忠恒. 心理与教育测量[M]. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社, 1987.
[38]	Law KS, Wong CS, Song LJ. The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies[J]. J Appl Psychol, 2004, 89(3): 483-96. doi：10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.483
[39]	Sulaiman WSW, Noor MZM. Examining the psychometric properties of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligences Scale (WLEIS)[J]. JSSH, 2015,2(2):81-90.
[40]	Kong F. The validity of the wong and law emotional intelligence scale in a Chinese sample: tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences across gender and age[J]. Pers Individ Differ, 2017, 116: 29-31. doi：10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.025
[41]	Putnick DL, Bornstein MH. Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: the state of the art and future directions for psychological research[J]. Dev Rev, 2016, 41: 71-90. doi：10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
[42]	陈冬, 程东阳, 孙洋洋, 等. 黑龙江省高职护生中文版情绪智力量表的常模构建[J]. 护理学杂志, 2022, 37(11): 18-20, 42.
[43]	Downey LA, Johnston PJ, Hansen KR, et al. The relationship between emotional intelligence and depression in a clinical sample[J]. Eur J Psychiat, 2008, 22(2): S0213-61632008000200005. doi：10.4321/s0213-61632008000200005
[44]	Enns A, Eldridge GD, Montgomery C, et al. Perceived stress, coping strategies, and emotional intelligence: a cross-sectional study of university students in helping disciplines[J]. Nurse Educ Today, 2018, 68: 226-31. doi：10.1016/j.nedt.2018.06.012

Item	Item score (n=1546)	Low score group (n=458)	High score group (n=589)	t	Correlation with total score
Q1	3.76±0.75	3.07±0.67	4.25±0.5	32.664***	0.731***
Q2	3.82±0.77	3.07±0.73	4.34±0.51	33.052***	0.764***
Q3	3.87±0.77	3.18±0.75	4.36±0.54	28.471***	0.727***
Q4	3.95±0.76	3.32±0.77	4.38±0.52	25.303***	0.679***
Q5	3.9±0.72	3.33±0.73	4.34±0.54	24.854***	0.685***
Q6	3.86±0.82	3.27±0.79	4.37±0.59	25.049***	0.637***
Q7	3.83±0.83	3.29±0.8	4.29±0.64	22.051***	0.570***
Q8	3.76±0.81	3.16±0.73	4.27±0.63	26.454***	0.645***
Q9	3.41±0.91	2.71±0.71	4.01±0.71	29.145***	0.634***
Q10	3.53±0.92	2.75±0.76	4.17±0.63	32.372***	0.702***
Q11	3.61±0.9	2.83±0.74	4.21±0.66	31.909***	0.694***
Q12	3.8±0.81	3.1±0.76	4.29±0.6	28.365***	0.698***
Q13	3.68±0.82	2.92±0.66	4.25±0.57	35.059***	0.743***
Q14	3.7±0.83	2.93±0.72	4.29±0.55	34.673***	0.755***
Q15	3.6±0.86	2.91±0.72	4.18±0.63	30.344***	0.677***
Q16	3.6±0.86	2.86±0.7	4.21±0.61	33.122***	0.717***

Item	Item score (n=1546)	Low score group (n=458)	High score group (n=589)	t	Correlation with total score
Q1	3.76±0.75	3.07±0.67	4.25±0.5	32.664***	0.731***
Q2	3.82±0.77	3.07±0.73	4.34±0.51	33.052***	0.764***
Q3	3.87±0.77	3.18±0.75	4.36±0.54	28.471***	0.727***
Q4	3.95±0.76	3.32±0.77	4.38±0.52	25.303***	0.679***
Q5	3.9±0.72	3.33±0.73	4.34±0.54	24.854***	0.685***
Q6	3.86±0.82	3.27±0.79	4.37±0.59	25.049***	0.637***
Q7	3.83±0.83	3.29±0.8	4.29±0.64	22.051***	0.570***
Q8	3.76±0.81	3.16±0.73	4.27±0.63	26.454***	0.645***
Q9	3.41±0.91	2.71±0.71	4.01±0.71	29.145***	0.634***
Q10	3.53±0.92	2.75±0.76	4.17±0.63	32.372***	0.702***
Q11	3.61±0.9	2.83±0.74	4.21±0.66	31.909***	0.694***
Q12	3.8±0.81	3.1±0.76	4.29±0.6	28.365***	0.698***
Q13	3.68±0.82	2.92±0.66	4.25±0.57	35.059***	0.743***
Q14	3.7±0.83	2.93±0.72	4.29±0.55	34.673***	0.755***
Q15	3.6±0.86	2.91±0.72	4.18±0.63	30.344***	0.677***
Q16	3.6±0.86	2.86±0.7	4.21±0.61	33.122***	0.717***

Fator	Total Score	SEA	OEA	UOE	ROE
SEA	0.833***	1
OEA	0.714***	0.515***	1
UOE	0.805***	0.563***	0.382***	1
ROE	0.811***	0.586***	0.379***	0.578***	1

Fator	Total Score	SEA	OEA	UOE	ROE
SEA	0.833***	1
OEA	0.714***	0.515***	1
UOE	0.805***	0.563***	0.382***	1
ROE	0.811***	0.586***	0.379***	0.578***	1

Item	Total score	SEA	OEA	UOE	ROE
Well-being	0.674***	0.553***	0.348***	0.669***	0.552***
Anxiety	-0.347***	-0.345***	-0.084***	-0.289***	-0.376***
Depression	-0.368***	-0.350***	-0.079***	-0.360***	-0.370***