Despite the development of various measures of Emotional Intelligence (EI), independent psychometric evaluations of these measures are few in number. Measures of EI are likely to reflect the dominant cultural values of the society of their origin and include items that are likely to be problematic outside that particular culture. In the present study, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and structural equation modeling were used to assess the factorial and construct validity of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS) (Wong and Law, 2002) in Pakistan. In a general population sample (n = 481), the Hong Kong/China four-factor structure (self-emotional appraisal, others' emotional appraisal, use of emotion, and regulation of emotion) was replicated. Support was also found for the construct (convergent and discriminant) validity of WLEIS. Directions for further validation of the WLEIS and the o discussed in the paper.

Salovey and Mayer (1990) were first to use the term `Emotional Intelligence (EI)' to represent the ability to deal with emotions. They defined EI as "the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions" (p. 189). They drew on relevant evidence from previous intelligence and emotion research and presented the first comprehensive model of EI. Their model included three distinct components: Appraisal and expression of emotions, regulation of emotions, and utilization of emotional information in thinking and acting. Later, Mayer and Salovey refined their 1990s model, as reflected in number of their publications (e.g., Mayer and Salovey, 1997; and Mayer et al., 2000). In sum, they conceived EI as an ability to process the information contained in emotions to determine the meaning of emotions and their connections to one another; and to use emotional information as the basis for thought and decision making. Salovey and Mayer's (1990) model of EI was followed by number of EI conceptualizations and operationalizations (e.g., Goleman, 1995; Bar-On, 1997; Mayer and Salovey,1997; and Petrides and Furnham, 2001).

The plethora and diversity of EI models and measures gave rise to the need for a way to classify them. Two major attempts have been made regarding the classification of EI models, that is, the ability model versus mixed model approach (Mayer et al., 2000) and trait EI versus ability EI approach (Petrides and Furnham, 2001). Mayer et al. (2000) differentiated between ability models and mixed models. Their own model, which conceives EI as a cognitive ability, belongs to ability models group. On the other hand, models viewing EI as a combination of cognitive abilities and personality traits belong to the mixed models group (e.g., Goleman's model, 1995).

Petrides and Furnham (2001) drew a somewhat different distinction, which they believe to be a broader distinction. They assert that, the distinction between the models should be made on a functional basis (how the construct is being measured). The ability model versus mixed model approach does not pay attention to the most crucial aspect of construct operationalization (i.e., the method of measurement), rather the distinction is made on the elements (facets) that the various models are hypothesized to encompass. Petrides and Furnham (2001) differentiated between trait EI or emotional self-efficacy (measured through self report questionnaires) and ability EI or cognitive-emotional ability (measured through performance tests with correct and incorrect answers).

Organizational Behaviour Journal, Emotional Intelligence Scale, Psychometric Evaluations, Structural Equation Modeling, Practical Implications, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Emotional Management, Nnomological Networks, Bootstrapping Procedures, Confirmatory Factor Analyses, Psychological Tests.