What the 2026 TMMS-24 Validation in Bogotá Adds

What does the 2026 study actually report?

The abstract of “Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia” reports responses from 2,428 adults in Bogotá. Researchers examined attention to emotion, clarity about feelings, and emotional repair: how people say they monitor moods and try to recover from them. Factor analyses supported a three-factor structure. This indicates that responses in this sample fit the questionnaire’s proposed organization; it does not show how people behave in a particular conversation.

The abstract reports omega above .88, indicating internal consistency in this sample. It also says measurement invariance across gender was supported: the tested measurement structure was sufficiently similar across groups examined. The summary does not identify those groups or levels tested, so it cannot settle every comparison of gender scores. Correlations with life satisfaction and psychological inflexibility show association, not cause or workplace prediction. Item 5 performed poorly, the authors report, and may need revision. That warrants inspection, not automatic deletion or rescoring. Because the publisher restricts the full paper, recruitment details, correlation sizes, invariance tests, and item diagnostics remain unavailable. The abstract supports a substantial Bogotá adult validation, while these gaps limit wider conclusions.

Sources: Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia

What kind of emotional intelligence is being measured?

The TMMS-24 asks respondents to describe their perceived emotional attention, clarity, and repair. In the 2026 Bogotá validation, the authors used those three dimensions with responses from 2,428 adults; the publisher abstract says factor analyses supported a three-factor structure. An accessible 2025 study of two Colombian adolescent groups likewise describes the scale as assessing beliefs, thoughts, and attitudes through attention, clarity, and emotional repair. Together, these descriptions show that the measure records how people understand their emotional habits. That is what “self-report” means here: a person answers about their own experience rather than demonstrating a skill in a scored emotion problem or being rated during an interaction. Attention concerns noticing feelings, clarity concerns understanding them, and repair concerns perceived ability to shift or recover from a mood. These are reports about emotional experience, not a direct test of maximum emotional problem-solving ability. The 2025 article describes these as beliefs, thoughts, and attitudes, a useful qualification when interpreting the 2026 abstract’s broader label of emotional intelligence. Suppose someone reports that they usually notice frustration and can regain composure. The answer tells us how they see those tendencies. It does not establish what they will do when a colleague challenges their work in a meeting. In that exchange, the person might pause and ask what the colleague means, or interrupt and defend the draft. Those are observable actions; a self-description alone does not tell us which occurred. One meeting also cannot establish a usual habit. The questionnaire and observation answer different questions. The distinction is especially useful when a reader wants to understand collaboration. A TMMS-24 result may organize reflection around noticing emotion, making sense of it, and attempting to recover balance. It cannot, by itself, establish that someone listens well, reads another person accurately, sets a boundary clearly, or repairs a strained exchange. Claims about those behaviors need evidence from relevant situations. The 2026 abstract reports associations with life satisfaction and psychological inflexibility, but gives no magnitudes and does not show how respondents behave with coworkers. The practical question, then, is whether perceived emotional habits are the information someone needs. Its dimensions are relevant to reflection on how someone tends to notice and handle feelings. A judgment about what they can do in a difficult conversation calls for observations or specific examples of behavior. A score should be read as a report about perceived attention, clarity, and repair within the studied measure, not as a universal EQ ability score or a prediction of conduct at work. That boundary lets the reader use the scale for the question it asks while keeping workplace conclusions tied to evidence of workplace behavior.

Sources: Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia; Perceived Emotional Intelligence in Colombian Adolescents: Psychometric Properties of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale TMMS-24

Was this Colombia's first validation?

No. Colombia had published TMMS-24 validation evidence well before the 2026 Bogotá paper. The 2018 article, “Validez y confiabilidad de la escala rasgo de metaconocimiento emocional (TMMS-24) en profesores universitarios,” examined 235 university teachers employed by private higher-education institutions in Bucaramanga and its metropolitan area. Its sample was recruited by convenience, and participants needed at least two years of teaching experience. The study therefore addressed a defined professional group in one region; it was not a national sample of adults. The authors began with the Spanish 24-item version and used exploratory factor analysis. Four items, all from the repair dimension, did not fit the resulting pattern well enough to retain. Their analysis produced a three-dimension structure with 20 items: eight related to attention or perception, eight to clarity or understanding, and four to emotional regulation. The article reported internal consistency coefficients between .85 and .88 across those dimensions. Those figures describe consistency within this sample and reduced version. They do not show that the 20-item scale and the full TMMS-24 produce interchangeable scores. The study’s own conclusion sets a useful boundary. The authors described the reduced measure as useful for researching emotional intelligence among university teachers, then recommended studies in other regions to strengthen generalization. In other words, the paper supplied evidence for a local, occupationally specific application while identifying geographic reach as unresolved. Its results cannot establish how the instrument performs for other Colombian groups, or whether any individual score has the same meaning beyond the studied setting. The 2026 article, “Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia,” extends that record in a different direction. Its accessible abstract reports responses from 2,428 adults in Bogotá, a three-factor structure, internal consistency above .88, support for gender measurement invariance, correlations with life satisfaction and psychological inflexibility, and poor performance by item 5. It also states that findings support educational and clinical use in Colombia. These are additional evidence types and a far larger adult urban sample than the earlier faculty study. The abstract does not provide recruitment details, technical model results, tested invariance levels, correlation sizes, or diagnostics for item 5, so readers cannot assess those aspects from the accessible report. The comparison is about what each paper examined, not which version “won.” The 2018 researchers retained 20 items after removing four; the 2026 abstract describes a validation of the TMMS-24 and flags item 5, but the restricted full text prevents a complete account of its item-level analyses. The studies also differ in site, sample definition, and reported analyses. They are not a head-to-head test, and neither abstract supports comparing their participants’ scores directly. The chronology matters because it changes the claim: Bogotá adds substantial adult evidence and new reported analyses to an existing Colombian research record. It does not mark the country’s first TMMS-24 validation, settle national representativeness, or establish one score interpretation for every Colombian population.

Sources: Validez y confiabilidad de la escala rasgo de metaconocimiento emocional (TMMS-24) en profesores universitarios; Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia

How does Bogotá extend the Colombian evidence?

Bogotá adds an adult sample of 2,428 people to a Colombian record that already included narrower studies of university teachers and adolescents. The distinction matters because a scale can show a familiar three-part structure in one group while still needing evidence in another. In the 2026 study, the publisher abstract reports factor analyses supporting attention, clarity, and emotional repair, alongside gender measurement invariance and a concern about item 5. Those findings broaden the kinds of evidence available for adults in Bogotá; they do not turn several separate samples into one national reference group.

Earlier evidence came from a very different population. “Validez y confiabilidad de la escala rasgo de metaconocimiento emocional (TMMS-24) en profesores universitarios,” published in Revista Lebret, examined 235 university teachers with at least two years of experience, affiliated with a private higher-education institution in Bucaramanga. The authors report using expert content review, a pilot, internal-consistency analysis, and factor analysis. They found the three dimensions in their sample, but report that a reduced 20-item version had adequate validity and reliability for those university teachers. They also recommended further studies in other regions to strengthen generalization. The publisher page for the 2026 study cites this earlier Colombian paper, confirming that Bogotá belongs in an ongoing research history rather than serving as its starting point.

A 2025 study adds another population, this time adolescents aged 14 to 19. The accessible abstract for “Perceived Emotional Intelligence in Colombian Adolescents: Psychometric Properties of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale TMMS-24” describes two groups of 404: school adolescents and adolescents in the justice system. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the original three dimensions in both groups. The researchers also examined associations with socioemotional competence, empathy, and prosocial behavior, and evaluated whether scores predicted prosocial behavior. These analyses address evidence in adolescent samples and related measures. They do not answer whether the same score interpretation holds for adults, much less whether adult scores predict behavior in a workplace.

Read together, the studies show an expanding map of populations and questions, not a head-to-head test. The Bucaramanga paper concerns experienced university teachers and reports a shortened 20-item form. The adolescent study tests the 24-item scale in two distinct age-specific groups and examines links with social-emotional measures. The Bogotá abstract adds a much larger adult city sample, reported gender invariance, associations with life satisfaction and psychological inflexibility, and an item-level warning. Each finding is tied to its own sample and analysis. The available sources do not establish that the samples share norms, that their results can be pooled, or that scores from the 20-item and 24-item forms are interchangeable.

This comparison gives the 2026 contribution a more precise scale. It is meaningful because adults in Bogotá were not represented by the cited adolescent samples, and the earlier faculty study covered a particular professional and regional setting. Yet “large” describes the number of participants, not the reach of the sampling frame: the accessible Bogotá abstract does not disclose how participants were recruited or whom they represent. The 2018 study’s call for other regional evidence remains relevant. Readers can say Colombian evidence now spans more than one age and setting, while withholding the stronger claim that the TMMS-24 has been established for every Colombian adult or for every decision involving emotional behavior.

Sources: Perceived Emotional Intelligence in Colombian Adolescents: Psychometric Properties of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale TMMS-24; Validez y confiabilidad de la escala rasgo de metaconocimiento emocional (TMMS-24) en profesores universitarios; Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia

What does gender invariance let researchers compare?

The 2026 Bogotá paper, “Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia,” reports that gender measurement invariance was supported. This is a useful comparability result: within the groups and tests examined, the measure’s structure behaved sufficiently similarly to support the authors’ conclusion. It gives researchers a reason to examine gender-related results more carefully than if the scale’s measurement structure had differed across groups. The accessible abstract does not identify the specific gender groups or levels of invariance tested. Those missing details limit what kind of comparison a reader can infer. Measurement invariance asks whether a measure represents its dimensions comparably across groups. For the TMMS-24, the relevant dimensions are attention to emotion, clarity about emotion, and emotional repair. If respondents from two groups understand and answer the items in ways that yield comparable measurement, researchers can be more confident that a score difference reflects a difference in the measured self-reports rather than a basic mismatch in how the instrument works. Invariance is a condition for some group comparisons, not evidence that groups have equal scores. Nor does it show that the measure is free from every form of bias. Those are separate conclusions requiring evidence beyond the abstract’s brief statement. The level tested matters because group comparisons can ask different questions. A researcher might want to know whether the same three-part structure appears in each group, whether items relate to those dimensions comparably, or whether average scores can be compared on a common scale. Evidence for one question does not automatically settle the others. Since the Bogotá abstract does not name the tested levels, it is safest to report the authors’ conclusion as support for gender invariance, without claiming every comparison of gender means is justified. The full analysis is needed to determine which comparisons the evidence permits. This distinction keeps separate two kinds of result that can look similar in a summary. A study may report a difference between groups’ observed scores; an invariance analysis asks whether measurement works comparably enough for such differences to be interpreted. The 2021 Argentina–Ecuador–Spain TMMS study illustrates the importance of version-specific evidence: its final model removed six items and retained an 18-item form. That finding does not tell us whether the Bogotá measure is invariant, since the countries, sample, and retained version differ. It does show why a claim that “the Spanish TMMS-24” behaves identically across populations would outrun the evidence. For the 2026 result, the careful conclusion is narrow but meaningful. Gender invariance is a signal that the scale may support some comparisons within the studied Bogotá sample. It does not establish equal emotional intelligence across genders, universal fairness, or permission to compare every score. Until the tested groups and invariance levels are visible, researchers should treat the finding as a basis for closer examination and describe which comparison their data can support.

Sources: Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia; Validation of TMMS-24 in Three Spanish-Speaking Countries: Argentina, Ecuador, and Spain

Why does Spanish-language use not settle transfer?

A Spanish-language questionnaire does not automatically carry the same score meaning from one country or group to another. The 2021 study Validation of TMMS-24 in Three Spanish-Speaking Countries: Argentina, Ecuador, and Spain makes that point concrete. It examined 1,048 adults recruited by convenience sampling across those three countries. The accessible university repository abstract reports that the study assessed the scale’s psychometric properties and national and sex differences, reporting adequate properties. The article’s final model removed six items from the original 24, leaving 18. This shows the need to examine an instrument in each target population; it does not show Spanish caused the item changes or that the model fits every Spanish-speaking population.

Argentina, Ecuador, and Spain are not Colombia, and the 2021 study does not directly evaluate the 2026 Bogotá sample. Its participants were adults, but their mean age was 21.11 years, with a standard deviation of 5.84, and the researchers used convenience sampling. Nor should the reported 18-item model be treated as interchangeable with the TMMS-24 or with the reduced version reported in the earlier Bucaramanga study. A change in item set changes what was actually evaluated. The result is a reason to ask which version and population a claim concerns, not a reason to discount the Bogotá findings.

Language access is one condition for using a measure; it is not evidence by itself that an interpretation travels. The American Psychological Association’s Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation says assessment tools should have validity evidence suited to their uses and be fair and appropriate for the purpose, population, setting, and context. Applied here, the practical question is not simply whether someone can complete the TMMS-24 in Spanish. It is whether evidence supports the particular inference being made from its attention, clarity, and repair scores for the people and setting at hand. A study in one set of countries cannot answer that question for all others, just as a city-based adult validation cannot establish national reach on its own.

the 2021 comparison makes local validation more consequential, not less. The newer study addresses a distinct adult sample and reports its own structural and group-comparison findings; the three-country study supplies context showing that researchers have tested a related version across specific Spanish-speaking samples and adjusted its item set. These are separate studies, not a direct contest between scores. The sound conclusion is narrow: language availability opens the door, while population-specific evidence determines how far an interpretation can travel. For another country, age group, or intended use, look for evidence that names that population and purpose before treating the score as comparable.

Sources: Validation of TMMS-24 in Three Spanish-Speaking Countries: Argentina, Ecuador, and Spain; Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

Where does the evidence stop applying?

The 2026 study’s associations do not answer whether a TMMS-24 result predicts how someone will collaborate. In “Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia,” the authors report correlations with life satisfaction and psychological inflexibility among 2,428 adults in Bogotá. A correlation shows scores varied together; it does not establish cause. The abstract gives no correlation magnitudes, so readers cannot judge their size from the accessible account. Associations with these measures do not establish links to workplace behavior. The authors say their findings support use in Colombian educational and clinical settings. That is a meaningful application proposed by the study, but the publisher restricts the full article. The abstract does not expose how participants were recruited, the sample’s demographic composition beyond adults in Bogotá, or enough analysis detail to assess how far those settings resemble the study. A large sample alone cannot establish national representativeness. For educational or clinical research, consider the conclusion alongside full methods and evidence for the intended population and purpose. It is not a diagnosis or a ready-made clinical decision rule. A 2025 example shows why setting matters. “Competencias Socioemocionales En Estudiantes De Licenciatura En Informática” reports a quantitative, nonexperimental, cross-sectional study in the first semester of 2025 with 100 early-semester computer-science education students at one Colombian university. The researchers administered the TMMS-24, described attention, clarity, and repair scores, and compared results by sex and semester. They reported sex differences in attention, but no significant semester differences. This is evidence of local use with a specific student group, not a national reference sample, a workplace study, or proof that scores predict collaboration. One cross-sectional assessment cannot show that perceived skill changes cause later conduct changes. For a workplace decision, the gap is direct: neither the Bogotá abstract nor this student study reports observed coworker interactions or tests whether TMMS-24 scores forecast them. A response to criticism depends on the exchange too; these studies did not test that interaction. The American Psychological Association’s “Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation” advises selecting measures with validity evidence and fairness appropriate to the purpose, population, setting, and context. Applied here, evidence for perceived emotional habits in Bogotá adults cannot, by itself, carry a claim about job performance or the next difficult meeting. A reader considering the TMMS-24 for Colombian educational or clinical work should therefore treat the authors’ stated application as a research direction and examine the full sampling and analysis before relying on a particular interpretation. Someone asking whether a colleague will handle feedback well needs evidence tied to workplace behavior and that intended use. Neither study supports using this self-report score to hire, rank, or judge a person’s capacity to work with others.

Sources: Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia; Competencias Socioemocionales En Estudiantes De Licenciatura En Informática; Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation

What decision can a reader make from this evidence?

Use the study as evidence about a self-report measure in adult Bogotá research, then ask whether the next inference has been studied in the population and setting that matter. The 2026 article, “Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia,” reports responses from 2,428 adults in Bogotá, a three-factor structure for attention, clarity, and emotional repair, internal consistency above .88, support for gender measurement invariance, and correlations with life satisfaction and psychological inflexibility. Its authors say the findings support educational and clinical use in Colombia. The publisher page exposes the abstract, while the full article is restricted, so its recruitment details, exact association sizes, and the levels of invariance tested cannot be checked here. That evidence answers a bounded question: how did respondents’ reports on these three dimensions behave in this study, and how did those reports relate to the two named measures? It does not answer whether a particular colleague will pause before reacting to criticism, ask what a terse message meant, or repair an exchange after interrupting someone. A self-report questionnaire records a person’s account of their usual feelings or habits. A workplace judgment concerns behavior in a particular interaction, where the task, relationship, authority, time pressure, and other person also shape what happens. Those questions may be related, but evidence for one does not automatically answer the other. The American Psychological Association’s “Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation” gives the practical rule: select measures whose evidence fits the purpose, population, setting, and context. The official PDF did not render as readable text in the opened page; its visible search text states that general guidance, so it should be used as a principle rather than as support for a detailed claim about the document. Applied here, a researcher studying perceived emotional attention or repair among adults in Bogotá has a closer match to the 2026 evidence than an employer trying to rank applicants or predict team conduct. The study’s reported correlations are associations, not evidence that TMMS-24 scores cause life satisfaction, forecast collaboration, or show that a person’s skill will change. For someone trying to work better with colleagues, the useful next step is to bring the question back to observable situations. If a disagreement escalates, note what happened just before the response, what feeling the person recognized, and what they did next. A questionnaire result might prompt reflection on reported emotional habits; a specific account of the exchange is needed to discuss that exchange. Neither should be turned into a verdict about someone’s suitability for a role. The Bogotá study adds evidence for a local research measure. A broader workplace claim would need evidence that directly examines the relevant people, behavior, and outcome.

Sources: Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation; Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia

How should this inform an individual's next step?

The 2026 study clarifies what one measure can tell us: the TMMS-24 has reported evidence from 2,428 adults in Bogotá for its attention, clarity, and emotional-repair dimensions, alongside limits in the abstract. In “Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia,” the authors describe self-report findings, not observations of how participants handled a tense meeting or repaired an exchange. For development, treat a result as a question: when did I notice an emotion, understand what shaped it, or choose how to respond? Check a recent interaction against what happened and select one behavior to practice. A score alone cannot establish capacity or predict the next conversation.

This study does not validate EQ Test’s separate Emotional Skills Profile. The private 32-item profile is an educational reflection tool about recent behavior and authored scenarios; it has no validated norms or established ability-test validity. Readers seeking structured prompts can explore the [Emotional Skills Profile](/assessment) and use it to identify a situation worth examining. The useful outcome is a practice question, such as whether to pause before replying to critical feedback, rather than a label about who someone is. The Bogotá finding remains evidence about a questionnaire in one adult urban sample; it can prompt closer attention to personal behavior, but cannot answer that personal question for the reader.

Sources: Psychometric Validation of the TMMS-24 for Emotional Intelligence Measurement in Bogotá, Colombia; Emotional Skills Profile