Treat the two results as different kinds of information. A recent-habits summary reflects how you report responding lately; a scenario judgment reflects how you assess a described situation. Neither settles what you will do in every real interaction. If they point in different directions, use the contrast to choose one behavior to observe in context instead of averaging the results or deciding that one is the true score.
What is each part of the profile answering?
A recent-habits summary asks you to describe your own recent responses. A scenario judgment asks you to evaluate an emotional situation presented in writing. One is a report about what you think you tend to do; the other is a judgment made under the prompt's conditions. Their difference is not automatically a contradiction.
In measurement research, a self-report is a person's account of their own behavior or tendencies. O'Connor and colleagues' 2019 critical review distinguishes such reports of typical behavior from ability measures that ask people to solve emotion-related problems. The authors describe more than 30 widely used emotional-intelligence measures and argue that their constructs and methods vary. Their review concerns established tools, not the Emotional Skills Profile, but it clarifies why a behavior summary and a scenario response should not be collapsed into a single hidden EQ number.
The profile's scenarios should not be recast as a standardized ability test. A person may recognize a considerate response in a written situation and still report having difficulty using it during a rushed handoff. That says the prompt response and recalled routine differ. It does not show that the person is insincere, incapable, or destined to react one way.
Why can the answers diverge?
Remembering recent interactions and choosing a response to a written situation draw on different information. The habits summary depends on which events come to mind and how you describe your own actions. A scenario depends on its details, the answer options, and what the instruction asks you to judge.
Ployhart and Ehrhart tested six versions of situational judgment tests using identical items but different instructions. Their first phase included 486 participants; a second phase several weeks later included 231, with 146 completing both phases. They report that instructions had large effects on responses, reliability, and validity. In particular, answers to what someone “would do” and what someone “should do” were relatively weakly correlated despite using the same items. This was a general situational judgment study, not a study of this profile, so it shows why wording matters rather than explaining any one reader's result.
A 2013 study by Sharma, Gangopadhyay, Austin, and Mandal developed a 46-item emotional-intelligence situational judgment test. An initial sample of 213 produced three factors; in a later study, those factors did not correlate with trait emotional-intelligence scores from the TEIQue. The result is specific to their instrument and study samples. It supports the narrower point that a scenario measure and a self-report can provide distinct information; it does not establish that every such pair will disagree or identify why your answers differ.
So check the exact wording before interpreting the gap. Did the scenario ask what seemed best, or what you would actually do? Was the recent period unusually tense, or did you recall one vivid exchange? These are questions to investigate, not causes established by the profile.
Sources: Be Careful What You Ask For: Effects of Response Instructions on the Construct Validity and Reliability of Situational Judgment Tests; Development and Validation of a Situational Judgment Test of Emotional Intelligence
How do you compare the two results fairly?
Keep each result attached to the question it can answer. Read the habits summary as your current account of recurring responses. Read the scenario result as a judgment about the situation as it was described. Neither is an independent observation of your conduct, and neither alone shows how colleagues experience you.
This distinction matters when a report seems to invite a broad conclusion about teamwork. O'Boyle and colleagues' 2011 meta-analysis classified emotional-intelligence research into ability-based, self-report or peer-report, and mixed-model streams. Across those streams, corrected correlations with job performance ranged from 0.24 to 0.30. The streams also differed in their relationships with cognitive ability and personality. Those are aggregate associations across different measures and studies, not evidence that a mismatch inside this profile predicts an individual's job performance or relationships at work.
A fair comparison therefore avoids declaring one section the winner. Instead, translate the contrast into a question that can be checked: in what kind of interaction does the response you endorse become harder to carry out? That is an interpretive prompt, not a measured explanation. A deadline, unclear ownership, or a misunderstanding might be worth checking only if it actually occurred; the profile cannot supply that history for you.
Sources: The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners; The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis
What should you do with the difference?
Choose one behavior from the habits summary and look for a recent example. Keep the description observable: “I replied before checking what they meant” is easier to examine than “I am bad at empathy.” Note what was happening just before the response and what followed. If no clear example comes to mind, treat that as uncertainty rather than evidence that the pattern is absent.
For instance, if a scenario response favors asking a clarifying question while the habits summary suggests you often move quickly to advice, watch for that moment in one upcoming handoff. You might pause and ask, “Would it help to talk through the concern, or should we focus on next steps?” Afterward, note whether the question changed the exchange. If useful, ask a trusted colleague for one specific example of when you moved to advice before checking what was needed. This is a practical reflection exercise, not a proven intervention or promised improvement.
The 32-item Emotional Skills Profile is offered as a private educational reflection tool. It has no validated population norms or established ability-test validity, so its role is to help you name a possible development focus, not to rank you or decide what you can do. If you want a structured starting point for that reflection, explore the [Emotional Skills Profile](/assessment). Then choose one behavior to observe, gather an example, and decide whether a small practice or a conversation would help you examine it further.
Questions readers ask
Should I average the habits and scenario results?
No. They describe different response formats, and an average would hide that difference. Keep each result attached to its question and use the contrast to identify a behavior or context to examine.
Does a strong scenario judgment mean I will act that way at work?
It shows how you judged the written situation under its wording and conditions. It does not establish how consistently you will respond in real interactions.
Does a habits result prove that I lack emotional intelligence?
No. It is a self-reported summary of recent behavior, not a diagnosis or fixed ability verdict. Check it against specific events and context before drawing a broader conclusion.
Can the Emotional Skills Profile tell me which result is correct?
The profile presents recent-behavior summaries separately from scenario judgments. Its purpose is educational reflection; it does not establish validated norms or determine which response represents your ability.
Sources
- The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners
Reviews EI measurement approaches and distinguishes typical-behavior self-reports from emotion-problem performance measures.
- Be Careful What You Ask For: Effects of Response Instructions on the Construct Validity and Reliability of Situational Judgment Tests
Reports two studies showing that changing situational-test instructions affected responses and that would-do and should-do answers correlated relatively weakly.
- Development and Validation of a Situational Judgment Test of Emotional Intelligence
Reports development samples for one 46-item EI scenario test and no correlation between its factors and TEIQue trait EI in a later study.
- The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis
Reports corrected correlations of 0.24 to 0.30 across three EI measurement streams in studies of job performance.
Apply it to the real situation
Turn a profile difference into one behavior to examine
From this guide: You still need to see whether a response you endorse appears in the work situations where you want to use it.
The Emotional Skills Profile separates recent behavior summaries from judgments on authored scenarios, giving you two prompts for reflection. Use the pattern to choose one response to notice in a meeting, handoff, or feedback conversation. The report can help you name a development focus; your own examples and any feedback you request will help you examine how it shows up in context.