Keep the recent-habit summary and scenario judgments separate. The summary records how you say you have tended to respond; each scenario records your judgment about an authored situation, not demonstrated emotional ability. Compare the question and time frame behind each result, then use the mismatch to choose one behavior to examine in a real interaction.
What do the two results describe?
The Emotional Skills Profile places a recent-habit summary beside judgments about situations written for the profile. The first reflects how you describe your responses over a period of time; the second shows which response you consider appropriate in a particular scene. Neither is a record of what another person observed you doing.
That distinction matters because the two answers have different targets. Emotional-intelligence measurement research separates reports of typical behavior from ability tests that ask people to solve emotion problems. The profile’s authored scenarios are not thereby ability tests: they show how you read and judge those prompts. Before comparing the results, check their wording and time frame. A broad question about how you usually respond cannot be matched directly to a narrow scene unless both concern the same behavior under similar conditions. You can make the comparison more precise by writing down, for each result, the action it names, the setting it assumes, and whether it refers to a repeated habit or one hypothetical choice. For instance, “I tend to listen before advising” and “I would offer a solution in this scene” leave open whether the scene asked for listening at all. That missing overlap is useful information: it keeps you from treating different prompts as contradictory answers to one question.
What can research explain about a gap between the results?
Different methods do not always produce closely related results, though the pattern depends on the measures and sample. In a 2006 study of university students, Brackett and colleagues compared MSCEIT performance scores and Self-Rated Emotional Intelligence Scale (SREIS) ratings. In Study 2, the measures were not significantly correlated (r(327) = .07). The study also examined participants’ reported responses to positive and negative events in close friendships: after personality controls, MSCEIT scores—but not SREIS ratings—related to some responses for men, not women.
Those findings concern two named measures and self-reported friendship responses, not this profile or observed workplace behavior. Another student study’s working-paper abstract reports that performance and self-report measures intercorrelated as expected, without giving correlation estimates. Together, these examples caution against a universal rule that the methods must agree or disagree. They cannot tell you why your own answers differ; recall, interpretation of the scene, and the situation you had in mind are possibilities to inspect, not diagnoses. A self-description can compress varied moments into one “usually,” while a written prompt fixes details that may not match your own experience. Either feature can shape an answer without implying dishonesty or skill. The studies do not test these explanations for the Emotional Skills Profile; they simply show why results from different methods should be interpreted according to what each method asked.
Sources: Relating Emotional Abilities to Social Functioning: A Comparison of Self-Report and Performance Measures of Emotional Intelligence; Measuring and Validating Emotional Intelligence as Performance or Self-Report
How can you tell whether the answers address the same behavior?
A mismatch may disappear once you compare like with like. A habit summary about listening across many conversations and a scenario about responding to disappointment may concern related skills, but they are not opposites. State the behavior in plain language—for example, asking what kind of help someone wants before offering advice—and check whether both answers touched it. If one prompt did not, its result may have little to say about that behavior. Also compare the conditions: a response with plenty of time and a response under pressure may differ even when the underlying intention is similar. Mark what the scenario specified and what you supplied from your own experience. If key details are missing or unrealistic for your work, the prompt may not offer much guidance for that situation; set it aside instead of forcing a match.
The profile has 32 items and presents recent-habit summaries separately from judgments about authored situations. It has no validated population norms, so a difference is not a standardized gap to compare with other people. Use each component only for the question it can reasonably inform; you do not need to select a winner or combine the results into a single score. The population-norm limitation also means the size or direction of the difference cannot establish that you are unusually strong or weak. Keep the interpretation personal and descriptive: what did you report, what did you judge, and what context might account for the difference?
How can one real interaction make the question concrete?
Suppose the habit summary suggests you usually pause before responding, while a scenario answer favors quick advice. In a coming conversation where a colleague raises a problem, notice whether you ask what help they want before proposing a fix. This checks one visible action in context; it does not assume the profile predicts what you will do.
Afterward, jot down the cue and your first response, plus any detail that shaped it—time pressure, the request, or your relationship with the colleague. If useful and appropriate, ask someone who was present whether they noticed that specific action. One example is a reflection prompt, not formal measurement or proof of change. If the behavior matters to you, repeat the same observation in a few comparable conversations before calling it a pattern. Note the situation as well as the action: asking before advising may be easy in a calm one-to-one and harder when a deadline is close. If the examples differ, that context can guide a narrower question; if they do not, you have a clearer description of what tends to happen. Neither outcome changes what the profile measured. For structured reflection on emotional skills and development priorities, explore the [Emotional Skills Profile](/assessment). If you already have a result, the [report guide](/report) explains how to read it.
Questions readers ask
Does a scenario answer show what I would really do at work?
No. It records your judgment about an authored situation. Use it to notice how you read that scene, then look to a real interaction if you want to understand what you did.
What if I cannot remember enough recent examples to judge the habit summary?
Do not guess. Use the summary as a prompt and note one relevant interaction soon after it happens; that gives you a concrete example to consider.
Sources
- The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners
The review distinguishes trait EI questionnaires based on self-report, which measure typical behavior and self-rated abilities, from ability EI tests that use maximal-performance items requiring solutions to emotion-related problems. This distinction does not classify or validate the Emotional Skills Profile’s authored scenarios.
- Relating Emotional Abilities to Social Functioning: A Comparison of Self-Report and Performance Measures of Emotional Intelligence
In Study 2, the MSCEIT and SREIS were not significantly correlated (r(327) = .07). The study also examined participants’ perceived responses to positive and negative events in close friendships; after personality controls, MSCEIT scores but not SREIS ratings related to some perceived social responses for men, not women. These findings concern the study’s named measures and outcomes, not the Emotional Skills Profile.
- Measuring and Validating Emotional Intelligence as Performance or Self-Report
The working-paper abstract says EI measures from performance and self-report tasks intercorrelated as expected among college students in a business education program; it gives no sample size or correlation estimates.
Apply it to the real situation
Turn a mixed result into one behavior to notice
From this guide: The report organizes reflection; a real example helps you decide what to practice.
The Emotional Skills Profile separates recent habits from judgments on authored situations. When the results differ, choose one behavior the mismatch brings to mind and notice it in a real interaction. Explore the profile for a structured view of emotional skills and practical development priorities, then use your example to choose a next step.