What Does a WLEIS Self-Rating Measure at Work?

What does a WLEIS self-rating actually tell an employee?

A self-report is a questionnaire in which people describe themselves. The WLEIS uses 16 items across four domains: self-emotion appraisal, others’ emotion appraisal, use of emotion, and regulation of emotion. In everyday language, those refer to noticing and understanding one’s own feelings, reading other people’s feelings, using emotion to guide effort, and managing one’s own emotional response. Each domain offers a different prompt for reflection; a total score compresses those distinctions.

A psychometric study of the scale examined 489 managers recruited through purposive sampling from companies in Bogotá. Acosta-Prado and colleagues reported favorable fit for both a related four-factor model and a higher-order model, which allows an overall score above the four domains. That is evidence about how responses were organized in this particular sample. It does not show that every employee’s score accurately describes what happens in a meeting, and the sample was not a representative norm group for all workers. The study’s authors also describe these as initial findings and call for further validity evidence.

Consider the difference between recognizing irritation and knowing what to do with it during a disagreement. Those are related, but distinct, questions. A self-rating can tell an employee how they see their usual habits in these areas. It cannot establish that a coworker would describe the same exchange the same way. Wong and Law introduced the measure in organizational research; their original study examined exploratory links between leaders’ and followers’ emotional intelligence ratings and work outcomes. Such associations help explain the scale’s workplace use, but they are not a forecast for an individual employee.

Sources: Psychometric Properties of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale in a Colombian Manager Sample; The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners

How does a self-rating differ from a skill test or coworker feedback?

The practical distinction is what a method asks someone to report or do. WLEIS records a person’s view of their typical emotional habits. An ability-based test instead asks people to solve emotion-related problems, often with responses scored against keyed answers. A coworker rating asks another person to describe behavior they have observed. These methods can produce different pictures because they sample different things.

Researchers do not use one settled label for every self-report scale. Some classify a measure such as WLEIS under ability-based theory because its domains come from an ability model; others emphasize that self-ratings capture perceived, typical tendencies, which aligns with trait emotional intelligence. O’Connor and colleagues’ 2019 critical review explains this broader distinction and recommends matching the method to the question: use ability measures when maximum performance matters and trait measures when typical patterns matter. That recommendation is about choosing a measurement approach, not proof that one method is universally superior.

A separate WLEIS study tested whether self- and other-ratings shared the same measurement structure. Using increasingly restrictive multiple-group factor analyses, Libbrecht, Lievens, and Schollaert reported configural and metric invariance but no structural invariance. In plain terms, some parts of the measurement pattern aligned across rater groups, while the full structure did not. The accessible abstract does not state the sample size, and the finding does not establish which rater is more accurate. It does caution against treating self- and coworker scores as interchangeable versions of one verdict.

So ask what you need to know. For ‘How do I usually see my emotional habits?’ WLEIS is directly relevant. For ‘Can I solve emotion problems?’ use a performance task. For ‘How did my response affect this colleague?’ ask for a concrete example from someone who saw the interaction. A coworker’s view also belongs to a relationship and a particular situation; it adds evidence, not a universal truth score.

Sources: The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners; Measurement Equivalence of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale across Self and Other Ratings

How can an employee use the result without treating it as a verdict?

Treat a domain result as a question to investigate. Choose one recent, recurring work moment connected to it, then describe the action in observable terms. For example: ‘When a colleague challenged my estimate, I answered before asking what evidence they had.’ That sentence gives the employee something they can notice next time. ‘I am bad at regulation’ turns a score into an identity and offers no clear behavior to check.

If the concern is how the behavior affects someone else, ask for one specific instance: ‘When I replied quickly in that discussion, what did you notice, and what would have helped?’ The answer may reveal a mismatch between intention and impact, or show that the situation had constraints the self-rating did not capture. Keep the report and the example distinct: one is a summary of self-perception, the other a person’s account of a particular exchange. Neither alone settles every question about ability or performance.

This is a proportionate use of the scale, not an intervention whose effects are established by the Colombian validation study. That research supports interpreting four domain scores, and perhaps an overall score, within its sampled setting; it did not test whether using a WLEIS result plus feedback improves workplace behavior. The useful next move is modest: note the pattern, observe one relevant moment, and decide whether a specific conversation or practice goal would help. If the goal is a private starting point for reflection, EQ Test’s 32-item Emotional Skills Profile offers a separate educational report on recent habits and scenario judgments. It is not a WLEIS equivalent or a validated ability test.

Sources: Psychometric Properties of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale in a Colombian Manager Sample; The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners; Measurement Equivalence of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale across Self and Other Ratings

Questions readers ask