John M. Malouff
Nova Southeastern University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by John M. Malouff.
Personality and Individual Differences | 1998
Nicola S. Schutte; John M. Malouff; Lena Hall; Donald J. Haggerty; Joan T. Cooper; Charles J. Golden; Liane Dornheim
This series of studies describes the development of a measure of emotional intelligence based on the model of emotional intelligence developed by Salovey and Mayer [Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.]. A pool of 62 items represented the different dimensions of the model. A factor analysis of the responses of 346 participants suggested the creation of a 33-item scale. Additional studies showed the 33-item measure to have good internal consistency and testretest reliability. Validation studies showed that scores on the 33-item measure n1. n(a) correlated with eight of nine theoretically related constructs, including alexithymia, attention to feelings, clarity of feelings, mood repair, optimism and impulse control; n n2. n(b) predicted first-year college grades; n n3. n(c) were significantly higher for therapists than for therapy clients or for prisoners; n n4. n(d) were significantly higher for females than males, consistent with prior findings in studies of emotional skills; n n5. n(e) were not related to cognitive ability and n n6. n(f) were associated with the openness to experience trait of the big five personality dimensions.
Journal of Social Psychology | 2001
Nicola S. Schutte; John M. Malouff; Chad Bobik; Tracie D. Coston; Cyndy Greeson; Christina Jedlicka; Emily Rhodes; Greta Wendorf
Abstract In 7 studies, the authors examined the link between emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. In Studies 1 and 2, the participants with higher scores for emotional intelligence had higher scores for empathic perspective taking and self-monitoring in social situations. In Study 3, the participants with higher scores for emotional intelligence had higher scores for social skills. In Study 4, the participants with higher scores for emotional intelligence displayed more cooperative responses toward partners. In Study 5, the participants with higher scores for emotional intelligence had higher scores for close and affectionate relationships. In Study 6, the participants scores for marital satisfaction were higher when they rated their marital partners higher for emotional intelligence. In Study 7, the participants anticipated greater satisfaction in relationships with partners described as having emotional intelligence.
Archive | 1995
Nicola S. Schutte; John M. Malouff
The Psychometric Properties and Clinical Use of Scales. Delirium and Dementia. Substancerelated Disorders. Somatoform Disorders and Measurement of Pain and Related Phenomena. Dissociative Disorders. Sexual Disorders. Eating Disorders. Sleep Disorders. Impulse Control Disorders. Relationship Problems. Other Conditions of Clinical Interest. Measures of Global Functioning. Index.
The Journal of Education for Business | 1996
John M. Malouff; Randi L. Sims
Abstract A new, management-oriented model for the prevention of student plagiarism is described. The model, which was derived from Vrooms expectancy theory of employee motivation, postulates that instructors can best prevent plagiarism by ensuring that students (a) understand the rules of ethical writing, (b) expect the writing assignment to be manageable, (c) expect ethical writing to lead to personally important benefits, (d) expect plagiarizing to be difficult, and (e) expect plagiarizing to lead to personally important costs. Included are descriptions of many specific strategies for each part of the model.
Archive | 1995
Nicola S. Schutte; John M. Malouff
This scale measures the characteristic impulsiveness of individuals. The latest version of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale is a 30-item self-report meassure (Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, in press). Barratt developed the first version of the scale in 1959 (Barratt, 1959) and then revised and refined the scale over the years (Barratt, 1985; Barratt, 1993). The eleventh and latest version was created by eliminating from the previous version of the scale those items that did not contribute to the reliability or validity of the scale. Patton et al. (in press) factor analyzed the responses of undergraduate students, psychiatric inpatients, and prisoners in a maximum security facility and found three main second-order factors. These factors were motor impulsiveness, nonplanning impulsiveness, and attentional impulsiveness.
Archive | 1995
Nicola S. Schutte; John M. Malouff
This 62-item self-report measure developed by Pilowsky and Spence (1983) assesses seven aspects of abnormal illness behavior: hypochondriasis, disease conviction, psychological versus somatic concerns, affective inhibition, affective disturbance, denial, and irritability. Lloyd (1990) suggested that the scale be used to evaluate clients in whom there is a discrepancy between medical disorder and behavioral response. An earlier version of the seven subscales was derived from a factor analysis of pain patients’ and psychiatric clients’ responses to 52 items asking about attitudes, feelings, and perceptions relating to illness (Pilowsky & Spence, 1975). Also embedded in the questionnaire was a second measure of hypochondriasis, the Whitley Index. Because this scale seems to measure essentially the same phenomena as the general Hypochondriasis subscale of the questionnaire, no more mention will be made of the Whitley Index in this review. The 62-item questionnaire was developed by adding items to the earlier, 52-item version of the questionnaire so that all subscales consist of at least five items (Pilowsky, 1993; Pilowsky & Spence, 1983). Factor analytic studies of the questionnaire (Main & Waddell, 1987; Pilowsky, 1993; Pilowsky & Spence, 1983; Zonderman, Heft & Costa, 1985) have to varying degrees confirmed the separateness of the seven subscales.
Archive | 1995
Nicola S. Schutte; John M. Malouff
The appropriate clinical or research use of the measures in this book requires a certain amount of psychometric knowledge. For instance, in order to interpret research findings relating to a measure, readers need to understand the usual ways of testing reliability and validity, as well as how to use sample or cutoff scores. The appropriate clinical use of the measures also requires knowledge about clinical assessment strategies in general and ethical standards. In this chapter we provide this basic information for scale users and provide references for more detailed information.
Archive | 1995
Nicola S. Schutte; John M. Malouff
The Delirium Rating Scale assess the severity of delirium (Trzepacz, Baker, & Greenhouse, 1988). It consists of 10 clinician-rated items, each of which reflects a different aspect of delirium.
Archive | 1995
Nicola S. Schutte; John M. Malouff
The CAGE, developed by J.A. Ewing and B.A. Rouse, is a 4-item interview schedule that assesses alcohol abuse. The name “CAGE” comes from letters in the four questions: cut, annoyed, guilty, eye-opener (Mayfield, McLeod, & Hall, 1974). The CAGE is much briefer than most alcohol screening measures and can therefore serve as a way for health and mental health professionals to quickly screen clients for alcohol abuse as a supplement to assessment for other problems. The CAGE is very widely used in applied settings (Strang, Bradley, & Stockwell, 1989).
Archive | 1995
Nicola S. Schutte; John M. Malouff
The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale provides clinicians with a method for the quick assessment of major dimensions of psychopathology. It was first developed as a 16-item interview-based rating scale by Overall and Gorham (1962) and later expanded to its present 18-item form (Overall, 1983). The scale items were designed to cover a broad range of symptoms and were based on factor analytic studies of earlier scales as well as the clinical expertise of mental health professionals (Hedlund & Vieweg, 1980; Overall, 1983; Overall & Gorham, 1962). The scale is widely used for diagnosis of severe psychopathology and evaluation of treatment related changes in individuals with severe psychopathology. It is most commonly used with schizophrenics; however, it has also been used with depressed, manic, and demented clients. Several researchers (e.g., Bech, Kastrup, & Rafaelsen, 1986) have proposed slight modifications in the scale, but since the Overall (1983) version seems to be most commonly used, we will report on that version.