The use of argumentation in science education is associated with many benefits. Some of these include developing critical skills, promoting spirit of enquiry, enhancing conceptual understanding and improving academic performance of students. However, there are also some issues and challenges...

Purpose: Theorists have constructed emotional intelligence differently, based on which the literature reveals different diversified scales to measure emotional intelligence. These scales are quite lengthy to respond and have been criticized for producing varying results. The current paper projects the findings of 3 consecutive studies carried out to summarize and simplify the existing models of emotional intelligence and to produce a brief measure in this regard. Methods: Based on the review of the earlier models of emotional intelligence, emotional intelligence was comprehended as an “ability to express and regulate emotions for intrinsic and extrinsic emotional satisfaction”. “Emotional Intelligence Scale (EIS)”, comprising 12 items in English, was developed and validated through principal component analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis through a series of 3 consecutive studies which involved 1894 participants from Pakistan. The validity of EIS was tested step by step for its face, content, factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity. The reliability was measured through internal consistency and item-total and item-scale correlations. Results: EIS was revealed to be a valid and reliable scale to measure emotional intelligence through 4 core factors, ie, emotional expression, emotional regulation, intrinsic emotional satisfaction, and extrinsic emotional satisfaction. The additional findings revealed significantly higher levels of emotional intelligence among men as compared to women; significantly positive correlation of emotional intelligence with social intelligence, positive emotional effects, age, and education; and a significantly inverse correlation between emotional intelligence and the negative emotional effects. Conclusion: The current paper reported the development and validation of a new scale on emotional intelligence by comprehending and summarizing the earlier models of emotional intelligence.

Purpose: “Psychosocial health” is a new term to comprehend the already established factors involved in mental health and psychological well-being. The term has not been specifically defined and explained within the framework of psychology.Design/methodology/approach: The study proposed and validated a new model of psychosocial health. Principal component analysis, exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted by involving a total of 4,086 participants.Findings: Psychosocial health was interpreted as the “sexual, emotional, social, environmental, cognitive, religious, moral and spiritual satisfaction” of a person. The proposed model of psychosocial health was statistically validated. The additional findings revealed significantly higher levels of psychosocial health in women and significant inverse correlations between psychosocial health and age.Originality/value: The current paper provided a comprehensive picture of psychosocial health from a psychological perspective and presented a statistically reliable tool for measuring psychosocial health.

The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a popular measure that evaluates personality on the Big-Five model. Apart from its utilization across cultures, the literature did not reveal any meta-analysis for the reliability of the different versions of the BFI and its translations. The current study carried out a reliability generalization meta-analysis (REGEMA) to establish the reliability of the BFI across cultures and languages. We searched 30 databases for the relevant studies from 1991 to mid-November 2024. The studies that we intended to include in our meta-analysis required to have utilized the BFI (44 items) and the BFI-2 (60 items) and have reported Cronbach's alpha or McDonald's omega reliability estimates. Our coded variables included BFI version, sample size, population type, age, gender, clinical state, and reliability. A total of 57 studies (datapoints) published in 34 research articles (involving 43,715 participants; 60.24% women; Mean age = 30.08) from various cultures and languages were finally included. These studies used BFI and BFI-2 in Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swahili, and Turkish. Data analysis was conducted using the metafor and meta packages in R. The average correlation was computed using a random-effects model and reliability coefficients indicated effect size. I2 and Cochran's Q tests were used to examine heterogeneity, with prediction intervals suggesting genuine influences around the pooled estimate. Using funnel plots, regression-based tests (e.g., Egger's regression, rank correlation), and trim-and-fill imputation, publication bias was adjusted to estimate unbiased effects. We calculated the individual and combined reliability of the BFI and BFI-2 across languages and cultures. The results revealed the reliability of all five factors used in the BFI/BFI-2. The BFI estimates provide the following results: openness is estimated at 0.77 (95% CI: 0.75; 0.80); conscientiousness is estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.78; 0.82); extraversion is also estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 0.82); agreeableness is estimated at 0.73 (95% CI: 0.71; 0.76); and neuroticism is estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 0.82). The BFI-2 estimates are as follows: openness is estimated at 0.83 (95% CI: 0.82; 0.84); conscientiousness is estimated at 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85; 0.87); extraversion is estimated at 0.85 (95% CI: 0.84; 0.86); agreeableness is also estimated at 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79; 81); and neuroticism is estimated at 0.89 (95% CI: 0.88; 0.89). The current meta-analysis represents the first reliability analysis of the BFI and the first comparison between its two different versions, the BFI (44 items) and the BFI-2 (60 items). The generalized reliability of both the BFI and BFI-2 were established. The findings confirm that the BFI and BFI-2 have good reliability across all five factors.