05.02.

2024, 09:14 EEF | Social Emotional Competence Questionnaire

Social Emotional Competence Questionnaire

About the measure

Subscales Example Link Key Stage

Self awareness; Self-management; Social I understand my moods and feelings http://www.enseceurope.org/journal/Pap… Key Stage 2, Key Stage 3, Key Stage 4, Key
awareness; Relationship skills; Stage 5
Responsible decision making

Domains Rating Psychometric Rating Implementation

Social and Emotional Competence

Implementation

No. of items ⓘ Format ⓘ Respondent ⓘ Scoring ⓘ

Number of items included in the measure Type of response scale Who is asked to complete the measure. Standardised: Can easily be summed or
averaged Complex: Requires judgement or
25 Likert Self assessment on behalf of the scorer

Standardised

Age ⓘ Cost single purchase ⓘ Cost per child ⓘ

Age (in years) covered by the survey. Using the
measure outside this age range may result in
inaccurate information.
9 – 18 year(s)
Cost (if applicable) of purchasing the measure.
Free – Available
Details if there are additional costs per
administration. This can vary, so if a cost is
indicated, further contact with the publisher/​
author is recommended.
Free – Available

Psychometric

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/measures-database/social-emotional-competence-questionnaire 1/2
05.02.2024, 09:14 EEF | Social Emotional Competence Questionnaire

UK norms ⓘ Chronbach's alpha ⓘ Text retest ⓘ Inter-rater reliability ⓘ

Whether the measure has been calibrated with
a UK sample (as opposed to generating
psychometric details from a Foreign (e.g. USA)
sample).
No
An estimate of the reliability of the measure.
A higher value indicates a more reliable measure
(0.7 is normally considered a good benchmark
for reliability).
.62-.79
A measure of reliability. This indicates how ​
‘stable’ responses to a measure are over time.
Not reported
Where observations (e.g. teacher or peer report
rather than self report) are used, this measure of
reliability indicates how closely related each
score is. A higher value suggests a more reliable
measure.
Not reported

EFA ⓘ CFA ⓘ Criterion validity ⓘ Construct validity ⓘ

Exploratory Factor Analysis – This is measure of
the validity, showing how well the underlying
structure of the domain is represented by the
individual items. Higher values (factor loadings)
indicate a good fit between items and the sub-
domains of the measure.
Not reported
Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Similar to EFA,
this measure of validity assesses the extent to
which items fit pre-specified sub-domains of
a measure. Higher values indicate a better fit.
Chi-square(265)= 539.98p < .001Chi-
square/df = 2.04RMSEA = .05CFI = .9IFI =
.9
An assessment of how well the measures relates
to other, well-validated assessments.
Not reported
Further to the use of CFA and EFA, this reports
any details demonstrating how well the measure
is seen to represent the conceptual domain it
comes from.
To assess construct validity the scale
items were reassessed in a different
sample for dimensionality and fit. Results
showed: Chi-square= 712.20 (df = 265, p <
.001), Chi-square/df = 2.69, RMSEA = .069,
CFI = .86, IFI = .86

Predictive validity ⓘ Responsiveness ⓘ Floor/Ceiling ⓘ References

The extent to which the measure can be seen to
predict other outcomes.
Most SECQ dimensions were significantly
positively correlated with exam scores (.19
An indicate of how well a measure if able to
detect change during a pre-specified time (if
applicable).
Not reported
Indicates whether there are any issues with
ceiling (maximum scores) or floor (minimum
scores) effects with large portions of particular
groups of respondents.
Not reported
Zhou, M., & Ee, L. (2012). Development and
validation of social emotional competency
questionnaire. The International Journal of
Emotional Education, 4(2), 27 – 42.
Retrieved from
http://www.enseceurope.org/journal/Papers/EN

https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/measures-database/social-emotional-competence-questionnaire 2/2