ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2025
Emotional intelligence evaluation tools used in allied health students: A scoping review.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmotional intelligence (EI) is described as the ability to recognise and understand one's own emotions and the emotions of others, and empathically manage emotional responses. While historically not emphasised in undergraduate allied health sciences training, it is increasingly considered an essential graduate trait. This scoping review synthesises existing research on EI outcomes, specifically in undergraduate allied health professions students.
methodFour databases were searched in February 2024 using keywords relating to EI and empathy to identify studies published in English from 1990. Eligible studies needed to include assessment and reported outcomes using validated EI tools in health professions students.
resultsA total of 163 papers met the inclusion criteria. Many studies employed a cross-sectional design (n = 115). Most studies (n = 135) focused on undergraduate students studying medicine (n = 62), nursing (n = 80) and dentistry (n = 13), with some studies (n = 21) evaluating more than one discipline. Many studies investigated one discipline only (n = 64 for nursing, n = 50 for medicine) using no comparator undergraduate degree. The most common EI models evaluated from this review were ability-based (n = 77), followed by trait-based models (n = 36) and mixed social-emotional competence (n = 35). Ability model evaluations of EI most commonly utilised the Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SSEIT) (n = 44) and the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) (n = 24).
conclusionResearch on EI among undergraduate allied health fields is limited. Existing literature reveals there is some consensus on the importance of EI in healthcare education, but there is considerable variability in how EI is measured. Studies suggest higher levels of EI may correlate with improved student professional skill development in clinical reasoning, empathy and stress management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.