About the Measure
| Domains | Emotional Intelligence (mixed and trait), Social and Emotional Competence |
| Key stages | Key Stage 1 |
| Subscales | Social functioning in: School performancePeer relationships; Family relationships; Home duties/self-care |
| Description | The CST is a pictorial forced choice measure that can be used to assess children’s ability to predict their own behaviour decisions and emotions in various peer provocation scenarios. For each picture and explanation of the scenario the child is asked to pick a given behavioural response (described) and emotional response (from pictured faces). |
| Example | Taylor was building a very tall tower of blocks. Bobby knocked it down…What would you do if you were Taylor? (a) Build another t |
| Link | http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02568543.2014.883558 |
| Psychometry | |
| Implementation |
Implementation details
| No. of items | 3 |
| Format | Nominal |
| Respondent | Self |
| Scoring | Standardised |
| Time | 0 |
| Age | 3-6 |
| Cost single purchase | Free |
| Cost per child | Free |
Psychometric details
| UK norms | No |
| Cronbach's α | 13 of 16 |
| Test retest | After 3 months, r= [.17,.36], p < 0.001 |
| Inter-rater reliability | Not reported |
| EFA | Not reported |
| CFA | Not reported |
| Criterion validity | Not reported |
| Construct validity | Preschool Self-Regulation Assessment: Significant positive and negative relationships for different CST response choices e.g. happy, r= [.13,.25]; Emotion knowledge: Affect Knowledge Test: significant positive and negative relationships for different CST response choices e.g. happy, r= [.13,.35] |
| Concurrent validity | Not reported |
| Predictive validity | Not reported |
| Responsiveness | Not reported |
| Floor/Ceiling | Not reported |
| References | Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., Way, E., Kalb, S., Warren-Khot, H., & Zinsser, K. (2014). “How Would You Feel? What Would You Do?” Development and Underpinnings of Preschoolers’ Social Information Processing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28(2), 182–202. doi:10.1080/02568543.2014.883558 |