Sources of inconsistency and the need for a quantitative synthesis

Previous meta-analyses on emotional intelligence provide some explanations for the inconsistent findings in the primary studies. These include culture or country, age, gender, EI tests, EI subscale, and EI task nature (ability-based assessments vs trait-based assessments; Abdulla Alabbasi et al., 2021; Ogurlu, 2021; Sánchez-Álvarezet al. 2020). These factors can be observed in the previous studies that assessed the association between EI and academic success in MD programs (see Table 1). For example, Brannick et al. (2013) reported that there was no significant correlation between the trait-based EI scale (Wong & Lu EI Scale) and academic performance, while the ability-based EI test (i.e., Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test; MSCEIT) was significantly correlated with academic performance. Moreover, some studies found a significant relationship between academic performance and some of the EI subscales (e.g., optimism, awareness of emotions, and attention to feelings) while no significant correlation was observed between academic performance and other EI subscales (e.g., Libbrecht et al., 2014; Naeem et al., 2014). This study deviates from previous literature in its definition of academic success. While some studies assessed academic success using students’ GPA (e.g., Brannick et al., 2013; Fallahzadeh, 2011; Leddy et al., 2011), others used unit/achievement exams (e.g., Austin et al., 2005; Chew et al., 2013; Rajasingam et al., 2014). Therefore, the difference in academic performance criteria was included as a possible moderator that could explain the variability in the mean effect. Cultures also show variances in emotional intelligence (Lim, 2016). In the current study, the included works represented 10 different countries in three different continents (North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia; see Table 1). Finally, some studies showed that there is a link between EI and age (Chen et al., 2016; Sliter et al., 2013). All of the above factors were considered in the current study to possibly explain the variability in the mean effect size.