Understanding the Results

print this section

This page describes how to interpret EQ-i® 2.0 results and how to make them meaningful and useful in corporate, educational, clinical, medical and research settings. By no means is this description all-encompassing, and therefore the interpretation of results must be the responsibility of a certified administrator or qualified counselor, psychologist, consultant or coach. When available, the inclusion of additional information, such as other assessment results, interviews, or observations is highly recommended to increase the accuracy of the assessment process.

Although different styles of coaching and feedback exist, the interpretation of an EQ-i 2.0 report must follow a standard practice. This page outlines how to interpret a client’s report in a manner that is true to how the test was constructed and designed to be interpreted. These guidelines follow the standards for test interpretation outlined by a committee of the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in Education (1999), and when followed will provide a consistent and ethical structure to your debriefing conversations. Remember, there are many options when building a report that allow you the freedom to discuss results in a way that is most comfortable to you (e.g., turning scores or score labels off); however, the interpretation of results as outlined on this page upholds a standard message that all test takers should hear in order to create a consistent, insightful and ethical experience of the EQ-i 2.0 assessment process.

The EQ-i 2.0 has undergone significant changes particularly in the way validity information is presented and interpreted in the Coach’s report. As you read through these sections please pay particular attention to the following major changes:

• Norm group
• Negative and Positive Impression Indexes
• Removal of Correction Factors
• Removal of Critical Items
• Inconsistency Index
• Confidence Intervals
• New Composite Scales and Subscales

back to top

print this section

Understanding Norms

Norms are a set of data that is collected on a large, representative sample of people. For the EQ-i 2.0, 4,000 people completed the assessment in 2010, and these responses were grouped into what we refer to as a Norm group. You may also see this Norm group referred to as the General Population, and that is essentially what it represents. Because we can’t sample everyone in the world, we take the next best thing, which is a representative group of people against which your client’s score is compared.

Norms are used as a benchmark to transform your client’s raw scores into standard scores. In the case of the EQ-i 2.0 your client’s score is compared to the scores of 4,000 people in the general population so that you know how he/she did relative to everyone else.

Scores for the EQ-i 2.0 norm group closely resemble a normal curve so you can make accurate conclusions about where the majority of respondents score on the EQ-i 2.0. Breaking the normal curve into quartiles provides a statistical reference for the 10 point cut-offs you see on the EQ-i 2.0 profile graph (i.e., low range, mid-range, high range). At the lower quartile, 25% of respondents score below 90, 50% of respondents score between 90-110 and 25% of respondents score above 110, which is the upper quartile.

Specific details on the composition of the EQ-i 2.0 Norm Group are outlined in Sandardization, Reliability, and Validity and Appendix A.

Understanding Standard Scores

In the same fashion as the original EQ-i, the EQ-i 2.0 presents your client’s results by using standard scores. Standard scores are scores that have been adjusted by comparing them to others’ results on the same test. This adjustment allows you to make a comparison between scale scores (e.g., Empathy and Optimism) and makes interpretation possible because you now have a yardstick against which to measure. For instance, without standard scores it would be like your child telling you he scored a 75/100 on his math test. Would it change your opinion of his score if you knew the class average was 88/100 and that most students scored close to average? In this case, your son’s score is significantly lower than most of the rest of the class.

EQ-i 2.0 standard scores are calculated from raw scores so that each scale has the same average (mean) score of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. A standard deviation is the average or expected amount of variance in data points around the mean. A large standard deviation means that data points are far away from the mean. For example, the following set of numbers would have a large standard deviation: 0, 0, 14, 14. A small standard deviation means that data points are tight and clustered closely around the mean. For example, the following set of numbers would have a small standard deviation even though the mean is the same as above: 6, 6, 8, 8.

BENEFITS OF STANDARD SCORES

• You can compare scores across different EQ-i 2.0 scales.
• You can compare EQ-i 2.0 scores with other instruments standardized the same way.
• You can automatically tell where the test taker’s score is, relative to the average of the normative group.

You will rarely need to explain the concept of a standard score in the terms that have been used here. Instead, your client may ask you questions such as “Is my score high/low or good/bad?” or “How does my score compare to everyone else’s?” You can answer these questions given what you now know about the EQ-i 2.0 standard scores. Your client’s score is actually generated by comparing it to the norm group. You also know that the average is 100, so depending on where your client’s result lies, you can provide an interpretation of where you client falls relative to the average.

Understanding Confidence Intervals

All measurements contain some error. Confidence Intervals (see Table 8.1) take this error into account by providing a range of scores, at a specific level of probability, within which an individual’s true score is expected to fall. For the EQ-i 2.0 a 90% Confidence Interval was calculated, which allows you to say that 9 times out of 10 the individual’s true score would fall within the range shown. For example, your client’s Total EI score is 100. The 90% Confidence Interval for this score is 96-104 which allows you to say that nine times out of ten your client’s true score would be between 96 and 104.

Confidence Intervals can help you gauge the differences between subscales. If two confidence intervals overlap a lot for two different subscales (see example below), then an individual’s true scores on each of these subscales may not be that different from one another. If there is no overlap, or little overlap between confidence intervals, then the difference between the true scores for these subscales is probably fairly large.

Table 8.1. Example of Confidence Interval Overlap

Subscale	Score and Confidence Interval	Conclusion
Empathy	100 (95-105)	The client’s true Empathy score could fall anywhere between 95 and 105, whereas the true Flexibility score could fall anywhere between 96 and 112. Scores on these two subscales are similar.
Flexibility	104 (96-112)

Example of Confidence Intervals with no Overlap

Subscale	Score and Confidence Interval	Conclusion
Empathy	76 (71-81)	The client’s true Empathy score could fall anywhere between 71 and 81, whereas the true Flexibility score could fall anywhere between 82 and 98. Scores on these two subscales are quite different.
Flexibility	90 (82-98)

back to top

print this section

After the report has been generated by selecting the appropriate Norm group, the sensitive work of interpretation begins. Both the Coach and Client reports have been designed to intuitively follow the recommended interpretation sequence. That being said, merely issuing a report to the respondent without some degree of feedback verges on being unethical and allows the client to reach their own conclusions about their results. When providing extensive and individualized feedback is impractical (e.g., in hiring and screening situations), informed consent and debriefing procedures should still be adhered to. Should the case arise where a respondent requests their results and feedback; these must be made available to them in a safe fashion.

The Report

The EQ-i 2.0 reports have been designed with the interpretation process in mind, so that all the information you need is in the right place in and in the right sequence for debriefing results.  As well, because of the flexibility in customizing reports, you can create a report that works for you and your client.

Table 8.2. outlines the unique features of the Workplace Report and how you can leverage these features when working with your client. Not only do the features provide you with a wealth of information and questions you can ask, but they also save you the time and effort coming up with questions and templates yourself.

Table 8.3 outlines additional features in the EQ 360 2.0 report.

Table 8.2. Features of the EQ-i 2.0 Workplace Report: Leveraging Report Features

Feature	Where to find it	What it means	How it helps a Coach	Customization
Response Style Explained	Coach’s Report	This page gives you a snapshot of all the validity indicators that explain how your client responded to the items in the assessment.	You can clearly see if there are possible validity concerns with the way your client responded to the items on the EQ-i 2.0. There are recommended questions for delving into your client’s approach to taking the EQ-i 2.0.	Cannot turn this feature off
Balancing EI	Client’s Report – one comparison between subscales at the bottom of each subscale page Coach’s Report – three comparisons for each subscale	Each subscale is compared to related subscales to show where there may be balance or imbalance in a client’s EI profile.	The comparison provides you with a narrative for feedback, which means you have a script you can follow when speaking to the importance of balance within EI subscales.	Can turn this feature off in either report
Follow Up Questions	Coach’s Report	Every subscale lists 5-6 questions that you can ask to further understand your client’s perspective on subscale scores.	Several thought-provoking questions are provided that you can ask your client when you are discussing a particular subscale.	Can turn this feature off
Action Plan	Client’s Report Coach’s Report	Because of the developmental nature of the EQ-i 2.0, most clients will naturally move from understanding their results to creating a plan for further development. This is a template to help your client outline the steps required to achieve his or her development goals.	You do not need to create your own action plan. If you are only providing feedback for a client and not continuing to work with them on an ongoing basis, this is a value-added piece that leaves the client well prepared to develop EI in a self-directed manner.	Can turn this feature off in either report
Development Commitment	Client’s Report Coach’s Report	This template allows you to reinforce the importance of development by asking the client to formally commit to their plan.	It ensures you have buy in from the client.	Can turn this feature off in either report
Coach’s Guide to an EQ-i 2.0 Debrief Session	Coach’s Report	This is a step-by-step walkthrough of what a feedback session could look like.	For new coaches or new EQ-i 2.0 practitioners, it provides a clear process to follow, to ensure you cover everything in the feedback session, and also saves you time when preparing for your session.	Can turn this feature off

Table 8.3. Additional Features of the EQ 360 2.0 Report: Leveraging Report Features

Feature	Where to find it	What it means	How it helps a Coach	Customization
Rater Response Style Explained	Coach’s Report	This page gives you a snapshot of the validity indicators for each rater group. Please note: validity concerns are not raised at the rater level, this information is provided so you can be better acquainted with your client’s raters and their response patterns.	You can determine whether raters responded in an overly positive or negative manner, omitted items, or responsed inconsistently, and how they used the 5 –point response scale.	Cannot turn this feature off
Profile Gap Analysis	Client’s Report Coach’s Report	Each subscale is plotted on a grid based on the client’s self score and the average amount of agreement between this self score and the raters’ scores.	This plot provides a visual of agreement and disagreement in your client’s EI profile. It is a good starting place to have a general discussion on patterns, agreement, and disagreement, before moving on to more complex results.	Cannot turn this feature off
How You and Your Raters Responded: Summary Graph	Client’s Report Coach’s Report	Each rater group score is shown for all subscales on this one page. The length of the lines represents the range of scores your client received on each subscale.	You have everything you need on one page. You can examine patterns in the spread of scores, or the degree to which scores cluster. Or choose one rater symbol and look down the graph for trends in how that rater group responded relative to your client’s self score.	Cannot turn this feature off

The following seven steps are recommended for interpreting the EQ-i 2.0 results.

 

back to top

print this section

The validity of an individual’s EQ-i 2.0 results needs to be evaluated before delving into the interpretation of subscale scores. For both the EQ-i 2.0 and the EQ 360 2.0, all validity information is presented on the first page of the Coach’s Report called Response Style Explained. You must understand how to interpret the following five validity indices:

• Time to Completion
• Inconsistency Index (IncX)
• Positive and Negative Impression
• Item 133
• Omitted Items

Time to Completion

The time it took an individual to complete the EQ-i 2.0 online is displayed in minutes in the Participant Summary box at the top of the page. People who take less than seven minutes to complete the assessment may have responded in a random manner or rushed their responses. Those who take longer than 90 minutes may have had trouble understanding the items and instructions, were interrupted or distracted, or were trying to manipulate the results. For these reasons, if a client takes less than 7 minutes or more than 90 minutes a red flag will appear beside Time to Completion, as this warrants follow-up during the feedback process.

Inconsistency Index (IncX)

The Inconsistency Index (IncX) score measures how consistently an individual responded across the items on the EQ-i 2.0. Ten pairs of highly related items were chosen to detect whether an individual responds differently to items measuring the similar content. An IncX score of 3 or higher would indicate that an individual’s results are possibly invalid. In addition to random responding, elevated IncX scores could signify someone who is indecisive, heavily swayed by slight nuances in item wording, unsure of themself or lacking self-awareness. If a client has an IncX score of 3 or greater a red flag will appear beside Inconsistency Index as this warrants follow-up during the feedback process. Investigate the responses to each item pair in the Item Responses section of the Coach’s Report and ask the client about her approach to responding to the items.

Positive and Negative Impression Indexes

The Positive and Negative Impression (PI/NI) indexes detect respondents who may be giving an exaggerated positive (PI) or negative (NI) impression of themselves when responding to the items on the EQ-i 2.0. The same 6 items are used to measure PI and NI, where extreme responses (1 or 5) across all items are rare in the general population. In fact, a cut-off of 3 was established because only 5% of the general population scored 3 or higher. A cut-off of 3 applies to both indexes as described below:

POSITIVE IMPRESSION INDEX

When a PI score is 3 or higher an individual’s results should be interpreted with caution. This individual may have inflated his responses on purpose, or for other reasons which may include self deception, lack of personal insight, criticism avoidance, unwillingness to face one’s limitations, or misunderstanding the assessment’s purpose. When the PI score is three or higher a red flag appears beside Positive Impression to indicate that further investigation is warranted during feedback.

NEGATIVE IMPRESSION INDEX

When a NI score is 3 or higher an individual’s results should be interpreted with caution. This individual may have deflated his responses on purpose, or for other reasons which may include attempting to create a negative impression of oneself, seeking sympathy or help, low self-esteem, a self-critical response style, or misunderstanding the assessment’s purpose. When the NI score is three or higher a red flag appears beside Negative Impression to indicate that further investigation is warranted during feedback.

Correction Factors

The EQ-i 2.0 no longer uses correction factors, adjusted or unadjusted scores. Experience with the EQ-i suggests that such correction adds complexity to score interpretation that may offset any benefits. For further discussion about such corrections, see Piedmont et al. (2000) and Ellingson et al. (1999). For the EQ-i 2.0, we adopt the simpler approach of directly interpreting the NI and PI indexes, rather than applying an upward or downward adjustment to compensate for response style.

Critical Items

The EQ-i included 6 items that were designed to help identify depressive conditions, psychotic states, and the potential for losing control. Although in some cases these items were helpful, the inclusion of these items proved challenging in the corporate space. The revision of the EQ-i has resulted in the removal of the critical items. In an effort to move away from items addressing clinical topics and to facilitate the broader use of the instrument (particularly in non-clinical environments such as corporate applications) the critical items have been removed.

Item 133

Item 133 states: My responses to the preceding sentences were open and honest.

A response of 3 or lower indicates that the results of the EQ-i 2.0 are possibly invalid. Even a response of 4, Often, should be questioned as the respondent was not as honest or open as they could have been. A flag appears when a response of 3 or lower was provided; results should be interpreted with caution as honest answers may not have been provided.

Omitted Items

The EQ-i 2.0 is designed in such a way that respondents should be able to answer every item on the assessment. However, because the items are not mandatory, it is possible for a respondent to choose to skip certain items. An overall omission rate is calculated by dividing the number of omitted items by 133 (the total number of items on the EQ-i 2.0) and multiplying by 100. If the Overall Omission Rate is 8% or higher the results are considered to be invalid.

The number of missing items permitted for the EI Total, composite and subscales are shown in Table 8.4.

Table 8.4. Tolerance for Missing Items

	Scores cannot be calculated for any scale if more than…
EI Total Score	9 items are missing across the entire assessment
Composite Scales	3 items are missing on any given composite scale
Subscales	1 item is missing on any given subscale

Response Distribution

Although not in itself a measure of response validity, the way an individual responds across the entire assessment can reveal a great deal of information about his response style or tendency to respond in a given way. Examine the pie chart at the bottom of the Response Style Explained page in the coach’s report. It shows the distribution of your client’s responses across all items on the EQ-i 2.0. Look for tendencies to use one of the response options more heavily than another, or for avoidance of a response option. For example, respondents who respond 3, Sometimes, to most of the items might be:

• responding in a very neutral way
• conservative
• in need of more information in order to be more definite in his/her responses
• unsure of themselves

Also look for patterns where the respondent avoids the middle response option and relies heavily on using 1, Never/Rarely, and 5, Always/Almost Always. Respondents who have a tendency to use the ends of the response scale may:

• describe themselves in an extreme way
• be very ‘all or nothing’ in their use of EI behaviors
• think in a very black or white manner

Getting to Know the Raters You may have some questions about the raters who responded to the EQ 360 2.0. To get better acquainted with the raters and their response styles, start with the Rater Familiarity section of your EQ 360 2.0 Coach report. Here you will see how long the raters have known the participant (your client), how frequently they interact with the participant, and how well the raters know the participant. You will see the number of raters who provided responses in columns under the corresponding rater title. Raters who report knowing the person better and for longer periods of time could have increased insight into the functioning of the participant; however, this is not to discount what is said by raters who have known the participant for less time. Less familiar raters may not be as biased by history, finding it easier to keep their focus of evalutation on the current context. This information should simply serve as a call of awareness in your interpretation and should help to inform the type of questions you may pose during the debrief process. Some questions you may ask are: How well do you know the raters chosen to complete your 360? Tell me about your process for selecting raters. Your raters have indicated that they have known you for a long time; would you agree? How would you describe these relationships during this time? What examples or interactions do you think your raters are using to rate your emotional intelligence? Are there specific events that you have been through together that could influence their ratings of you?  The next page is titled “Rater Response Style Explained”. This page displays response information for the rater groups, much in the same way as your client’s Response Style Explained Page. Any rater who responded in an overly negative, overly positive, incomplete, inconsistent or dishonest manner is indicated in the narrative on this page. It is important to note that a 360 is not deemed invalid at the rater level. This information is simply provided to you so that you can be better acquainted with the raters and their styles of responding to the items on the EQ 360 2.0. For this reason you will not see any red flags on this page of the report.

back to top

print this section

After assessing the validity of the EQ-i 2.0 profile, the next step is to examine the overarching scores: Total EI and the 5 Composite Scale scores. Although practitioners rarely coach to these broader scores, examining them before diving into the subscale level scores gives a high level view of the individual’s emotional and social functioning.

Interpretation of Total EI

The Total EI score is created by summing 118 of the 133 items (items on the PI, NI and Happiness scales as well as Item 133 are not included in the total score). This score gives a general indication of how emotionally intelligent the respondent is; it encapsulates how successful the individual is at perceiving and expressing oneself, developing and maintaining social relationships, coping with challenges, and using emotional information in an effective and meaningful way.

Remember, the Total EI score can mask high or low functioning in any given subscale, and therefore it is important to examine more closely the composite and subscale scores.

Interpretation of Composite Scale Scores

The 5 composite scales on the EQ-i 2.0 can be interpreted as buckets for organizing the 15 core subscales into similar categories. There is a logical progression as you move through the composite scales as presented in the profile graph, starting with Self-Perception (SP), Self-Expression (SE), Interpersonal (IP), Decision Making (DM) and Stress Management (SM). Some characteristics tyical of individuals with low and high scores on each of the composite scales are shown below. This information will be helpful in the interpretation of these scores.

Self-Perception Composite
LOWER SCORES	HIGHER SCORES
May not be in touch with feelings May lack inner strength and confidence Emotions may elude or confuse them May not understand emotional landscape May not make good use of abilities	Feels good about oneself Feels positive about life In touch with own emotions Recognizes and predicts emotions Detects nuances between different emotions

Having a solid understanding of oneself, one’s emotions and one’s inner life means allows one to better express thoughts and feelings.

Self-Expression Composite
LOWER SCORES	HIGHER SCORES
Struggles to express own thoughts and feelings May be emotionally dependent May find it hard to describe how one feels Expression of emotion may not be constructive May refrain from sharing thoughts and beliefs	Free from emotional dependency on others Constructively expresses thoughts and emotions Can describe and articulate how one feels Openly and confidently expresses oneself Self-directed

Being able to openly and honestly express one’s true thoughts and feelings enables one to have healthy relationships and interactions built on trust.

Interpersonal Composite
LOWER SCORES	HIGHER SCORES
May lack appropriate social skills; withdrawn May struggle to understand or relate to others May not see how own emotions affect others Relationships may be of lower quality or depth May not be sensitive to the feelings of others	Seeks and maintains high-caliber relationships Sensitive to and cares for the needs of others Can predict how own emotions affect others Sociable, easy to approach Feels a responsibility to contribute to society, one’s social group or team

A healthy network of relationships gives one greater resources from which to gather information and process it accordingly and seek feedback in order to arrive at optimal solutions.

Decision Making Composite
LOWER SCORES	HIGHER SCORES
May not use emotional information effectively Emotions may hinder decision making May fall victim to rash behaviors/decisions Could struggle to remain objective May be derailed or biased by emotions	Leverages emotional information to make decisions Seeks and maintains high-caliber relationships Finds good ways of arriving at a solution Grounded; able to objectively size up a situation Can separate emotion-driven assumptions from fact Resists or delays impulses to act; methodical

Feeling competent, calm and grounded in one’s ability to use emotional information to make decisions renders one better equipped to deal with everyday stressors, without being derailed by emotions.

Stress Management Composite
LOWER SCORES	HIGHER SCORES
Struggle when faced with stress or change May often feel anxious or stressed May be rooted in tradition; resistant to change Pessimistic about the future Less hopeful and resilient	Calm and works well under pressure Resilient; draws from multiple coping strategies Optimistic about the future Cope well with the emotions associated with change and stress Adaptive; view change as a positive thing

Feeling resilient in the face of adversity and armed with an arsenal of coping strategies heightens feelings of self-security, confidence and a deeper understanding of oneself and one’s strengths.

Composite scales allow you to dig a little deeper into the results than the Total EI scores, but like Total EI, composite scales can still mask a high or low score on a given subscale. Therefore, focusing too much at the composite scale level may mean losing important information about the respondent’s performance on specific subscales.

back to top

print this section

The next level of interpretation is at the subscale level. While the Composite scale scores give a general indication of coping ability and present functioning, one can pinpoint specific strengths and weaknesses (which should be further explored through the debrief process) by examining the subscale scores. Subscales are the finest level of detail that you can see on the Profile Graph without getting into individual item responses (see Step 5, Interpret Item Responses).

Some characteristics to help you interpret each subscale score are shown below. Remember that the characteristics shown here are generalizations for lower and higher scores and are not a finite description of your client’s score. Take care to verify the characteristics listed here by examining the item level results after you have gained some comfort with the subscale scores and patterns on the Profile Graph.

	Lower Scores (<90)	Higher Scores (>110)
Self-Regard Respecting oneself; confidence	Uncertain of one’s abilities Lower self-confidence Lower motivation to achieve potential	Respects oneself, and believes in one’s own talents and strengths Well developed sense of identity Driven to achieve fullest potential
Self-Actualization Pursuit of meaning; self-improvement	May not make good use of strengths Focus is more on day to day tasks vs strategic, big picture plans May set lower personal goals	Appears to act with a greater purpose or plan On a quest of continual learning Self-motivated; sets inspiring goals
Emotional Self-Awareness Understanding own emotions	May not know why thoughts or feelings occur May struggle to label or define what one is feeling May appear detached from experiencing emotions	Can accurately label and describe one’s emotions Understands slight nuances between emotions Conscious of the impact emotions have on performance; gathers information from emotions
Emotional Expression Constructive expression of emotions	Uncomfortable expressing oneself through words, facial expressions or body language May appear withdrawn or uneasy in emotional situations Uses limited emotional vocabulary to express oneself	Comfortable expressing most if not all emotions Understands the benefits of emotional expression Uses a large emotional vocabulary to express oneself
Assertiveness Communicating feelings and beliefs; non-offensive	Passive, may keep thoughts and opinions to oneself May appear to be a team player although likely feels as if one’s voice is never heard May appear withdrawn or unable to articulate needs	Expresses thoughts and ideas without offending others Firm and direct when necessary Views his or her own rights and the rights of others as sacred; stands up for rights when necessary Pulls on emotions and convictions to take a definite stance
Independence Self-directed; free from emotional dependency	More of a follower than a leader Needs reassurance and support from others Relies heavily on others to make decisions; may skirt responsibility Prefers direction on how to do one’s job	Makes decisions on one’s own; emotionally independent from others Works without direction or reassurance from others Directive, decisive and accountable
Interpersonal Relationships Mutually satisfying relationships	Defensive, skeptical or closed to other people May not build bonds that include mutual give and take May be missing a network or resources to properly cope with demands Relationships may lack depth, trust or compassion	Invested in one’s relationships; maintains a healthy level of trust and compassion Sociable and generally fun to be with Builds authentic relationships and shares relevant information Has a network to draw on for support when faced with challenges
Empathy Understanding, appreciating how others feel	May struggle to understand how others feel May not recognize the impact one’s behavior has on others Insensitive to the needs of others Misreads/misinterprets others’ feelings	Aware of, and can appreciate the feelings of others Caring; compassionate Takes others into consideration before acting Reads people well
Social Responsibility Social consciousness; helpful	More an individualist than a collectivist More competitive than collaborative Cut off from social groups/issues May entertain antisocial attitudes	Interpersonally sensitive Co-operative; contributing and concerned about the welfare of others Upholds social rules/norms Concern for the greater good/team/community
Problem Solving Find solutions when emotions are involved	May be anxious or unable to get past the emotions involved in a problem May not draw information from emotions in order to solve problems Overwhelmed with the responsibility of making a decision Easily distracted by emotions	Understands how to use emotions to solve problems Maintains a clear focus on the problem at hand Chooses the best solution from among many options Focused demeanor
Reality Testing Objective; see things as they really are	May not validate thoughts/emotions against objective data Subjective; easily biased by emotions Sets unrealistic goals May see things the way one wishes they were and not what actually exists	Grounded; tuned-in to the situation at hand Objective Verifies one’s thoughts/emotions against other data Makes sensible decisions; sets realistic goals
Impulse Control Resist or delay impulse to act	Impulsive, impatient Overactive Uses an act now, think later approach to making decisions May respond in unpredictable ways to own emotions	Composed; calculative Deliberate; surveys a situation before acting Patient and calm; predictable behavior Avoids rash decision making Resists the emotional pressure to act
Flexibility Adapting emotions, thoughts and behaviors	Values tradition; uneasy with change Rigidity in thinking and behavior May be against change in general, or change in oneself May be unable to deal with the emotions associated with change	Open to change; views change as refreshing and necessary Compliant attitude; adaptable Rolls with the punches May be bored with the status quo
Stress Tolerance Coping with stressful situations	Emotions may get in the way of coping with stress Less tolerant of stress May experience tension, anxiety, poor concentration, physiological symptoms or feelings of hopelessness when faced with stress	Uses a variety of coping strategies to deal with stress Stays calm under pressure Manages emotions under stress Resilient and able to remain composed when times get tough
Optimism Positive attitude and outlook on life	May hold cynical or negative views of the world Expects and plans for the worst Sets goals that are likely to be conservative May hold defeatist attitudes; less resilient in the face of adversity	Views the world in a positive light Believes in oneself and others; sees the good in most things Inspiring Can see the light at the end of the tunnel and perseveres
Happiness Content; enjoys life	May currently be unhappy or not excited about one’s life Has difficulty enjoying life Withdrawn from social situations or friends Dispirited; worries a lot EI strengths in other areas may be dampened by one’s unhappiness; others are unlikely to see strengths through a cloak of dissatisfaction	Satisfied with life Pleasant to be around Spirited and enthusiastic about life in general Displays a healthy level of well-being EI strengths in other areas may be amplified by one’s happiness and satisfaction with life.

Dealing with Extreme EI Profiles

Consistently high or low scores across all subscales can be due to a response style that is overly positive or overly negative. Check the Positive and Negative Impression indices on the Response Style Explained page in the Coach’s report to determine if there are any validity concerns. Also, if all scores are very low, it is a good practice to confirm that the EQ-i 2.0 was taken in a language that the client understood. If neither of the impression indexes are flagged and the language was appropriate you may want to return to the profile graph and look for areas of relative strength or weakness. Even subscales that vary by a couple of points from one another may be interesting enough to warrant further exploration with the client.

High scoring subscales often need to be balanced by other subscales so that these behaviors are not overused. For example, one can imagine that having extremely high Assertiveness without the balancing effect of high Empathy could lead to an individual being perceived as aggressive, pushy or hostile. It is important to look for balance within your client’s profile, which is the next step in the interpretation sequence.

back to top

print this section

Once you have an overall sense of where your client’s subscale scores lie, you can begin to investigate subscales that may be out of balance with each other. Balance is important within the EQ profile because subscales that are higher can be tempered by other related subscales, and subscales that are lower can be bolstered by related subscales. Look for any subscales that are significantly higher or lower than others. A good rule of thumb to gauge whether a subscale is significantly different is to use the rule of 10. That is, 10 points between any two subscales indicates that the client is likely to exhibit one set of behaviors significantly more often than the other set. Two examples are shown below:

Example of Imbalance (at least 10 points difference)

1. Flexibility (126) and Impulse Control (90)
   • Eric receives very different scores for Flexibility and Impulse Control; 36 points difference to be exact. This difference would suggest that Eric might be highly adaptive but this coupled with a tendency to be impulsive (low Impulse Control score) might render him wishy-washy, scattered and non-committal. Eric would be in better balance if he was to strengthen his ability to control his impulses to act, thereby tempering his flexible nature.
2. Assertiveness (120) and Interpersonal Relationships (127)
   • Meg receives similar high scores on both the Assertiveness and Interpersonal Relationships subscales presenting a healthy balance between the way she expresses her thoughts and feelings and the emphasis she places on maintaining relationships. Although Meg will often be seen asserting herself and her thoughts, she is unlikely to do so at the expense of others due to the amount of compassion and consideration she has for her relationships. Meg should watch that these subscales remain in balance throughout her EI development efforts.

Pages 5–9 of the Coach’s section display your client’s results on balancing subscales2. Each subscale has three balancing subscales that are most critical to balance. Balancing subscales were chosen based on the relationship with the subscale of interest and whether the relationship is coachable and practical for clients to grasp.

In other words, a balancing subscale was not simply chosen because it had the highest correlation with the scale of interest, but it also had to make practical sense from a coaching perspective. For example, Assertiveness and Empathy are not strongly correlated, but this is a very logical and practical developmental area for someone who does not have balance between these subscales.

The three subscales chosen as balancers are shown in Table 8.5. Keep in mind that these are not the only relationships that are important for achieving balance within an EI profile. You may wish to explore any areas of balance or imbalance in your client’s report and the interconnectedness between all 15 subscales allows you to do just that.

Table 8.5. Balancing Your EI, the Relationships Between Scales

Self-Perception	Self-Expression	Interpersonal	Decision Making	Stress Management
Self-Regard Self-Actualization Problem Solving Reality Testing	Emotional Expression Interpersonal Relationships Assertiveness Empathy	Interpersonal Relationships Self-Actualization Problem Solving Independence	Problem Solving Flexibility Reality Testing Emotional Self-Awareness	Flexibility Problem Solving Independence Impulse Control
Emotional Self-Awareness Reality Testing Emotional Expression Stress Tolerance	Assertiveness Interpersonal Relationships Emotional Self-Awareness Empathy	Empathy Emotional Self-Awareness Reality Testing Emotional Expression	Reality Testing Emotional Self-Awareness Self-Regard Problem Solving	Stress Tolerance Problem Solving Flexibility Interpersonal Relationships
Self-Actualization Self-Regard Optimism Reality Testing	Independence Problem Solving Emotional Self-Awareness Interpersonal Relationships	Social Responsibility Self-Actualization Interpersonal Relationships Empathy	Impulse Control Flexibility Stress Tolerance Assertiveness	Optimism Self-Regard Interpersonal Relationships Reality Testing

back to top

print this section

After you have made note of any observations at the subscale level, the last level of analysis comes from the items themselves. The Coach’s report displays your client’s responses to every item on the EQ-i 2.0. Examining items may unearth specific concerns or areas of strength that are not clear at the subscale score level. Knowledge of item responses can:

• serve as a basis for discussion and further probing during the feedback process
• clarify discrepancies or surprises when the client doubts the subscale score
• inform specific development goals or steps to complete in your client’s action plan

Item level responses should not be:

• the sole basis for forming a conclusion about the client
• used to diagnose emotional problems
• examined in isolation from other items or the participant’s response style.

If you are using the EQ 360 2.0, now is the time to examine the feedback received from the multiple rater groups and how their perceptions support or differ from your client’s perception of his EI capabilities. First, you may want to work through the previous five steps with regard to  each rater group, looking for areas of strength and weakness as perceived by each group. However, the real benefit of the EQ 360 2.0, is in comparing the results from one rater group to another. Was your client rated similarly across groups or were there differences in perceptions of your client between the various rater groups?   Profile Patterns When interpreting the EQ 360 2.0, it is helpful to look at the similarity between raters and your client as well as the source of the biggest difference between raters and your client. This section describes the Closest Agreement and Biggest Gap sections as they appear in the Client report. Closest Agreement Consensus between the self scores and rater group scores indicates that self-perceptions about one’s EI strengths and weaknesses are accurate, or at the very least, observed by others in the same way. Subscales where scores are less than 10 points apart between self and raters (e.g., Empathy Self score = 100, Empathy Peers score = 97 and Empathy Manager score = 104) are considered in the 360 report to be areas of close agreement. Where there is agreement on an area of weakness (i.e., low scores across self and rater groups on a particular scale), this provides a highly informed basis for development of this EI skill. If scores coincide on the same EI skill weakness this provides a highly informed basis for developing in this area. Or, if using a strengths-based coaching approach, you may want to guide your client to further leverage strengths where both the client and the client’s raters have similar high-range scores. Biggest Gap Generally speaking, when scores on an EQ 360 2.0 subscale are more than 10 points apart (e.g., Empathy Self Score = 90, Empathy Peers Score = 111 and Empathy Manager Score = 79), there is a significant gap between how your client perceives her EI skills and how the same skills are observed by others. When rater groups provide higher scores than does your client, this is an indication that your client's emotional and social functioning is actually more effective than she thinks is the case, meaning your client could be underestimating her EI skills. When rater groups provide lower scores than your client does, this is an indication that your client's behavior typically misrepresents their EI skills, meaning your client could be overestimating their EI skills.

back to top

print this section

In order to augment findings obtained with the EQ-i 2.0, wherever possible consultants should use additional sources of information to help paint a clearer picture of the client’s emotional and social functioning. These additional sources might include observations, behavioral interviews, past discussions with the client, work performance reports/feedbacks, academic records or other psychological assessments and inventories. For more information on combining emotional intelligence and personality type, refer to Introduction to Type and Emotional Intelligence (Pearman, 2002). If you are using other EI assessments in conjunction with the EQ-i 2.0 (e.g., MSCEIT), refer to Emotional Intelligence in Action (Hughes, Patterson, & Terrell, 2005).

Obtaining supplemental data is especially important when the EQ-i 2.0 is being used to make selection and clinical decisions. When these additional sources of information are used, a richer, more comprehensive, and more powerful set of findings can be created for discussion with your client through the debrief process.

back to top

print this section

Providing a client with a copy of their EQ-i 2.0 report does not constitute appropriate feedback, nor does simply listing the client’s high and low scores from the profile graph. Although the shape of your EQ-i 2.0 feedback can take any form, it is your responsibility not only to share test results but also to share your interpretations of these results in language that is easy for your client to understand (APA, 1999).

Your feedback should include a discussion about your client’s overall degree of emotional intelligence and any notable strong and weak areas. Within this discussion, present working hypotheses about what the results might mean for your client and immediate situation. A working hypothesis is a non-definitive and non-diagnostic statement about a possible interpretation of your findings and can be used to initiate discussion about how a particular result applies to your client’s life. The term “working” is used because as the discussion progresses you will revise your hypotheses as your client reveals more information or examples of how their result manifests itself in the workplace, at home or in relationships, for example.

Example of a Working Hypothesis

“You might run into challenges with an imbalance between your Empathy and Assertiveness results. How do you see these subscales working for you? Do they ever work against you?”

Example of a Definitive Hypothesis

“Your Empathy score is significantly lower than your Assertiveness score which indicates that you are argumentative or insistent at work. Do you agree?”

Your objective is to confirm throughout the debrief process which of your working hypotheses are relevant and valid to your client. Be prepared to gather additional information on your hypotheses as you go, and reject, accept or throw out hypotheses as your client provides more details.

Based on the nature and degree of the lowest and highest subscale scores or any other subscale of interest to your client, you should be prepared to discuss development strategies and possible next steps to attain improvement in EI skills. Several development strategies are outlined in the client’s report, and your own professional recommendations can be used for emotional skills improvement. In order to obtain the most value from the EQ-i 2.0, the debrief process should end with next steps for the client, otherwise any findings and revelations will likely remain as personal insight but not progress into permanent personal growth.

Working hypotheses for an EQ 360 2.0 interpretation should examine areas of both agreement and disconnect among your client’s various rater groups. Presented below are some working hypotheses to get you started in interpreting your client’s EQ 360 2.0 results:  Self scores are significantly lower than rater group scores: Some individuals underestimate their ability to understand and express themselves. This tendency could be based on low self-awareness, low self-esteem, a lack of self-confidence, a different definition of a particular subscale, or higher expectations of what successful demonstration of that particular subscale would like Rater scores are significantly lower than self scores: Some individuals may overestimate their abilities, skills and performance when it comes to drawing on EI skills at work. This could be due to a misunderstanding of what success looks like, low self-awareness, egocentric needs, narcissism or an inability to view oneself as one really is (Reality Testing). The ratings of one rater group differ substantially from the others. Instances where scores from one rater group diverge in a notable way from the others may indicate that the participant behaves, and possibly performs, in a significantly different manner when interacting with individuals in that rater group. For example, if manager ratings are significantly lower for Assertivenes, when self and all other rater groups have provided a higher score, this may indicate that your client is less assertive when interacting with her manager, but is able to work assertively with colleagues and direct reports. In such cases it is important to explore the extent to which, and why, her performance is more or less effective within that particular work relationship. Also, consider the hypothesis that your client is consistent in their behavior, but that the rater group is either more or less familiar with your client’s performance compared to the other rater groups.

back to top