Dutch Norms
The release of the Dutch EQ-i 2.0 General Population Norms provides users with the ability to score their clients against data collected from the Netherlands. This chapter provides normative and psychometric information particular to the Dutch population. The EQ-i 2.0 assessment remains unchanged, but an additional normative sample is now available (the original North American normative samples are described in detail in Standardization, Reliability, and Validity; information about normative data from other countries is available in Additional Norms).
| This chapter describes the development of the EQ-i 2.0 Dutch normative sample. For information on the EQ-i 2.0, including administration, interpretation, and development of the North American Norms, please refer to Parts I–V of the EQ-i 2.0 User’s Handbook. |
The EQ-i 2.0 data were collected from 1,000 Dutch respondents, with approximately equal proportions of genders within five age intervals from across the country. Several small- to medium-sized effects were found for gender. Women scored higher than men on the Empathy, Emotional Self-Awareness, Emotional Expression, and Interpersonal Relationships subscales, as well as the Interpersonal composite; men scored higher than women on the Stress Tolerance, Problem Solving, Self-Regard, and Independence subscales, as well as the Decision Making composite. Small-sized effects were also seen across age groups for the Emotional Self-Awareness, Independence, Interpersonal Relationships, Social Responsibility, Problem Solving, Impulse Control, and Stress Tolerance subscales, as well as the Decision Making composite. This led to the creation of both overall norms and age- and gender-specific norms. Finally, EQ-i 2.0 scores were found to be reliable in the Dutch sample, and the factor structure that was developed in North America was closely approximated with the Dutch sample data. Further details regarding these results are provided in the EQ-i 2.0 Dutch Norms – Standardization section below.
The following sections describe the psychometric properties of the EQ-i 2.0 Dutch General Population Norms, including standardization, reliability, and validity information.
| All tables and figures representing detailed depictions of the analyses described in this chapter are available in Appendix K. |
NORMATIVE SAMPLE
Data for the EQ-i 2.0 Dutch General Population Norm sample (N = 1,000) were collected from December 2014 to May 2015. Data were collected as part of an initiative intended specifically to create the Dutch norms. The demographic composition of the normative sample is shown in Tables K.1 to K.6. All respondents were asked to provide age, gender, geographic region, education level, student status, and employment information (i.e., employment status and occupation area).
The normative data were collected across five age ranges, stratified to match age-by-gender targets obtained from the 2014 Netherlands Census (see Table K.1). All respondents were current residents of the Netherlands. Data were collected from all regions of the Netherlands (see Table K.2 for the breakdown by region and Table K.3 for the breakdown by province).
Within the sample, 7.6% (76 individuals) identified themselves as students. Many respondents (40.4%) had taken some form of post-secondary education (either at the higher professional or university level; see Table K.4). Most respondents were employed/ self-employed or retired (71.4%; see Table K.5). The breakdown by occupation area of the employed respondents is shown in Table K.6, with the largest proportions working in the areas of Health Care and Social Assistance (23.6%), Business Services (13.3%), and Trade (12.2%).
NORMING PROCEDURES
The first step in the preparation of the EQ-i 2.0 General Population Dutch Norms was to determine if any age or gender trends existed in the data. A series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs, for the Total EI score) and multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs, for the composites and subscales) were used to examine the relationships between gender, age, and the EQ-i 2.0 scores. To better control for Type I errors that might occur with multiple analyses, a more conservative criterion of p < .01 was used for all F-tests to assess statistical significance. These results are described in detail below.
Gender Effects. Results of the gender analyses showed that men and women did not differ significantly in their Total EI scores (d = -0.02), indicating that overall emotional intelligence, as measured by the EQ-i 2.0, is about the same for men and women. However, small- to medium-sized effects were seen on a number of subscales (see Table K.7 for effect sizes and Table K.8 for descriptive statistics and significance test results). The largest gender difference seen in the Dutch normative sample was on the Empathy subscale, with women scoring higher than men with a moderate effect size (d = -0.59). Smaller differences were found for women scoring higher than men on the Interpersonal composite (d = -0.44), and the Emotional Self-Awareness (d = -0.37), Emotional Expression (d = -0.36), and Interpersonal Relationships (d = -0.23) subscales. Men scored higher than women with small effects on the Stress Tolerance (d = 0.42), Problem Solving (d = 0.33), Self-Regard (d = 0.27), and Independence (d = 0.20) subscales, as well as the Decision Making composite (d = 0.21).
Age Effects. Significant differences across age groups with small-sized effects were found on eight of the scales. The largest effects were seen on the Problem Solving (partial η2 = .026), Impulse Control (partial η2 = .026), and Independence (partial η2 = .021) subscales, as well as the Decision Making composite (partial η2 = .025). The typical pattern of age effects for these scales showed that EQ-i 2.0 scores increased as age increased (i.e., EI was higher for older participants), often with the highest scores obtained by the 40–49 and 50–59 age groups, followed by a decrease in scores for the oldest group. A different pattern was found for the Emotional Self-Awareness (partial η2 = .014) and Interpersonal Relationships (partial η2 = .014) subscales, where scores decreased with age. See Table K.7 for effect sizes and Table K.9 for descriptive statistics and significance test results.
Gender × Age Interactions. Most scales showed substantially meaningful interaction effects, with small- to medium-sized effects. See Table K.7 for effect sizes. Across the scales, various patterns emerged based on age and gender categories. For example, the largest effects were found on the Empathy (partial η2 = .087), Stress Tolerance (partial η2 = .058), Problem Solving (partial η2 = .057), and Emotional Self-Awareness (partial η2 = .054) subscales, as well as the Interpersonal composite (partial η2 = .051). For Empathy, women scored higher than men in each age group, but while scores for men tended to increase with age, scores for women peaked at the 40–49 age interval and then decreased. For Stress Tolerance, scores for men were higher than for women at all ages. However, there was a slightly different trend for men than for women. For both genders, the youngest age groups obtained the lowest Stress Tolerance scores, and scores tended to increase and then fall back down; however, the apex for men appeared at the 40–49 age interval, while women peaked at 30–39. Overall, these trends for gender and age suggest that age and gender norms be created.
Norm Groups and Norm Construction. As seen with all other EQ-i 2.0 norm releases to date (i.e., North America, UK and Ireland, Australia, South Africa, Sweden, Denmark, and Global), the age and gender analyses revealed a number of significant effects. Therefore, specific Age and Gender General Population Norms, as well as Overall General Population Norms (i.e., collapsed across age groups and genders), were both developed.
Results revealed that skewness and kurtosis values were not large enough to suggest that a normalizing transformation was necessary (skewness values ranged from -0.93 to -0.21; kurtosis values ranged from -0.30 to 0.94), and an examination of the scale histograms did not reveal any significant departures from a bell-shaped (Gaussian) curve (Figure K.1 shows a histogram for the EQ-i 2.0 Dutch normative sample Total EI score). Actual construction of the norms was conducted in the same manner as with the North American Norms, including the use of statistical smoothing (see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity for more information on the construction of the North American General Population Norms).
Internal Consistency
Internal consistency, which is a measure of reliability, conveys the degree to which a set of items are associated with one another. A high level of internal consistency suggests that the set of items are measuring a single, cohesive construct. Internal consistency is typically measured using Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Cronbach's alpha ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 and is a function of both the interrelatedness of the items in a test or scale and the length of the test or scale (John & Benet-Martinez, 2000). Higher values reflect higher internal consistency.
Cronbach's alpha values for the EQ-i 2.0 scales for the Dutch normative sample are presented in Table K.10. Although there is no universal criterion for a “good” alpha value, informal cutoffs for evaluating alpha are typically as follows: .90 is “excellent,” .80 is “good,” .70 is “acceptable,” and lower than .70 is “questionable.” The values shown in Table K.10 demonstrate acceptable to excellent reliability, and are particularly favorable given the small number of items included in most subscales, as longer scales tend to have higher alpha values. For the overall norm group, the alpha value of the Total EI scale was .96, while values for the composite scales ranged from .85 to .91 and values for the subscales ranged from .71 to .90. Similar patterns were seen across the age and gender normative groups, including a Total EI alpha value of .95 or higher for each group.
The high level of internal consistency found in the Total EI score supports the idea that the EQ-i 2.0 items are measuring a single, cohesive construct, namely emotional intelligence. The same can be said of the individual components of emotional intelligence that make up the EQ-i 2.0 (i.e., the composite scales and subscales).
Factorial Validity
EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine whether the subscales established with the North American EQ-i 2.0 normative data empirically emerge from the Dutch normative dataset. Five EFAs were conducted to analyze the items within each composite scale separately. In each EFA, a three-factor solution was estimated to examine whether the items corresponding to each subscale within the composite also loaded together in the Dutch normative data. As with the North American normative data, principal axis factoring extraction was used with direct oblimin (i.e., oblique) rotation, as the factors within each composite were expected to correlate with each other. Reverse scoring was applied to relevant items prior to the analysis. Factor loadings were considered significant if they were at least ± .30, and an item was defined as cross-loading if it was significant on more than one factor and had loadings within .10 of each other on those factors.
For the Self-Perception Composite EFA, all items on the Self-Actualization and Emotional Self-Awareness subscales loaded significantly onto their respective factors, as expected by the established factor structure, with no cross-loadings. All the expected items also loaded on the Self-Regard scale, although one item loading (Item 128) was slightly below the .30 threshold (.26).
For the Self-Expression Composite EFA, all Assertiveness items loaded significantly onto their factor with the exception of one item (Item 3), which loaded onto Independence. Similarly, all Independence items loaded onto their respective factor, but one item (Item 114) cross-loaded onto Assertiveness. Finally, all Emotional Expression items loaded onto their factor.
For the Interpersonal Composite EFA, most items for the Interpersonal Relationships and Empathy subscales loaded significantly onto their respective factors, with the exception of one Interpersonal Relationships item (Item 41) that cross-loaded onto Empathy, and one (Item 52) that had a loading slightly below the .30 threshold for the Empathy subscale (.26). Further, all Social Responsibility items loaded onto their expected factor with the exception of one item (Item 20), which had a loading just slightly below the cut-off criterion for loading magnitude (.29) and cross-loaded onto Empathy.
For the Decision Making Composite EFA, most items for the Problem Solving, Reality Testing, and Impulse Control subscales loaded as expected onto their respective factors, with the exception of two Impulse Control items that failed to load onto their expected factor: One item (Item 111) instead loaded onto Reality Testing (.49), and another item (Item 2) loaded onto Problem Solving (.37).
For the Stress Management Composite EFA, all items for the Flexibility, Stress Tolerance, and Optimism subscales loaded onto their respective factors, with one Optimism item (Item 35) cross-loading onto Flexibility.
For the most part, the EFAs generated solutions that strongly correspond to the established EQ-i 2.0 factor structure, with most items for each subscale loading onto their expected factors (i.e., 109 out of 118 items). These results demonstrate validity for the use of the existing EQ-i 2.0 factor structure with the Dutch population.
CORRELATIONS AMONG EQ-i 2.0 COMPOSITE SCALES AND SUBSCALES
Correlations among the EQ-i 2.0 composite scales and subscales were examined, and it was expected that these correlations would generally be high, given that they are all measuring the same underlying construct of emotional intelligence; however, they should not be so high as to indicate redundancy between the scales. Correlations observed in the Dutch normative sample are presented in Table K.11 (composite scales) and Table K.12 (subscales).
The composite scale correlations ranged from r = .35 (between Decision Making and Interpersonal) to r = .72 (between Stress Management and Self-Perception, as well as between Self-Expression and Self-Perception), with an average correlation of r = .59.
For the subscales, correlations ranged from r = .00 (between Impulse Control and Social Responsibility) to r = .78 (between Happiness and Optimism), with an average correlation of r = .39. As highlighted in Table K.12, average subscale correlations within composite scales ranged from r = .32 for Decision Making to r = .53 for Stress Management.
These results support the notion that a single, underlying dimension is being represented in the EQ-i 2.0; however, the variations and values of the correlations indicate that the multiple subscales are not redundant with each other and provide evidence for the multidimensional nature of the assessment, as well as support for the existence of composite scales and subscales. The relationships among scales observed here are similar to patterns seen with the previous EQ-i 2.0 norms released to date (i.e., North America, UK and Ireland, Australia, South Africa, Sweden, Denmark, and Global).