EQ-i 2.0 Stages of Development
The EQ-i® 2.0 is a revision of the EQ-i® (Bar-On, 1997, 2004). Both assessments are the products of a rigorous development process, further refining not only the very definition of EI but also the process by which it is measured. The assessment you see today, the EQ-i 2.0, has emerged from 30 years of research, and as the theory of EI has evolved, so too has the instrument and its application to the workplace. This page will begin with a short outline of the stages of development for the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997, 2004) so you may gain an appreciation of the assessment’s roots and the rationale behind the changes made in the revision process. The following sections will focus on the stages of development for the EQ-i 2.0.
This section details the stages of development3 for the EQ-i leading up to its release in 1997, and encapsulates changes through 2004. The EQ-i has been evolving since 1988, continuing up until the present revision of the EQ-i 2.0. The EQ-i was originally constructed to examine the determining factors of positive psychological well-being. It was based on the definition of emotional intelligence being a set of non-cognitive competencies and skills that influence one’s ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands (Bar-On, 1997).
In the early 1980s, a comprehensive research strategy was undertaken to examine various factors thought to be components of emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 2004). In the process of researching the many variables that underlie successful emotional functioning, a vast number of constructs were reviewed in the mental health literature. This survey of the literature confirmed Dr. Bar-On’s observations from years of clinical experience; that is, similar types of variables were being focused upon, even though they were often labeled and described in different ways. These broader variables could be reduced to a smaller number of key factors that could then be operationally defined in order to gain a clearer picture of the structure and major components of emotional intelligence.
Dr. Bar-On reviewed many theories and studies that focused on the key factors believed to be a part of emotional intelligence and their relationship to optimal, normal, or pathological emotional functioning. This approach was in line with one of the motivating factors for constructing the EQ-i—it represented a departure from earlier assessments that traditionally focused purely on pathological and/or normal (i.e., the lack of pathology) emotional functioning, while neglecting the optimal or successful end of the continuum (Bar-On, 1988).
The grouping of the key components was based on a logical and non-statistical clustering of the theories and studies that were reviewed. It involved analysis, grouping, and, finally, labeling. If factors were similar yet used different words, they were grouped together under one label. For example, independence, autonomy and self-directive would have been grouped under “Independence.”
What eventually emerged from this procedure were 11 factors thought to determine successful emotional functioning. These factors were as follows:
- Assertiveness
- Self Actualization
- Interpersonal Relationship
- Problem Solving
- Flexibility
- Happiness
- Self Regard
- Independence
- Social Responsibility
- Reality Testing
- Stress Tolerance
Four additional components of emotional intelligence were added during the twelve year period prior to publishing the 1997 version of the EQ-i. Specifically, the Impulse Control subscale was added because it clearly appeared in the literature as contributing to success in coping with environmental demands and pressures (Grinker 1956, 1962, 1969; Grinker & Werble 1974; Offer, 1973; D. Offer, Freedman, & J. L. Offer, 1972; Offer & Howard, 1972; D. Offer & J. L. Offer, 1975; Offer & Sabshin, 1974). The three other subscales that were added were Emotional Self-Awareness, Empathy, and Optimism. Emotional Self-Awareness was thought to be a distinct component of Self-Regard, so they were separated into two different subscales. Likewise, Empathy was originally thought to be part of the Interpersonal Relationship subscale, but was distinct enough that it deserved to be on its own separate subscale. Lastly, Optimism shared a conceptual connection with Happiness and Stress Tolerance. These three factors, in and of themselves, have been considered to be significant components of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995). Therefore, these subscales were added to the EQ-i based on logical, conceptual and, eventually, empirical considerations.
The following is a broad overview of the steps taken to construct the EQ-i:
- A pool of approximately 1,000 items was created from a survey of mental health literature and from working with psychologists and psychiatrists as subject matter experts.
- Items were then narrowed down and selected based on their conceptual and statistical fit to the fifteen EI factor definitions.
Item 133 (“I responded to every item in this inventory openly and honestly”) was added to justify invalidating the profile if the respondent indicated that he or she did not respond honestly. - Items were placed or sequenced in an order that revealed the least threatening items first to increase rapport with respondents. The remaining items were randomly scattered throughout the inventory.
- After considering many response options the following format was chosen:
- Scales detecting “test sabotaging” were added:
1 = Very Seldom or Not True of Me
2 = Seldom True of Me
3 = Sometimes True of Me
4 = Often True of Me
5 = Very Often True of Me or True of Me
- Positive and Negative Impression Index
- Inconsistency Index
- Consideration of omitted items
- Critical items (“I get depressed”) were added to detect respondents who may be suffering from emotional disturbance.
The final form of the EQ-i contained 133 items, comprised of fifteen subscales and three validity scales, with seven to nine items per subscale. - The norming process was carried out over a number of years in several countries (e.g., South Africa, Germany, Israel, Canada, U.S.). Responses from nearly 4,000 participants were collected and used as normative data, which included a diverse breakdown of age, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, gender, and occupational groups.
Each of these steps involved multiple conceptual and statistical analyses and data collection efforts. For further details on the history and stages of development for the EQ-i, refer to the EQ-i Technical Manual (Bar-On, 1997, 2004).
Stages of Development
The EQ-i 2.0 is a revision of the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997, 2004). In general, the development of the EQ-i 2.0 adopted many of the same aforementioned stages as the EQ-i, but each stage is explained in greater detail for the revised version. There are five broad stages to the development of the EQ-i 2.0:
- Define the goals of the revision (what needs to change and why).
- Conceptualize changes to subscales and create new subscales based on the latest EI research and practice using the EQ-i model.
- Define subscales.
- Build and pilot test the assessment.
- Conduct norming and subsequent data analyses to refine and confirm the assessment (e.g., factor analysis, examination of validity and reliability).
Stage 1: Define the Goals of the Revision
As demonstrated throughout this manual, the EQ-i has a long and storied history, attesting to its pivotal role in personal coaching, professional enhancement, selection, and leadership development. Despite the varied application and utility of the EQ-i, many lessons have been learned along the way, providing opportunities to refine the conceptual framework from which the EQ-i was derived. As a result, an extensive revision of the EQ-i was undertaken with the overarching goal of enhancing the psychometric properties, usability, and application of the tool, while staying true to the underlying tenets of emotional intelligence first introduced by Reuven Bar-On (1980, 1997).
First and foremost, the goal of this revision was to preserve the foundation and integrity of the EQ-i. The EQ-i has been extensively used in research and practice since 1997, resulting in more than 200 publications, including research articles and dissertations, books and book chapters, and trade publications, with more than a million applications of the EQ-i, impacting millions of people worldwide. The underlying tenets of the EQ-i are fundamental to its success and warrant retention. Both existing quantitative research and qualitative information collected from over 700 consultants have yielded significant feedback about the strengths and opportunities for improvement within the EQ-i. For example, the strengths have been listed as:
- The 1-5-15 Factor Structure
- The validity and reliability of the tool
- The emphasis placed on well-being and performance
- The subset of skills and abilities that are amenable to coaching
Conversely, there exist opportunities to improve and strengthen the EQ-i. As a result, the following goals guided all changes made to the assessment:
Goal |
Rationale |
|---|---|
| 1. Aligning items and response options |
|
2. Cleaning and clarifying item wording
|
|
| 3. Addressing non-unidimensional content scales |
|
| 4. Reducing interpretation issues associated with scales and their definitions |
|
| 5. Items appear on only one scale |
|
| 6. Increasing symmetry between EQ-i and EQ 360. |
|
| 7. Updating and diversifying norm sample |
|
| 8. Refining 1-5-15 factor structure and greater practicality at the composite level |
|
Each of these goals will be described in more detail. Keep in mind that many of these goals are intertwined such that when a change is made to address one area (e.g., address multi-dimensional content scales) it often impacts other goals (e.g., refining the 1-5-15 factor structure). Therefore, although these goals were established at the onset of the revision process, many of them continued to evolve through to the end of the norming stage.
Stage 2: Conceptualize Changes to Subscales
ITEM LEVEL CHANGES
In response to both qualitative and quantitative feedback, each of the original 133 items was examined by a team of test developers to determine its level of quality, clarity, and relevance. In doing so, a number of the items were revised and many new items developed, resulting in a test pool of more than 220 items. Some items in the development version were revised to address social/cultural bias and item content.
- Social/Cultural Bias. Given the worldwide accessibility of the EQ-i, the ever-increasing diversity of industrialized nations, and the multicultural composition of the global workforce, it is critical now, more than ever, that the EQ-i 2.0 remains free from cultural bias and jargon. The following example depicts the type of change made to address social/cultural bias.
Original EQ-i Item |
Bias |
Decision |
|---|---|---|
It’s hard for me to see people suffer |
In countries and cultures where suffering is more commonplace, this item proves difficult to interpret, especially where a tolerance may be developed for human struggles. |
Remove item. |
- Item Content. The original version of the EQ-i consisted of 133 items, including 7 items that made up the Negative Impression scale and Item 133, representing the final validity question. In response to the negative and/or clinical connotations and often ill-perceived implications of the Negative Impression index, the EQ-i: 125, a 125-item version of the standard EQ-i was released minus the Negative Impression items. Although this option was made available to help facilitate administration and improve the EQ-i experience in the corporate context, the exclusion of these items may have sacrificed relevant and often pivotal interpretive information. In response to this dilemma, the EQ-i 2.0 was designed to capture the benefits that a negative impression index offers by creating items for this index that avoided clinical, negative connotations. For example, negative impression items such as “I feel cut off from my body” and “I think I have lost my mind” were removed and replaced with “I have bad days” and “Things bother me.”
- To complement the changes to the Negative Impression index, each remaining item was scrutinized and amended if too lengthy, objectionable, or containing religious, sexual, suggestive, or political content. Results of the post-data collection item analyses resulted in moderate modifications to the content of each scale, unifying and clarifying scale content. In direct response to the empirical, theoretical, and practical implications of the item changes, the data collection item pool was eventually reduced to 133 items. In light of these alterations to the items and amendments to the response format as highlighted above, the resulting EQ-i 2.0 is still statistically comparable to the EQ-i (see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity and Appendix A).
SCALE LEVEL CHANGES
In addition to addressing several concerns at the item level, there remained room to refine the EQ-i at the composite and subscale levels using knowledge that has accumulated over time regarding emotional intelligence in general and the EQ-i specifically. Of primary concern was the frequency of double content scales and subscales with interpretation difficulties.
MULTI-DIMENSIONAL CONTENT SCALES
The goal of any one scale should be to measure a unified construct that captures the essence of a sound theoretically defined target, in this case a distinct component of emotional intelligence. Internal consistency (Cronbachs’s Alpha, Cronbach, 1951 or K-R 20 Kuder & Richardson, 1937) refers to the extent to which all items on a given scale are related. However, the larger issue for the practical application of an assessment is the homogeneity (i.e., sameness) and unidimensionality (i.e., oneness) that signify the extent to which all items on a scale measure a single underlying factor (Clark & Watson, 1995). Although a scale can consist of a number of related items without being homogeneous, a scale cannot be homogeneous without sufficiently similar items (Clark & Watson, 1995). Because the EQ-i is designed to measure several related facets of emotional intelligence, it is essential that each subscale remain unidimensional and each composite scale intercorrelated. By adhering to this simple principle, the overarching construct of emotional intelligence can be reliably measured by its well defined and unified component parts.
Notwithstanding the rigorous psychometric, theoretical, and applied steps taken during the development of the EQ-i, the Emotional Self-Awareness, Impulse Control, and Self-Regard subscales maintained excellent internal consistency but had distinct sub-components. For example, the Emotional Self-Awareness subscale was comprised of eight items, four of which addressed one’s self-awareness while the remainder addressed one’s ability to express oneself. In essence, Emotional Self-Awareness captured two highly related but separate skills. Impulse Control contained items that measured impulsivity and anger control, and Self-Regard captured one’s level of personal confidence and comfort with one’s physical self. Content scales that contain multiple facets present interpretation concerns and, more importantly, provide coaching and development challenges. The EQ-i 2.0 was revised with these limitations in mind and, as a result, each of the 15 subscales presents with one unified construct underpinning the general construct of emotional intelligence.
INTERPRETATION RELATED CONCERNS
A distinct benefit of the EQ-i is the applied nature of the conceptual model; it lends itself to coaching, and through it personal and professional development can be measured. Given that applicability, it was a goal of this revision to simplify and clarify interpretation ambiguity associated with Problem Solving and Happiness.
- Problem Solving. The Problem Solving subscale placed value and importance on one’s ability to remain pragmatic and didactic throughout the problem solving process. For example, a linear, step-by-step process for gathering information and weighing the pros and cons of a given situation, while considering alternative courses of action, was considered ideal. However, not all effective problem solvers engage in this style of problem solving. In fact, many top decision makers are required to make rapid decisions and must use emotional information to facilitate their problem solving. As a result, the EQ-i 2.0 was modified to address the process by which one engages emotions during problem solving, instead of focusing on one’s respective style for solving problems.
- Happiness. Happiness has proven to be fundamentally related to emotional intelligence. Although happiness has long been considered a component of emotional intelligence, research and application suggest that happiness is more likely a by-product of enhanced emotional intelligence. Furthermore, happiness itself is a difficult construct to operationalize and directly coach to. However, if you consider that factors such as Self-Regard, Interpersonal Relationships, Optimism, and Self-Actualization are intimately linked to happiness, one can better develop a plan for increasing feelings of happiness and contentment by overtly addressing these other behavioral aspects of emotional intelligence. As a result, happiness is viewed both as an indication of one’s well-being and a product of emotional intelligence, simplifying the interpretation and applied implications of one’s results.
Stage 3: Define Composite Scales and Subscales
The composite and subscales changes that occurred from a re-conceptualization of the EQ-i framework and item level adjustments resulted in the EQ-i 2.0 composite scales and subscales being operationally refined. The test developers aimed to be as comprehensive as possible by incorporating the most significant aspects of contributions made by theorists and researchers over the last several decades. Another important aim was to define scales as clearly, operationally, and distinctly as possible. This step was undertaken to strengthen the foundations of the assessment from the onset so that its validity would stand up to examination by subsequent statistical procedures (e.g., reliability, validity; see Jackson, 1971; Loevinger, 1957).
Professional and theoretical jargon was avoided to create clearly worded and comprehensible definitions that would resonate with the test-taker and the person providing feedback. Definitions that were too abstract, esoteric, and cryptic were rejected. Scales undergoing significant changes to their definitions are shown below:
- Self-Perception (new composite scale)
- Self-Expression (new composite scale)
- Decision Making (new composite scale)
- Emotional Expression (new subscale)
- Problem Solving
- Impulse Control
Stages 1 to 3 laid the theoretical foundations upon which the EQ-i 2.0 was developed. Building on this framsework, the next two stages describe how the EQ-i 2.0 was actually constructed and designed to measure the psychological characteristics of EI, while staying true to the underlying tenets of the original EQ-i.
Stage 4: Build and Pilot Test the Assessment
The fourth stage of development consisted of the actual construction of the first (i.e., pilot) version of the EQ-i 2.0. The construction was carried out by selecting items based on the above-mentioned operationally defined factors, deciding upon the exact placement of these items within the inventory, developing a response format, and creating validity scales. This process is similar to that used for the original EQ-i, described in detail by Bar-On (2004). Each step is briefly described below.
For the EQ-i 2.0, the pilot item pool consisted of 221 items. This number was selected to provide adequate coverage of all content areas, while ensuring the length of the inventory was practical for respondents in the pilot testing phase to complete in a reasonable amount of time. A balance was maintained between items phrased in a positive manner and items stated in a negative fashion, so that individuals who respond positively or negatively to all items indiscriminately can be easily detected.
Pilot testing (see the EQ-i 2.0 Pilot Study and Standardization section in Standardization, Reliability, and Validity) was performed to ensure the practical functionality of the assessment (e.g., administration time, instructions, etc.) and to examine the psychometric properties of the items and scales. Statistical analyses were conducted to eliminate items that may have been too confusing, showed little variability in responses, lacked face and construct validity, or were redundant with better performing items.
ITEM ORDER
After items were selected for the inventory, they were arranged in a random order. This order was then revised slightly based on practical considerations. Specifically, the least threatening, negative, or emotionally-laden items were presented at the beginning of the inventory. This was done to increase rapport with the respondents and eliminate any potential for intimidation. Within this random order, a rotation process was used to ensure items from identical subscales did not appear in succession.
RESPONSE OPTIONS & DOUBLE NEGATIVES
Throughout the history of the EQ-i the response options have been subject to examination and have been amended based on feedback from respondents, research findings, as well as practical and applied considerations. The original response format consisted of a 7-point Likert self-rating scale:
1 = Always True of Me
2 = Very Often True of Me
3 = Often True of Me
4 = Sometimes True of Me
5 = Seldom True of Me
6 = Very Seldom True of Me
7 = Never True of Me
The first modification to the response options included reversing the direction of the response format to better align with a more intuitively perceived progression of behavior from less to more. As a result, the response option “Never” was adjusted to align with the smallest response option value (i.e., 1) on the rating scale, while the ”Always” response option was moved to align with the highest value on the rating scale (i.e., 7). A second revision to the rating scale resulted in a shortening of the response options from a 7-point scale to a 5-point scale, with moderate modifications made to the extreme poles of the rating scale. The idea of joining “True of Me” with “Very True of Me” and “Not True of Me” with “Very Seldom True of Me” was a way of reducing the burden to the respondent while maintaining a discriminating response set. The changes resulted in:
1 = Very Seldom or Not True of Me
2 = Seldom True of Me
3 = Sometimes True of Me
4 = Often True of Me
5 = Very Often True of Me or True of Me
Despite the positive changes to the response set, there remained a disconnect between some of the items on the EQ-i and the available response options. For example, several items, when paired with the original EQ-i response options, resulted in a double negative which was problematic for some respondents.
EQ-i Item |
Response |
Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| “I don’t do anything bad in my life” |
|
The respondent does not do this behavior, which in this case means that he would in fact do bad things in his life. |
To resolve these issues, the response set was simplified and items were carefully worded or re-worded to avoid double negative situations and make the tool as easy to use as possible. The new response options are:
1 = Never/Rarely
2 = Occasionally
3 = Sometimes
4 = Often
5 = Always/Almost Always
Stage 5: Conduct Norming and Subsequent Data Analyses to Refine and Confirm the Assessment
Various statistical analyses were performed during the course of EQ-i 2.0 construction to ensure that the assessment is of the highest statistical and measurement standards. A majority of these analyses were run following the collection of the normative sample.
NORMING
Since the release of the EQ-i in 1997, the population demographics of North America have changed considerably. To remain current and representative, the normative sample (i.e., baseline) must reflect these changes. In response, the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample consists of 4,000 respondents who are representative of the current North American population, including by age, gender, race, ethnicity, and educational level. For a more detailed breakdown of the EQ-i 2.0 demographics and normative process please refer to Standardization, Reliability, and Validity.
DATA ANALYSES
Once the normative sample was complete, multiple analyses were conducted to establish the psychometric properties of the EQ-i 2.0 and further refine the assessment to reach its present form. Standardization, Reliability, and Validity provides a thorough explanation of the analyses conducted, including:
- Standardization
- Reliability
- Content Validity
- Factor Structure (1-5-15)
- Relationships between EQ-i 2.0 and Other Measures
- Group Difference in EQ-i 2.0 Scores
- Validity Scale Research and Analysis
The final form of the EQ-i 2.0 has 133 items, composed of 15 subscales, 1 Well-Being Indicator, and 3 validity scales, with 6 to 9 items per subscale. The 15 subscales are further grouped into 5 composite scales, with 3 subscales contained in each. The composite scales each contain 23 or 24 items. The subscales were grouped into these composite scales based on their statistical and theoretical relatedness and are combined to create the overall EQ-i 2.0 Total EI Score. A sixteenth subscale, Happiness, is not scored as part of this overall score but is considered a highly relevant and related Well-Being Indicator. The Positive Impression and Negative Impression validity scales contain the same 6 items; these items do not overlap with any of the items in the subscales/composite scales. The Inconsistency Index contains 20 items drawn from items in the subscales/composite scales.
The English language version of the EQ-i 2.0 is simple and straightforward and has been determined to sit between a third and fourth grade reading level at 3.6 (Flesch, 1948; Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, & Chissom, 1975). As described in the Introduction, statistical analyses were performed that describe the EQ-i 2.0’s standardization and examine its reliability and validity.