Part I: Getting Started with the EQ-i 2.0

Introduction

What's New in the EQ-i 2.0

First and foremost, the goal of this revision was to preserve the foundation and integrity of the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997). The EQ-i has been extensively used in research and practice since being formally published in 1997, resulting in more than 200 published research articles and abstracts impacting millions 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 with the EQ-i. Based on this information, some of the strengths of the EQ-i are the

• sound factor structure,
• extensive research base,
• validity and reliability of the tool,
• emphasis placed on well-being and performance, and

subset of skills and abilities that are amenable to coaching.
At the same time, opportunities were identified to improve and strengthen the EQ-i. As a result, emphasis was placed on the following:

• Improving the alignment between the items and response options
• Enhancing international applicability by eliminating North American idioms
• New and representative normative sample
• Refining the factor structure, including
  • Revising the names and makeup of the composite scales to make them more intuitive and more amenable to coaching
  • Ensuring unidimensional constructs
  • Ensuring each item appears on only one subscale
  • Revising scales with interpretation and coaching restrictions
  • Improving the validity scales and clarifying their utility
• Increasing the symmetry between the EQ‑ 2.0 and the EQ 360 2.0
• Improving the reports, including
  • Eliminating the use of clinical language and technical jargon
  • Revising the narrative interpretation of each subscale
  • Designing a “Balancing Your EI” section
  • Improving the Coach’s version of the report to facilitate better feedback and decision making
• Reducing set-up and scoring time by redesigning the user interface of the web application to make it more intuitive

The revision and development of the EQ-i 2.0 involved many steps. This process is described in detail in EQ-i 2.0 Stages of Development. For more information about the rationale behind the changes to the EQ-i model of emotional intelligence (Bar-On, 1997), please see The EQ-i 2.0 Framework. The notable enhancements to the EQ-i 2.0 are highlighted below, beginning with a side-by-side comparison of the EQ-i and EQ-i 2.0 factor structure (Figure 1.2), set-up and administration, assessment details, scoring, and interpretation.

Figure 1.2. Side-by-side comparison of the EQ-i and EQ-i 2.0

Set-Up and Administration

The EQ-i 2.0 is administered using a different online scoring platform than its predecessor. The following table compares set-up and administration differences between the 2.0 and the original version. Full administration details are provided in EQ-i 2.0 Setup and Scoring and EQ 360 2.0 Setup and Scoring.

Table 1.1. What’s New in Administering the EQ-i 2.0

	EQ-i (1997)	EQ-i 2.0 (2011)
Administration Options	Online Windows desktop software Paper-and-pencil forms	Online E-Paper (generate a paper form from your online account and key the results back into the system for online reporting).
Online Assessment	MHS Scoring Organizer platform, in which you created Groups to organize your participants.	EQ-i 2.0 Portal platform, in which you can tag participants using keywords and search without using a hierarchical filing structure.
Inviting EQ-i Participants	The administrator created a unique 10-digit login code and password which gave participants access to the EQ-i. This information was usually copied into the administrator’s email program for distribution.	The administrator enters the names and email addresses of participants into the system. The system emails participants a unique link to take the EQ-i 2.0. You can upload a spreadsheet of multiple participants to save setup time.
Inviting EQ 360 Participants	The administrator created a unique login code and password that gave raters access to the EQ 360. This step was repeated for each EQ-i participant.	EQ-i 2.0 participants nominate their own raters while taking the EQ-i 2.0. Raters are automatically emailed with a unique link to take the EQ 360 2.0.

Assessment Details

The EQ-i 2.0 was standardized using new items, resulting in some changes to the assessment and its factor structure (the way the subscales are grouped into composite scales). Table 1.2 shows a summary of the changes to the 2.0 model. Please refer to The EQ-i 2.0 Framework for full details.

Table 1.2. What’s New in the EQ-i 2.0 Assessment and Model

	EQ-i (1997)	EQ-i 2.0 (2011)
Response Scale	Compound response options. Participants chose from five possible responses ranging from “Very seldom or not true of me” to “Very often true of me or true of Me”	Simplified response options. Participants choose from five responses indicating frequency ranging from “Never/Rarely” to “Always/Almost Always”
Reading Comprehension	North American sixth-grade reading level. Test contained double negatives which can lower comprehension.	North American fourth-grade reading level allows for greater reading comprehension for participants whose first language is not English. Eliminates double negatives to ensure reading ease.
Cultural Applicability	At the item level, international populations responded differently to certain statements due to different cultural standards/experiences.	Problematic items and North American idioms were replaced with more universal statements to minimize cultural bias.
Double Content Scales	Some subscales measured two distinct components (e.g., Impulse Control was comprised of Anger Management and Impulsivity items), making interpretation tricky and necessitating analysis of responses at the item level.	Subscales measure only a single construct allowing for easier interpretation and more cohesive constructs.
Double Content Items	Some items belong to two different subscales.	Items belong to only one subscale, allowing for a more intuitive interpretation.
Number of Items	Two versions of the EQ-i were available: a 133-item version, and a 125-item version that omitted the Negative Impression items.	No more clinical-sounding Negative Impression items, therefore only one version of the assessment containing 133 items.
EQ 360 Items	125 or 133 EQ-i items were different from the 88 items of the EQ 360 observer form.	Each of the EQ-i 2.0 items has a corresponding EQ 360 2.0 item. Participants see that raters responded to the same statements, which makes feedback more credible.
Critical Items	Six items to help to identify problem areas such as depressive conditions, psychotic states, and potential for losing control.	Removed all critical items. EQ-i 2.0 items no longer assess potentially psychotic states, nor directly expose times of crises or serious emotional problems.
Adjusted/ Unadjusted Scores	A correction factor designed to adjust for response bias yielded two sets of scores.	No adjusted scores. Interpretation is simpler with one set of scores to examine.

Scoring

Table 1.3 shows a summary of the changes to they way that EQ-i 2.0 results are scored compared to its predecessor.

Table 1.3. What’s New in Scoring the EQ-i 2.0

	EQ-i (1997)	EQ-i 2.0 (2011)
Report Transactions	Administrators pre-purchased report “uses”. The corresponding use was decremented each time a report was scored/generated.	Administrators can purchase tokens which can be used to generate any EQ-i 2.0 report (i.e., tokens are not report specific).
Comparison Sample (Norm Group)	EQ-i scores are compared to a group of 3,831 respondents based on the 1994 US Census.  EQ 360 scores are compared to 1,900 other raters. Samples are representative within 5–13 % of the 1994 U.S. census.	EQ-i 2.0 scores are compared to a group of 4,000 demographically representative respondents based on Canadian and U.S. census figures (i.e., Statistics Canada, 2006; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2008) EQ 360 2.0 scores are compared to 3,200 other raters. A higher education sample of 1,800 students is stratified by academic program and year of study. Samples are more representative of the population (within 4–5 % of census).
Age Effects	Standardization sample grouped all those aged 50+ in one category, suggesting an apparent drop off in EQ later in life.	Standardization sample includes a representative mix of adults in the 50–64 and 65+ age ranges. Average EQ is seen to increase through to retirement.
Scoring Guidelines	Whether a respondent’s score placed him/her in the low, average, or high functioning range varied in older reports. Scores were available on only some reports.	Scores and their descriptors can be turned off/on by the administrator and are consistent amongst reports: < 90 = Low Range 90–110 = Mid-Range > 110 = High Range
Response Style	Results could be labeled “invalid” or “possibly invalid” if responses failed to meet certain parameters.	A newly designed Response Style Explained section in the Coach’s reports flags areas for further investigation, such as short completion time or elevated positive impression. Possible interpretations are suggested so you don’t have to refer to your manual. The system does not invalidate results algorithmically.

Interpretation

Results for EQ-i 2.0 assessments are provided in a fully revised set of reports. The original EQ-i reports (e.g., resource and individual summary reports) are not available for 2.0, nor can assessments from the original version be scored using the 2.0. Table 1.4 shows a summary of the changes to the 2.0 results and interpretation resources. Full report details are provided in The EQ-i 2.0 Framework.

Table 1.4. What’s New in Interpreting the EQ-i 2.0

	EQ-i (1997)	EQ-i 2.0 (2011)
Model (Factor Structure)	Please refer to The EQ-i 2.0 Framework.	Please refer to The EQ-i 2.0 Framework.
Report Options	Administrators choose from several types of reports depending on what information they wish to provide to the client.	Administrators can turn on or off scores, descriptors, and special pages to tailor the feedback report. You can save your favorite report options as a template for reuse.
Customizing Reports	Reports are available as PDF or RDF files, which can be manually altered on a per-case basis. Custom-built reports available but cumbersome to use.	Flexible, customizable PDF reports allow you to add your own logo, report title, and template. You can apply these customizations to one or many reports at a time.
Workplace Relevancy	Examples of behaviors are general enough to apply to work or home.	Newly crafted Impact at Work and Strategies for Action sections give the respondent workplace-specific examples for every subscale.
Coach’s Report Item Summary	The number of each item is provided along with the response. Administrators must refer to the manual for the item text.	Participants’ responses are provided alongside the item text to facilitate item-level interpretation.
Manual	Administrators choose from several hardcopy manuals that contain different amounts of psychometric data. The EQ 360 2.0 Technical Manual must be purchased separately.	Setup, scoring, and interpretation instructions for EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0 are combined in one online User’s Handbook, which you can search and print.
Certification	Three-day, in-class certification, with some exceptions. EQ 360 2.0 certifications conducted separately.	Blended learning option (e-learning + in-class) minimizes travel time and expense. Online classroom and exam provide a support network in a sophisticated Learning Management System environment. EQ 360 2.0 certification is included as part of the EQ-i 2.0 workshop.
Support	MHS Client Services available by phone or email; some EQ-i 2.0 resources available upon request only.	Coach and Client Reports offer new interpretive content and additional sections to help coaches with debriefing. Join the MHS Community on the EQ-i 2.0 Portal to access additional best practices, and get answers to your questions from experienced coaches, researchers, and HR professionals.