Part IV: Using the Results
Understanding the Results
Step 1: Assess the Validity of the Results
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. A similar omission rate is calculated at the composite and subscale level, where an Omission Rate of 8% or higher renders the results for any particular scale 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
