Part IV: Using the Results

Understanding the Results

Step 5: Interpret Item Responses

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.