Part V: creating the EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0

Standardization, Reliability, and Validity

EQ 360 2.0 Reliability

Similar to the EQ-i 2.0, reliability analyses were conducted for the EQ 360 2.0. Specifically, internal consistency and test-retest reliability analyses were performed. A practical application of these analyses is to detect discrepancies between self (EQ-i 2.0) and rater (EQ 360 2.0) scores.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency conveys the degree to which a set of items are associated with one another. High levels of internal consistency suggest that the items are measuring a single, cohesive construct. Internal consistency is typically measured using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951), which ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 with higher values reflecting higher internal consistency.
Cronbach’s alpha values for the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample are displayed in Table A.48. Similar to results found in the EQ-i 2.0 normative samples, most of these values ranged from good to excellent for the Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales, with all but one value reaching at least .82.

SELF-TO-RATER GAPS: Comparing EQ-i 2.0 to EQ 360 2.0 Scores

The EQ 360 2.0 report includes a section that compares scores from self-ratings to scores from the rater groups. The process used to calculate confidence intervals and gaps between subscales for the EQ-i 2.0 report was again used to determine if the self to rater comparison revealed similar scores, or gaps between scores. Considering statistical results as well as practical functionality, results revealed that a critical value of 10 points was appropriate as the criterion for identifying self-to-rater gaps. This value is actually slightly smaller than those suggested by the statistical analyses, but was selected so that the user can be confident they are identifying any potentially important discrepancies between self and observer ratings of EI abilities. For example, self-report and rater-group subscale scores less than 10 points apart will be reported as being similar, while subscale scores that are 10 or more points apart will be reported as having a gap.

Test-Retest Reliability and Stability

Similar to the EQ-i 2.0, test-retest reliability and stability were evaluated for the EQ 360 2.0. Test-retest reliability was calculated by examining the correlation between an individual’s scores in two assessments, separated by a meaningful amount of time. Test-retest stability analyses were performed by calculating the difference between Time 1 and Time 2 standard scores for each individual in the test-retest sample.

For the EQ 360 2.0 sample, test-retest data was available for 203 individuals who were assessed roughly three weeks apart (mean    interval = 19.30 days, SD = 2.44 days, range = 14–23 days). Demographic characteristics of the ratees (i.e., the people being rated) in the retest sample are displayed in Table A.49. Test-retest correlations (Table A.50) were high for the EQ 360 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales, ranging from r = .76 to .89.

Similar to the EQ-i 2.0, EQ 360 2.0 test-retest stability values were calculated as the difference between Time 1 and Time 2 standard scores. Table A.51 displays the frequencies of these differences (positive differences indicate that scores increased over time whereas negative differences indicate that scores decreased over time), as well as the mean differences (i.e., the difference between Time 1 and Time 2 ratings for each individual averaged across the samples) and the 95% confidence intervals surrounding the mean differences. The results suggest scores were similar to those found in the EQ-i 2.0 samples: for all subscales, roughly 90% or more of individuals’ scores did not change by more than one normative standard deviation (i.e., 15 standard score points) over time For instance, 95.1% of EQ 360 2.0 Total EI scores deviated by less than one standard deviation over time. The mean difference was -0.18 standard score units, and the 95% confidence interval (-0.93; 0.57) contained zero. These results provide support that the EQ 360 2.0 captures the temporal stability of emotional intelligence, even when rated by outside observers.

Reliability Summary

Overall, the EQ 360 2.0 demonstrates sound reliability. Internal consistency (alpha) values were generally high for the overall normative group, suggesting that the items cohesively measure Total EI as well as the constructs measured by the composite scales and subscales. Test-retest reliability and stability values were also high, reflecting a level of temporal stability that would be expected for emotional intelligence. Users of the EQ 360 2.0 can be confident that the scores generated by these assessments will be consistent and reliable.