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

Global Norms

Usage Guidelines

Traditionally, norms are used to score client data against individuals in their respective region. However, the use of a global norm provides a valid comparison point no matter where the respondent is located. There are many unique and important applications of global norms. As international use of the EQ-i 2.0 continues to grow, providing the option to score the EQ-i 2.0 against a globally representative sample allows for individuals and organizations to compare performance on a global level. For example, if a multi-national organization is looking to develop their individuals from Latin America and move them into positions in Asia, they may have difficulty selecting the most appropriate norm to score their leaders against. Ideally, these leaders would be scored against a norm that is representative of both regions. Likewise, organizations looking to develop new international markets may look to the EQ-i 2.0 to help select, relocate, or develop leaders from new regions for which normative samples are unavailable. Finally, international corporations may use cross-border comparisons of leaders in an effort to understand regional performance. In all of these cases, having a globally representative sample of EQ-i 2.0 scores would allow the organizations to select the most appropriate normative sample.

Examples of Use. The EQ-i 2.0 Global Norm provides users with the ability to score participants against a sample that represents all regions of the globe. In the examples above, using the Global Norm allows the results to be interpreted in a manner best suited to the application. Consider the following scenarios and the usefulness of the Global Norm:

• Compare leaders in an international organization (e.g., Latin American leaders compared to European leaders)
• Select high-performing individuals across regional boundaries for advancement
• Facilitate international placement/relocation of employees or managers
• Hire individuals from one region to work in another (e.g., from Asia to work in Africa)
• Benchmark scores across international organizations for comparison and workshop facilitation
• Facilitate change management when comparing employees across organizations during international mergers
• Assess individuals from regions where no current norm exists

Guidelines.  Organizations are increasingly utilizing assessments across multi-national domains (Bartram, 2008). The EQ-i 2.0 and its predecessor (the original EQ-i) were designed to facilitate translation and international usage. In fact, the EQ-i has supported and helped inspire widespread recognition of the importance of emotional intelligence. As of January 2014, Google Trends shows a consistent expansion of interest in emotional intelligence outside of North America from 2004 to 2014. Regional interest in emotional intelligence in the second half of 2013 has been particularly prominent in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Gunkel, Schlägel, and Engle (in press) refer to EI as a “…topic of international interest…” (p. 1). Further, a recent meta-analysis examining the relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance utilized a handful of studies emanating from Asia, Africa, and Europe, indicating the growing international academic interest in EI (O’Boyle, Humphrey, Pollack, Hawver, & Story, 2010).

There is minimal information, however, that is readily available to help guide the proper selection and usage of norms. The Standards for Education and Psychological Testing states that, “The validity of norm-referenced interpretations depends in part on the appropriateness of the reference group to which test scores are compared” (AERA, 1999, p. 51). Therefore, the selection of appropriate norms is vital to the validity of the conclusions drawn from the assessment.

When selecting the most appropriate norm group for scoring, it is important that the following factors be considered:

• The regional location/country in which the assessment is being taken
• The culture of the participant
• The location and culture of the comparison group of assessments (if any)
• The applicability of a globally representative norm (see Appendix H)
• The applicability of the closest/most similar regional norm (see Additional Norms)
• The potential buy-in of the client or organization when comparing assessment scores against the chosen norm