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

Australian Norms

Overview

The release of the Australian Norms provides users with the ability to score their clients against data collected from Australia. This chapter is designed to provide normative and psychometric information particular to populations in Australia. The EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0 assessments remain unchanged, but additional normative samples are now available (the original North American normative samples are described in detail in Standardization, Reliability, and Validity).

This chapter describes the development of the EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0 Australian Norm samples. For information on the EQ-i 2.0, including administration, interpretation, and development of the North American Norms, please refer to Parts I–V of the EQ-i 2.0 User’s Handbook.

The first section of this chapter is devoted to the development, standardization, reliability, and validity of the EQ-i 2.0 Australian Norms, followed by a section describing these same properties for the EQ 360 2.0 Australian Norms.

EQ-i 2.0 data were collected from 1,250 Australians, evenly proportioned by gender within 5 age intervals from across the country. Similar to what was found in samples from other countries (i.e., Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and Ireland) small to moderate effects were found for gender (women scored higher than men on Empathy, Emotional Self-Awareness, and Emotional Expression; men scored higher than women on Independence, Stress Tolerance, and Independence) and small to moderate effects were also found for age (scores increased with age), leading to the creation of both overall norms, as well as age by gender norms. No meaningful differences were found between how Australians and North Americans score on the EQ-i 2.0. Finally, EQ-i 2.0 scores were found to be highly reliable in the Australian sample, and the factor structure that was developed in North America was replicated with the Australian sample.

EQ 360 2.0 data were collected from 1,720 Australian raters. Similar to what was found in samples from other countries (i.e., Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and Ireland) negligible effects were found for rater-type (i.e., Manager, Direct Report, Work Peer, and Friend/Family Member), age, and gender of the ratee. As a result, one overall norm group was created that collapses across all of these variables. Similar to what was found with the EQ-i 2.0, no meaningful differences were found between how Australian raters and North American raters rate individuals using the EQ 360 2.0. Finally, EQ 360 2.0 scores were found to be reliable in the Australian rater sample, and the Australian sample data was consistent with the factor structure that was developed in North America.