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

Swedish Norms

EQ-i 2.0 Swedish Norms - Standardization

NORMATIVE SAMPLE

Data for the EQ-i 2.0 Swedish Professional Norm sample (N = 900) were collected from October 2011 to January 2014. Data were collected by two methods: either as part of the data collection initiative intended specifically to create the Swedish norms (84.9%), or from the Swedish EQ-i 2.0 customer database (15.1%). The demographic composition of the normative sample is shown in Tables I.1–I.7. All respondents provided age and gender information; in addition, demographic data obtained through the data collection initiative included country of birth, geographic region, education level, student status, and employment information (i.e., employment status, organization level, and occupation area).

The normative data were collected across four age ranges, evenly proportioned by gender within each age interval (see Table I.1). All respondents were current residents of Sweden, and 92.3% of the sample was born in Sweden. Data were collected from the three major regions of Sweden (62.5% were from Svealand, 30.6% were from Götaland, and 6.9% were from Norrland; see Table I.2), covering twenty-one provinces (see Table I.3).

The majority of the sample (86.4%) had an education level higher than Upper Secondary School/ High School (see Table I.4), and 13.6% identified themselves as students. Most respondents were employed or self-employed (94.8%; see Table I.5). The sample breakdown by occupation area is shown in Table I.6, with the largest proportions working in the areas of Sales (14.7%), Education/Training/Library (13.6%), and Business/Finance (11.4%). With regard to organizational level, just over half of respondents were non-managerial employees or staff (51.9%), with 37.5% of respondents in varying levels of management or executive positions (see Table I.7).

NORMING PROCEDURES

The first step in the preparation of the Swedish Norms was to determine if any age or gender trends existed in the data. A series of analyses of variance (ANOVA; for the Total EI score) and multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs; for the composites and subscales) were used to examine the relationships between gender and age and the EQ-i 2.0 scores. To better control for Type I errors that might occur with multiple analyses, a more conservative criterion of p < .01 was used for all F-tests to test for statistical significance. These results are described in detail below.

Gender Effects. Results of the gender analyses showed that men and women did not differ significantly on the Total EI score, indicating that overall emotional intelligence as measured by the EQ-i 2.0 is about the same for men and women. However, small- to medium-sized effects were seen on a number of scales (see Table I.8 for effect sizes and Table I.9 for descriptive statistics and significance test results). The largest gender difference seen in the Swedish normative sample was on the Emotional Expression subscale, with women scoring higher than men (d = -0.53). Women also scored higher than men on the Empathy (d = -0.49) and Emotional Self-Awareness (d = -0.38) subscales, as well as the Interpersonal (d = -0.30) and Self-Expression (d = -0.21) composite scales. Men scored higher than women with small effect sizes on the Stress Tolerance (d = 0.28), Independence (d = 0.20), and Impulse Control (d = 0.20) subscales.

Age Effects. Significant differences across age groups, with small- to medium-sized effects, were found on most scales. The largest effects were seen on the Independence (partial η² = .088), Problem Solving (partial η² = .068), and Flexibility (partial η² = .059) subscales, as well as the Self-Expression (partial η² = .055) and Stress Management (partial η² = .049) composite scales. The typical pattern showed that EQ-i 2.0 scores increased as age increased (i.e., EI was higher for older participants), often with the highest scores obtained by the 40–49 year-old group, followed by a decrease in scores for the oldest group. See Table I.8 for effect sizes and Table I.10 for descriptive statistics and significance test results.

Interaction Effects. Several scales showed significant interaction effects, each with only a small effect size (Table I.8). For most scales, age effects were largely consistent within men and women, and gender effects were largely consistent across age groups.

Norm Groups and Norm Construction. As seen with all other EQ-i 2.0 norm releases to date (i.e., North America, UK and Ireland, Australia, South Africa, and Global), the age and gender analyses revealed a number of significant effects. Therefore, specific Age and Gender Professional Norms, as well as Overall Professional Norms (i.e., collapsed across age groups and genders), were both developed.

Results revealed that skewness and kurtosis values were not large enough to suggest that a normalizing transformation was necessary (skewness values ranged from -0.982 to 0.003; kurtosis values ranged from -0.217 to 1.293), and an examination of the scale histograms did not reveal any significant departures from a bell-shaped (Gaussian) curve (Figure I.1 shows a histogram for the EQ-i 2.0 Swedish normative sample Total EI score). Actual construction of the norms was conducted in the same manner as the North American Norms, including the use of statistical smoothing (see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity for more information on the construction of the North American General Population Norms).

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency, a measure of reliability, conveys the degree to which a set of items are associated with one another. A high level of internal consistency suggests that the set of items are measuring a single, cohesive construct. Internal consistency is typically measured using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 and is a function of both the interrelatedness of the items in a test or scale, and the length of the test (John & Benet-Martinez, 2000). Higher values reflect higher internal consistency.

Cronbach’s alpha values for the EQ-i 2.0 scales for the Swedish normative sample are presented in Table I.11. Although there is no universal criterion for a “good” alpha level, informal cutoffs for evaluating alpha are typically .90 is “excellent,” .80 is “good,” .70 is “acceptable,” and lower than .70 is “questionable.” Most of the values shown in Table I.11 demonstrate good or excellent reliability, with few falling below the acceptable range. These values are particularly favorable given the relatively small number of items included in most subscales. For the overall sample, the alpha value of the Total EI scale was .96, values for the composite scales ranged from .83 to .90, and values for the subscales ranged from .68 to .90. Similar patterns were seen across the age and gender normative groups, including a Total EI alpha value of .94 or higher for each group.

The high level of internal consistency found in the Total EI score supports the idea that the EQ-i 2.0 items are measuring a single, cohesive construct, namely emotional intelligence. The same can be said of the individual components of emotional intelligence that make up the EQ-i 2.0 (i.e., the composite scales and subscales).

Factorial Validity

EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine whether the subscales established with the North American EQ-i 2.0 normative data empirically emerge from the Swedish normative dataset. Five EFAs were conducted, analyzing the items within each composite scale separately. In each EFA, a three-factor solution was forced to examine whether the items corresponding to each subscale within the composite loaded together in the Swedish normative data. As with the North American normative data, principal axis factoring extraction was used, with direct oblimin (i.e., oblique) rotation, as the factors within each composite are expected to correlate with each other. Reverse scoring was applied to relevant items prior to the analysis. Factor loadings were considered significant if they reached at least ± .30, and an item was defined as cross-loading if it was significant on more than one factor and had loadings within .10 of each other on these factors.

For the Self-Perception Composite EFA, most items for the Self-Regard, Self-Actualization, and Emotional Self-Awareness subscales loaded together as expected by the established factor structure (i.e., items loading significantly onto their respective factors, with no cross-loadings), with the exception of one Self-Actualization item that cross-loaded with Self-Regard, and another Self-Actualization item with a factor loading below the cutoff.

For the Self-Expression Composite EFA, items for the Emotional Expression, Assertiveness, and Independence subscales loaded significantly onto their respective factors, with the exception of two Assertiveness items with factor loadings below the cutoff.

For the Interpersonal Composite EFA, most items for the Interpersonal Relationships, Empathy, and Social Responsibility subscales loaded onto their respective factors, with the exception of one Interpersonal Relationships item that cross-loaded with Empathy, and two Social Responsibility items loading one each onto Empathy and Interpersonal Relationships.

For the Decision Making EFA, items for the Problem Solving, Reality Testing, and Impulse Control items loaded significantly onto their respective factors, with the exception of one Reality Testing item that loaded onto Problem Solving, and another Reality Testing item that cross-loaded with Problem Solving.

For the Stress Management Composite EFA, all Flexibility, Stress Tolerance, and Optimism items loaded onto their respective factors, with no cross-loadings.

To summarize, the EFAs generated solutions that closely correspond to the established EQ-i 2.0 factor structure, with most items for each subscale empirically grouping together onto the expected factors. These results demonstrate validity for the use of the EQ-i 2.0 with the Swedish population.

CORRELATIONS AMONG EQ-i 2.0 COMPOSITE SCALES AND SUBSCALES

Correlations among the EQ-i 2.0 composite scales and subscales were examined, and it was expected that these correlations would generally be high, given that they are all measuring the same underlying construct of emotional intelligence; however, they should not be so high as to indicate redundancy between the scales. Correlations observed in the Swedish normative data are presented in Tables I.12 (composite scales) and I.13 (subscales).

The composite scale correlations ranged from r = .38 (Interpersonal with Decision Making) to r = .71 (Stress Management with Self-Perception), with an average correlation of r = .57. For the subscales, correlations ranged from r = .01 (Interpersonal Relationships with Impulse Control) to r = .76 (Happiness with Self-Regard), with an average correlation of r = .37. As highlighted in Table I.13, subscale correlations within composite scales ranged from r = .13 (Emotional Expression with Independence) to r = .54 (Self-Regard with Self-Actualization). These results support the notion that a single, underlying dimension is being represented in the EQ-i 2.0, yet the values are not overly high and there is enough variation in the correlations to provide clear evidence of the multidimensional nature of the assessment, and support the existence of composite scales and subscales. The relationships among scales observed here are similar to patterns seen with the previous EQ-i 2.0 norms released to date (i.e., North America, UK and Ireland, Australia, South Africa, and Global).