Appendix A: Standardization, Reliability, and Validity Tables

This appendix details the statistical results pertaining to the standardization, reliability, and validity of the EQ-i® 2.0 and EQ 360® 2.0, as summarized in Standardization, Reliability, and Validity. Please see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity for full interpretive text.

Table A.1. Demographic Characteristics of EQ-i 2.0 Pilot Data
Table A.2. Comparison of EQ-i 2.0 Scores in U.S. and Canadian Samples
Table A.3. Age × Gender Distribution: EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.4. Race/Ethnicity Distribution: EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.5. Geographic Region Distribution: EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.6. Education Level Distribution: EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.7. Multivariate Effects of Age and Gender: EQ-i 2.0
Table A.8. Effect Sizes for Gender and Age Effects in the EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.9. Gender Differences in EQ-i 2.0 Scores
Table A.10. Age Differences in EQ-i 2.0 Scores
Figure A.1. Histogram of EQ-i 2.0 Total EI Standard Scores in the Normative Sample
Table A.11. Internal Consistency: EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.12. Demographic Characteristics of the EQ-i 2.0 Test-Retest Samples
Table A.13. EQ-i 2.0 Test-retest Correlations and Descriptive Statistics
Table A.14. Differences between Time 1 and Time 2 EQ-i 2.0 Standard Scores: 2–4-Week Interval
Table A.15. Differences between Time 1 and Time 2 EQ-i 2.0 Standard Scores: 8-Week Interval
Table A.16. Demographic Distributions of EQ-i 2.0 Exploratory and Confirmatory Normative Subsamples
Table A.17. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for EQ-i 2.0
Table A.18. Correlations among EQ-i 2.0 Composite Scales
Table A.19. Correlations among EQ-i 2.0 Subscales
Table A.20. Demographic Characteristics of EQ-i 2.0 Validity Samples
Table A.21. Correlations between EQ-i 2.0 and EQ-i
Table A.22. Correlations between the EQ-i 2.0 and the Social Skills Inventory
Table A.23. Correlations between EQ-i 2.0 and NEO Five Factor Inventory
Table A.24. Correlations between EQ-i 2.0 and Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test - Expert Consensus Scores: Total, Area, and Branch Scores
Table A.25. Correlations between EQ-i 2.0 and Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test - Expert Consensus Scores: Task Scores
Table A.26. Correlations between EQ-i 2.0 and Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal
Table A.27. Demographic Characteristics of Corporate Leaders Sample
Table A.28. EQ-i 2.0 Scores in Corporate Leaders
Table A.29. Education Level Effects on EQ-i 2.0 Scores in the Normative Sample
Table A.30. Demographic Characteristics of EQ-i 2.0 Clinical and Matched General Population Samples
Table A.31. EQ-i 2.0 Clinical Differences
Table A.32. EQ-i 2.0 Scores by Racial/Ethnic Group in the Normative Sample
Table A.33. Comparison of Simulation and Control Samples on EQ-i 2.0 Positive Impression and Negative Impression Scale Scores
Table A.34. Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Inconsistency Index Scores in EQ-i 2.0 Normative and Random Samples
Table A.35. Demographic Description of EQ 360 2.0 Pilot Data (Ratees)
Table A.36. Comparison of EQ 360 2.0 Scores in U.S. and Canadian Samples
Table A.37. Length of Rater/Ratee Relationship: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.38. Strength of Rater/Ratee Relationship: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.39. Distribution of Rater Types by Gender: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.40. Ratee Age Group by Gender Distribution: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.41. Distribution of Ratee Race/Ethnicity by Rater Type: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.42. Ratee Geographic Region Distribution: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.43. Multivariate Effects of Ratee Age, Gender, and Rater Type on EQ 360 2.0 Scores
Table A.44. Effect Sizes for Gender, Age, and Rater Type Effects in the EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.45. Ratee Gender Differences in EQ 360 2.0 Scores
Table A.46. Ratee Age Differences in EQ 360 2.0 Scores
Table A.47. Rater Type Differences in EQ 360 2.0 Scores
Figure A.2. Histogram of EQ 360 2.0 Total EI Standard Score in the Normative Sample
Table A.48. Internal Consistency: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample
Table A.49. Demographic Characteristics of EQ 360 2.0 Test-Retest Sample
Table A.50. EQ 360 2.0 Test-Retest Correlations and Descriptive Statistics
Table A.51. Differences between Time 1 and Time 2 EQ 360 2.0 Standard Scores
Table A.52. Correlations among EQ 360 2.0 Composite Scales (Normative Sample)
Table A.53. Correlations among EQ 360 2.0 Subscales (Normative Sample)
Table A.54. Demographic Distribution of Self-Other Agreement Sample
Table A.55. Self-Other Agreement Correlations between the EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0
Table A.56. Comparison of EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0 Standard Scores
Table A.57. Demographic Characteristics of SAS-SR Validity Sample
Table A.58. Multiple Regression Results for EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0 Predicting Social Adjustment Scale–Self-Report Total Scores
Table A.59. Interaction Effects between Rater Race/Ethnicity and Ratee Race/Ethnicity: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample

print this table

Table A.1. Demographic Characteristics of EQ-i 2.0 Pilot Data

The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the EQ-i 2.0 pilot data. Ideally, pilot data should include representation from a wide range of demographic (gender, age, race, education level) groups, as was the case in the EQ-i 2.0 pilot data.

Demographic		N	%
Gender	Male	554	41.2
Gender	Female	792	58.8
Age Group (Years)	18–24	586	43.5
	25–29	285	21.2
	30–34	208	15.5
	35–39	163	12.1
	40–44	104	7.7
Race/Ethnicity	Black	107	7.9
	Hispanic/Latino	124	9.2
	White	1,008	74.9
	Other	107	7.9
Education Level	High School or Less	280	20.8
	Some College/University	447	33.2
	College/University or Higher	615	45.7
	Missing	4	0.3
Total		1,346	100.0

print this table

Table A.2. Comparison of EQ-i 2.0 Scores in U.S. and Canadian Samples

The following table provides mean and standard deviations of EQ-i 2.0 scores in U.S. and Canadian samples. d values provide an effect size to describe differences between the two countries as small, medium, or large. F and p values provide statistical significance tests for these differences. A lack of meaningful (i.e., |d| ≥ .20) differences between U.S. and Canadian participants supports combining the two countries in the normative sample, as was the case in the EQ-i 2.0 data.

Scale		U.S.	Canada	d	F	p
Total EI	M	98.9	99.5	-0.04	0.74	.391
Total EI	SD	15.4	15.5	-0.04	0.74	.391
Self-Perception Composite	M	99.8	100.1	-0.02	0.21	.646
Self-Perception Composite	SD	15.3	15.4	-0.02	0.21	.646
Self-Regard	M	99.1	100.0	-0.06	1.57	.210
Self-Regard	SD	14.9	15.0	-0.06	1.57	.210
Self-Actualization	M	100.5	100.7	-0.01	0.07	.789
Self-Actualization	SD	15.3	15.4	-0.01	0.07	.789
Emotional Self-Awareness	M	99.9	99.6	0.02	0.27	.606
Emotional Self-Awareness	SD	15.3	15.4	0.02	0.27	.606
Self-Expression Composite	M	98.4	99.1	-0.04	0.85	.358
Self-Expression Composite	SD	15.3	15.4	-0.04	0.85	.358
Emotional Expression	M	99.2	99.2	0.00	0.00	.991
Emotional Expression	SD	15.2	15.3	0.00	0.00	.991
Assertiveness	M	100.1	100.4	-0.02	0.16	.689
Assertiveness	SD	14.9	15.0	-0.02	0.16	.689
Independence	M	97.2	98.4	-0.08	3.22	.073
Independence	SD	15.2	15.3	-0.08	3.22	.073
Interpersonal Composite	M	99.6	100.7	-0.07	2.10	.147
Interpersonal Composite	SD	15.3	15.4	-0.07	2.10	.147
Interpersonal Relationships	M	99.3	100.4	-0.08	2.68	.102
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	15.3	15.4	-0.08	2.68	.102
Empathy	M	99.8	100.1	-0.02	0.28	.596
Empathy	SD	15.2	15.3	-0.02	0.28	.596
Social Responsibility	M	100.1	101.3	-0.08	3.01	.083
Social Responsibility	SD	15.1	15.2	-0.08	3.01	.083
Decision Making Composite	M	98.5	97.3	0.07	2.56	.109
Decision Making Composite	SD	15.5	15.6	0.07	2.56	.109
Problem Solving	M	97.8	97.5	0.02	0.14	.710
Problem Solving	SD	15.3	15.4	0.02	0.14	.710
Reality Testing	M	99.9	99.6	0.02	0.11	.739
Reality Testing	SD	15.3	15.3	0.02	0.11	.739
Impulse Control	M	99.0	96.7	0.14	9.64	.002
Impulse Control	SD	15.5	15.6	0.14	9.64	.002
Stress Management Composite	M	98.7	100.2	-0.10	4.84	.028
Stress Management Composite	SD	15.1	15.1	-0.10	4.84	.028
Flexibility	M	98.1	99.7	-0.10	4.89	.027
Flexibility	SD	15.1	15.2	-0.10	4.89	.027
Stress Tolerance	M	99.0	100.2	-0.08	2.76	.097
Stress Tolerance	SD	14.8	14.9	-0.08	2.76	.097
Optimism	M	99.5	100.6	-0.08	2.63	.105
Optimism	SD	15.2	15.3	-0.08	2.63	.105
Happiness	M	99.6	100.8	-0.08	2.69	.101
Happiness	SD	15.2	15.3	-0.08	2.69	.101

Note. Sample size ranges (due to missing data): U.S., N = 5,902 to 5,905; Canada, N = 507 to 508. df for F-tests: Total EI = 1, 6407; composite scales = 1, 6406; subscales = 1, 6403. Positive Cohen's d values signify higher means in the U.S. group, negative Cohen's d values signify higher means in the Canadian group. Guidelines for evaluating |d| are .20 = small, .50 = medium, .80 = large.

print this table

Table A.3. Age × Gender Distribution: EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table conveys the distribution of EQ-i 2.0 normative sample participants, categorized by age group and gender. An ideal distribution is one that is similarly proportioned across all groups, as was the case in the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample, demonstrating equal representation of all age × gender groups.

Age Group (Years)	Male		Female		Total
Age Group (Years)	N	%	N	%	N	%
18–24	200	5.0	200	5.0	400	10.0
25–29	200	5.0	200	5.0	400	10.0
30–34	200	5.0	200	5.0	400	10.0
35–39	200	5.0	200	5.0	400	10.0
40–44	200	5.0	200	5.0	400	10.0
45–49	200	5.0	200	5.0	400	10.0
50–54	200	5.0	200	5.0	400	10.0
55–59	200	5.0	200	5.0	400	10.0
60–64	200	5.0	200	5.0	400	10.0
65+	200	5.0	200	5.0	400	10.0
Total	2,000	50.0	2,000	50.0	4,000	100.0

print this table

Table A.4. Race/Ethnicity Distribution: EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table summarizes the race/ethnicity distribution of the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample along with Census information. Ideally, the normative sample should show race/ethnicity proportions similar to the Census, suggesting the normative sample is representative of the general population. The EQ-i 2.0 normative sample showed percentages within 4% for each racial/ethnic group, suggesting it is very similar to the Census.

Country	Race/Ethnicity	N	%	Census %
U.S.	Black	410	11.4	12.3
	Hispanic/Latino	432	12.0	15.1
	White	2,519	70.0	66.0
	Other	239	6.6	6.6
	Total	3,600	100.0	100.0
Canada	White	315	78.8	80.0
	Non-White	85	21.3	20.0
	Total	400	100.0	100.0

print this table

Table A.5. Geographic Region Distribution: EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table summarizes the geographic region distribution of the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample along with Census information. Ideally, the normative sample should show region proportions similar to the Census. The EQ-i 2.0 normative sample showed percentages within 2% for each region, suggesting it is very similar to the Census.

Country	Region	N	%	Census %
U.S.	Northeast	655	18.2	18.1
	Midwest	793	22.0	21.9
	South	1,292	35.9	36.7
	West	860	23.9	23.3
	Total	3,600	100.0	100.0
Canada	West	54	13.5	13.0
	Prairies	72	18.0	17.1
	Central	244	61.0	62.4
	East	30	7.5	7.3
	Total	400	100.0	100.0

print this table

Table A.6. Education Level Distribution: EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table summarizes the education level (i.e., highest level of attained education) distribution of the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample along with Census information. Ideally, the normative sample should show education level proportions similar to the Census, as found in the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample (i.e., the sample was within 2% of Census), suggesting the sample is representative of the general population.

Country	Education Level	N	%	Census %
U.S. and Canada	High school diploma or less	1,751	43.8	46.6
	Some college/university	1,119	28.0	27.2
	College/university graduate or higher	1,130	28.2	26.2
	Total	4,000	100.0	100.0

print this table

Table A.7. Multivariate Effects of Age and Gender: EQ-i 2.0

The following table summarizes the results from the multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) conducted on the composite scales and subscales to examine potential effects of gender, age, or the interaction between gender and age on EQ-i 2.0 scores in the normative sample. Wilks’ lambda ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 and depicts the amount of variance not explained by the demographic variable. F and p values convey the statistical significance of the demographic variables. Partial η2 values provide an effect size for describing the effects as small, medium, or large. Meaningful effect sizes (i.e., partial η2 ≥ .01) suggest differences among participants based on the demographic variable.

Analysis	Demographic Variable	Wilks’ Lambda	F (df)	p	Partial η2
Composite Scales	Gender	.935	55.56 (5, 3984)	< .001	.07
	Age	.955	9.22 (20, 13214.383)	< .001	.01
	Gender × Age	.989	2.16 (20, 13214.38)	.002	.00
Subscales	Gender	.842	46.56 (15, 3970)	< .001	.16
	Age	.854	10.03 (64, 15544.13)	< .001	.04
	Gender × Age	.973	1.67 (64, 15544.13)	.001	.01

print this table

Table A.8. Effect Sizes for Gender and Age Effects in the EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table summarizes the effect sizes for the effects of gender, age, and the gender × age interaction on the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales in the normative sample. Meaningful effect sizes (i.e., |d| ≥ .20, partial η2 ≥ .01), which were found for several EQ-i 2.0 composite scales and subscales, suggest differences among participants based on the demographic variable, and that separate demographic norm groups may be required.

Scale	Gender (Cohen’s d)	Age (partial η2)	Gender × Age Interaction (partial η2)
Total EI	-0.03	.02	.00
Self-Perception Composite	0.02	.01	.00
Self-Regard	0.17	.03	.00
Self-Actualization	0.01	.01	.00
Emotional Self-Awareness	-0.22	.00	.00
Self-Expression Composite	0.01	.02	.00
Emotional Expression	-0.31	.01	.00
Assertiveness	0.19	.00	.00
Independence	0.21	.05	.00
Interpersonal Composite	-0.33	.01	.00
Interpersonal Relationships	-0.18	.01	.00
Empathy	-0.49	.01	.00
Social Responsibility	-0.13	.02	.00
Decision Making Composite	0.11	.02	.00
Problem Solving	0.26	.04	.00
Reality Testing	0.03	.01	.00
Impulse Control	-0.03	.01	.00
Stress Management Composite	0.08	.02	.00
Flexibility	-0.04	.01	.00
Stress Tolerance	0.30	.01	.00
Optimism	-0.06	.02	.00
Happiness	-0.04	.02	.00

Note. N = 4,000. Positive Cohen’s d values represent higher scores in males, negative Cohen’s d values represent higher scores in females. Guidelines for evaluating |d| are .20 = small, .50 = medium, .80 = large. Guidelines for evaluating partial η2 are .01 = small, .06 = medium, .14 = large.

print this table

Table A.9. Gender Differences in EQ-i 2.0 Scores

The following table provides EQ-i 2.0 means and standard deviations for males and females in the normative sample. F and p values convey the statistical significance of gender differences. p values less than .01, which were found for many EQ-i 2.0 composite scales and subscales, suggest significant differences between males and females.

Scale		Male (N = 2,000)	Female (N = 1,996)	F (1, 3985)	p
Total EI	M	99.8	100.2	0.78	.378
Total EI	SD	15.2	15.2	0.78	.378
Self-Perception Composite	M	100.1	99.9	0.28	.598
Self-Perception Composite	SD	15.2	15.2	0.28	.598
Self-Regard	M	101.3	98.7	27.11	< .001
Self-Regard	SD	15.1	15.1	27.11	< .001
Self-Actualization	M	100.1	99.9	0.14	.711
Self-Actualization	SD	15.2	15.2	0.14	.711
Emotional Self-Awareness	M	98.4	101.7	44.28	< .001
Emotional Self-Awareness	SD	15.3	15.3	44.28	< .001
Self-Expression Composite	M	100.0	100.0	0.02	.884
Self-Expression Composite	SD	15.3	15.3	0.02	.884
Emotional Expression	M	97.6	102.4	93.63	< .001
Emotional Expression	SD	15.2	15.2	93.63	< .001
Assertiveness	M	101.4	98.6	32.76	< .001
Assertiveness	SD	15.3	15.3	32.76	< .001
Independence	M	101.6	98.5	41.62	< .001
Independence	SD	14.9	14.9	41.62	< .001
Interpersonal Composite	M	97.5	102.5	101.97	< .001
Interpersonal Composite	SD	15.1	15.1	101.97	< .001
Interpersonal Relationships	M	98.6	101.4	31.83	< .001
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	15.3	15.3	31.83	< .001
Empathy	M	96.3	103.7	232.15	< .001
Empathy	SD	14.9	14.9	232.15	< .001
Social Responsibility	M	99.0	101.0	16.18	< .001
Social Responsibility	SD	15.1	15.1	16.18	< .001
Decision Making Composite	M	100.9	99.1	12.41	< .001
Decision Making Composite	SD	15.1	15.1	12.41	< .001
Problem Solving	M	102.0	98.1	63.84	< .001
Problem Solving	SD	14.9	14.9	63.84	< .001
Reality Testing	M	100.2	99.8	0.62	.431
Reality Testing	SD	15.3	15.3	0.62	.431
Impulse Control	M	99.8	100.2	0.85	.358
Impulse Control	SD	15.3	15.3	0.85	.358
Stress Management Composite	M	100.6	99.4	6.15	.013
Stress Management Composite	SD	15.2	15.2	6.15	.013
Flexibility	M	99.7	100.3	1.74	.188
Flexibility	SD	15.3	15.3	1.74	.188
Stress Tolerance	M	102.2	97.8	83.72	< .001
Stress Tolerance	SD	15.0	15.0	83.72	< .001
Optimism	M	99.5	100.5	3.68	.055
Optimism	SD	15.2	15.2	3.68	.055
Happiness	M	99.7	100.3	1.66	.197
Happiness	SD	15.2	15.2	1.66	.197

print this table

Table A.10. Age Differences in EQ-i 2.0 Scores

The following table provides means and standard deviations for the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales for the various age groups in the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample. F and p values convey the statistical significance of age differences. p values less than .01, which were found for many EQ-i 2.0 composite scales and subscales, suggest an overall difference among the age groups.

Scale		18–29 (N = 799)	30–39 (N = 799)	40–49 (N = 800)	50–59 (N = 800)	60+ (N = 799)	F (1, 3985)	p
Total EI	M	97.0	98.6	100.6	101.3	102.5	17.18	< .001
Total EI	SD	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	17.18	< .001
Self-Perception Composite	M	98.6	98.4	99.8	100.6	102.6	10.47	< .001
Self-Perception Composite	SD	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	10.47	< .001
Self-Regard	M	97.1	98.1	99.8	101.1	104.0	26.50	< .001
Self-Regard	SD	14.7	14.7	14.7	14.7	14.7	26.50	< .001
Self-Actualization	M	99.6	98.6	99.8	100.4	101.7	4.72	.001
Self-Actualization	SD	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.8	4.72	.001
Emotional Self- Awareness	M	100.2	99.7	100.0	99.8	100.4	0.33	.861
Emotional Self- Awareness	SD	15.0	15.0	14.9	14.9	14.9	0.33	.861
Self-Expression Composite	M	96.5	99.7	101.4	101.2	101.2	15.41	< .001
Self-Expression Composite	SD	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	15.41	< .001
Emotional Expression	M	97.9	100.3	100.8	100.5	100.5	4.86	.001
Emotional Expression	SD	14.9	14.9	14.8	14.8	14.9	4.86	.001
Assertiveness	M	100.4	99.7	99.8	99.5	100.8	1.05	.380
Assertiveness	SD	15.0	15.0	14.9	14.9	15.0	1.05	.380
Independence	M	93.9	99.4	102.5	102.6	101.7	49.70	< .001
Independence	SD	14.6	14.6	14.5	14.6	14.6	49.70	< .001
Interpersonal Composite	M	98.3	98.5	99.7	100.9	102.6	11.30	< .001
Interpersonal Composite	SD	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.8	11.30	< .001
Interpersonal Relationships	M	98.4	98.9	100.4	100.9	101.6	6.43	< .001
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	14.9	15.0	14.9	14.9	14.9	6.43	< .001
Empathy	M	99.1	99.1	99.2	100.3	102.2	6.92	< .001
Empathy	SD	14.6	14.6	14.6	14.6	14.6	6.92	< .001
Social Responsibility	M	98.2	98.0	99.7	101.1	103.1	16.23	< .001
Social Responsibility	SD	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.8	16.23	< .001
Decision Making Composite	M	96.2	99.0	101.0	101.9	102.0	21.44	< .001
Decision Making Composite	SD	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.8	21.44	< .001
Problem Solving	M	95.2	98.6	101.8	102.2	102.4	36.17	< .001
Problem Solving	SD	14.6	14.6	14.6	14.6	14.6	36.17	< .001
Reality Testing	M	98.7	98.6	99.9	100.5	102.4	8.42	< .001
Reality Testing	SD	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	8.42	< .001
Impulse Control	M	97.5	100.4	100.6	101.5	100.0	8.34	< .001
Impulse Control	SD	15.0	15.0	14.9	14.9	15.0	8.34	< .001
Stress Management Composite	M	97.2	98.6	100.9	101.1	102.3	15.38	< .001
Stress Management Composite	SD	14.9	14.9	14.8	14.8	14.8	15.38	< .001
Flexibility	M	96.9	99.7	101.2	101.3	100.9	11.91	< .001
Flexibility	SD	15.0	15.0	14.9	14.9	15.0	11.91	< .001
Stress Tolerance	M	97.6	99.0	101.4	100.5	101.6	10.42	< .001
Stress Tolerance	SD	14.6	14.6	14.6	14.6	14.6	10.42	< .001
Optimism	M	98.3	98.0	99.6	101.0	103.2	16.43	< .001
Optimism	SD	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	16.43	< .001
Happiness	M	98.1	98.0	98.9	100.9	104.1	23.61	< .001
Happiness	SD	14.9	14.9	14.8	14.9	14.9	23.61	< .001

print this figure

Figure A.1. Histogram of EQ-i 2.0 Total EI Standard Scores in the Normative Sample

The following figure illustrates the distribution of EQ-i 2.0 Total EI scores in the normative sample. Distributions that approximate a normal (“bell-shaped”) curve, such as those found in the figure below, suggest it is unnecessary to apply a normalizing transformation to EQ-i 2.0 scores.

print this table

Table A.11. Internal Consistency: EQ-i 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table summarizes the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) values for the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales in the EQ-i 2.0 normative groups. Alpha values range from 0.00 to 1.00. Higher values, like those found in the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample, provide evidence for strong reliability..

Scale	# of items	EQ-i 2.0 Normative Group
		General (Total Sample)	Male					Female
		General (Total Sample)	18–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	60+	18–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	60+
Total EI	118	.97	.97	.97	.97	.97	.97	.97	.97	.98	.97	.98
Self-Perception Composite	24	.93	.93	.93	.93	.92	.92	.94	.93	.94	.94	.93
Self-Regard	8	.91	.92	.91	.90	.89	.86	.92	.91	.92	.92	.90
Self-Actualization	9	.88	.88	.88	.88	.88	.87	.90	.89	.90	.88	.87
Emotional Self-Awareness	7	.81	.79	.81	.81	.80	.81	.80	.80	.81	.81	.80
Self-Expression Composite	23	.88	.88	.88	.88	.87	.86	.88	.88	.88	.88	.89
Emotional Expression	8	.84	.83	.85	.84	.84	.82	.83	.85	.82	.84	.82
Assertiveness	7	.77	.76	.75	.75	.77	.77	.78	.77	.79	.78	.79
Independence	8	.81	.82	.79	.80	.75	.75	.81	.82	.80	.81	.82
Interpersonal Composite	23	.92	.92	.92	.92	.92	.93	.92	.91	.93	.92	.93
Interpersonal Relationships	7	.86	.87	.89	.87	.86	.87	.86	.86	.88	.86	.87
Empathy	9	.88	.86	.88	.87	.88	.88	.87	.85	.88	.86	.86
Social Responsibility	6	.80	.77	.81	.78	.81	.82	.80	.80	.81	.80	.82
Decision Making Composite	24	.88	.87	.88	.89	.88	.88	.89	.86	.87	.87	.88
Problem Solving	8	.85	.83	.85	.86	.85	.85	.85	.84	.84	.82	.85
Reality Testing	9	.81	.80	.80	.79	.80	.84	.79	.80	.83	.81	.81
Impulse Control	8	.77	.79	.75	.79	.74	.75	.81	.75	.77	.76	.77
Stress Management Composite	24	.92	.90	.92	.91	.91	.92	.92	.91	.92	.92	.92
Flexibility	8	.80	.78	.80	.77	.78	.80	.82	.83	.79	.80	.82
Stress Tolerance	8	.87	.86	.84	.85	.86	.89	.86	.85	.86	.87	.87
Optimism	8	.89	.88	.90	.88	.89	.88	.89	.89	.90	.89	.89
Happiness	8	.92	.91	.91	.91	.92	.90	.90	.91	.92	.93	.92
N		4,000	400	400	400	400	400	400	400	400	400	400

print this table

Table A.12. Demographic Characteristics of the EQ-i 2.0 Test-Retest Samples

The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the EQ-i 2.0 test-retest samples. Ideally, these samples should include representation from a wide range of demographic groups, as found in the EQ-i 2.0 test-retest samples.

Demographic		2–4 Weeks		8 Weeks
Demographic		N	%	N	%
Gender	Male	101	49.5	52	49.1
Gender	Female	103	50.5	54	50.9
Race/Ethnicity	Black	29	14.2	3	2.8
	Hispanic/Latino	13	6.4	2	1.9
	White	141	69.1	95	89.6
	Other	21	10.3	6	5.7
Age Group (Years)	18–29	23	11.3	11	10.4
	30–39	47	23.0	9	8.5
	40–49	38	18.6	19	17.9
	50–59	41	20.1	35	33.0
	60+	55	27.0	32	30.2
	M (SD)	47.7 (15.2)		51.4 (13.9)
Total		204	100.0	106	100.0

print this table

Table A.13. EQ-i 2.0 Test-retest Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

The following table summarizes the test-retest correlations and time 1 and time 2 means and standard deviations for the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales in the 2–4 week and 8-week retest samples. Correlations range from 0.00 to 1.00. Higher values, as found in the EQ-i 2.0 test-retest samples, suggest excellent test-retest reliability.

Scale	2–4 Weeks					8 Weeks
	Test-retest r	Time 1		Time 2		Test-retest r	Time 1		Time 2
	Test-retest r	M	SD	M	SD	Test-retest r	M	SD	M	SD
Total EI	.92	98.3	16.6	98.8	17.4	.81	97.1	14.8	98.1	14.8
Self-Perception Composite	.90	98.6	15.8	98.7	17.2	.80	96.4	16.0	97.3	15.6
Self-Regard	.88	98.7	15.9	99.4	16.9	.84	98.1	15.3	98.3	15.8
Self-Actualization	.88	98.6	15.8	98.5	16.8	.74	94.4	15.6	95.8	14.8
Emotional Self-Awareness	.82	99.3	15.4	98.7	16.8	.72	98.7	15.3	99.5	15.0
Self-Expression Composite	.86	99.3	15.7	99.5	15.9	.80	98.9	14.7	98.7	14.4
Emotional Expression	.81	98.1	15.9	98.9	16.2	.74	100.7	15.0	100.5	13.6
Assertiveness	.80	99.9	14.8	100.1	14.7	.75	97.3	14.9	97.5	14.0
Independence	.85	100.6	15.5	100.0	16.0	.81	99.0	14.0	98.4	15.1
Interpersonal Composite	.91	98.1	16.4	98.1	16.1	.76	97.2	15.6	98.3	14.7
Interpersonal Relationships	.88	98.9	16.1	98.9	15.5	.77	97.7	16.5	98.7	15.4
Empathy	.89	98.4	16.3	98.4	16.2	.72	99.3	15.6	99.9	14.8
Social Responsibility	.86	97.7	16.3	97.8	15.9	.77	95.2	15.1	96.6	14.5
Decision Making Composite	.88	98.7	15.7	99.7	17.1	.83	98.2	14.5	99.7	14.7
Problem Solving	.82	98.9	15.9	100.4	16.5	.73	98.6	14.9	100.5	14.0
Reality Testing	.84	98.7	15.9	98.6	16.3	.75	97.6	15.2	99.3	15.7
Impulse Control	.78	99.2	15.2	100.1	16.4	.81	99.4	15.4	99.3	14.9
Stress Management Composite	.90	98.0	17.2	98.8	17.2	.78	97.2	14.2	98.2	14.3
Flexibility	.85	97.8	15.4	99.1	16.6	.70	99.5	14.7	99.8	14.6
Stress Tolerance	.85	98.9	16.0	99.0	15.7	.75	96.7	13.7	97.4	13.5
Optimism	.88	98.2	17.2	98.9	17.0	.80	97.0	15.2	98.5	15.7
Happiness	.88	99.3	15.9	99.3	16.8	.84	97.6	17.6	98.3	16.9

Note. 2- to 4-week test-retest N = 204, time interval mean = 18.4 days (SD = 3.2 days), range = 14–28 days. 8-week test-retest N = 104, time interval mean = 56.8 days (SD = 1.3 days), range = 54–59 days.

print this table

Table A.14. Differences between Time 1 and Time 2 EQ-i 2.0 Standard Scores: 2–4-Week Interval

The following table summarizes the differences between time 1 and time 2 scores for the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales for the 2–4-week test-retest sample. The first set of results (% of Respondents) lists the percentage of respondents whose scores decreased by more than 15 points, changed by 15 points or less, or increased by more than 15 points over time. Test-retest stability is supported if the majority of respondents show changes of 15 points or less over time, as found in the EQ-i 2.0 2-4 week test-retest sample. The mean and standard deviation of these differences across participants is also provided, along with the 95% confidence interval (CI), which illustrates whether the difference is statistically meaningful for the sample as a whole. That is, if the CI includes zero between the lower bound (LB) and upper bound (UB), the difference is not statistically meaningful, as found for most EQ-i 2.0 scales and subscales.

Scale	% of Respondents			M Diff	SD	95% CI
Scale	Scores Decreased More Than 1 SD (15 points)	Scores Changed by 1 SD or Less (15 points)	Scores Increased More Than 1 SD (15 points)	M Diff	SD	LB	UB
Total EI	1.5	97.0	1.5	0.5	6.9	0.1	0.9
Self-Perception Composite	1.5	96.5	2.0	0.1	7.4	-0.6	0.8
Self-Regard	1.5	94.5	4.0	0.7	8.0	-0.1	1.5
Self-Actualization	4.0	93.0	3.0	-0.7	8.8	-1.5	0.2
Emotional Self-Awareness	8.5	91.0	3.5	-0.6	9.8	-1.6	0.3
Self-Expression Composite	2.0	95.0	3.0	0.2	8.4	-0.6	1.0
Emotional Expression	4.0	90.0	6.0	0.9	10.0	-0.1	1.9
Assertiveness	4.0	91.5	4.5	0.0	8.1	-0.8	0.8
Independence	4.5	93.5	2.0	0.2	9.3	-0.7	1.1
Interpersonal Composite	2.5	95.5	2.0	0.0	7.1	-0.7	0.7
Interpersonal Relationships	2.5	94.0	3.5	0.0	7.8	-0.8	0.7
Empathy	3.5	93.5	3.0	0.0	7.6	-0.8	0.7
Social Responsibility	3.0	94.5	2.5	0.2	8.5	-0.7	1.0
Decision Making Composite	2.5	92.5	5.0	1.0	8.2	0.2	1.8
Problem Solving	2.5	92.0	5.5	1.6	9.6	0.6	2.5
Reality Testing	4.5	92.5	3.0	-0.1	9.1	-1.0	0.8
Impulse Control	9.5	83.0	7.5	0.8	10.4	-0.2	1.9
Stress Management Composite	2.5	94.0	3.5	0.8	7.8	0.1	1.6
Flexibility	2.0	94.5	3.5	1.3	8.8	0.5	2.2
Stress Tolerance	4.5	91.5	4.0	0.1	8.8	-0.8	1.0
Optimism	4.0	91.5	4.5	0.7	8.3	-0.1	1.5
Happiness	3.0	95.0	2.0	-0.1	8.1	-0.9	0.7

Note. N = 204. M Diff = mean difference; CI = confidence interval; LB = lower bound, UB = upper bound.

print this table

Table A.15. Differences between Time 1 and Time 2 EQ-i 2.0 Standard Scores: 8-Week Interval

The following table summarizes the differences between time 1 and time 2 scores for the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales for the 8-week test-retest sample. The first set of results (% of Respondents) lists the percentage of respondents whose scores decreased by more than 15 points, changed by 15 points or less, or increased by more than 15 points over time. Test-retest stability is supported if the majority of respondents show changes of 15 points or less over time, as found in the EQ-i 2.0 8-week test-retest sample. The mean and standard deviation of these differences across participants is also provided, along with the 95% confidence interval (CI), which illustrates whether the difference is statistically meaningful for the sample as a whole. That is, if the CI includes zero between the lower bound (LB) and upper bound (UB), the difference is not statistically meaningful, as found for most EQ-i 2.0 scales and subscales.

Scale	% of Respondents			M Diff	SD	95% CI
Scale	Scores Decreased More than 1 SD (15 Points)	Scores Changed by 1 SD or Less (15 Points)	Scores Increased More than 1 SD (15 Points)	M Diff	SD	LB	UB
Total EI	2.9	93.2	3.8	1.0	9.1	0.6	1.4
Self-Perception Composite	4.8	91.4	3.8	1.0	10.0	-0.0	2.0
Self-Regard	5.8	91.4	2.9	0.3	8.9	-0.5	1.2
Self-Actualization	4.8	88.5	6.7	-0.5	9.0	-1.4	0.4
Emotional Self-Awareness	6.7	84.6	8.7	1.0	11.5	-0.2	2.1
Self-Expression Composite	3.8	91.3	4.8	-0.3	9.2	-1.2	0.7
Emotional Expression	6.7	86.5	6.7	-0.2	10.5	-1.2	0.9
Assertiveness	3.8	89.4	6.7	1.3	11.0	0.2	2.3
Independence	4.8	92.3	2.9	0.1	10.4	-0.9	1.1
Interpersonal Composite	3.8	90.4	5.8	1.1	10.5	0.0	2.1
Interpersonal Relationships	3.8	90.4	5.8	1.0	10.8	-0.1	2.1
Empathy	3.8	91.3	4.8	0.5	11.4	-0.6	1.6
Social Responsibility	3.8	89.4	6.7	1.3	10.0	0.3	2.3
Decision Making Composite	1.9	91.3	6.7	1.3	8.6	0.4	2.1
Problem Solving	5.8	84.6	9.6	1.9	10.8	0.9	3.0
Reality Testing	4.8	84.6	10.6	1.6	11.0	0.5	2.7
Impulse Control	8.7	86.6	4.8	-0.5	9.3	-1.4	0.4
Stress Management Composite	3.8	92.3	3.8	1.1	9.4	0.2	2.0
Flexibility	3.8	91.4	4.8	0.5	11.3	-0.7	1.6
Stress Tolerance	1.9	91.3	6.7	0.7	8.9	-0.2	1.6
Optimism	3.8	88.5	7.7	1.5	9.9	0.5	2.4
Happiness	3.8	92.3	3.8	0.8	9.8	-0.2	1.8

Note. N = 104. M Diff = mean difference; CI = confidence interval; LB = lower bound, UB = upper bound.

print this table

Table A.16. Demographic Distributions of EQ-i 2.0 Exploratory and Confirmatory Normative Subsamples

The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the subsamples of the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample, created for performing exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Ideally, the two samples should show similar demographic characteristics, as found in the EQ-i 2.0 exploratory and confirmatory samples.

Demographic			Exploratory Sample		Confirmatory Sample
Demographic			N	%	N	%
Gender	Male		1,000	50.0	1,000	50.0
Gender	Female		1,000	50.0	1,000	50.0
Age Group (Years)	18–29		400	20.0	400	20.0
	30–39		400	20.0	400	20.0
	40–49		400	20.0	400	20.0
	50–59		400	20.0	400	20.0
	60+		400	20.0	400	20.0
	M (SD)		44.6 (15.0)		44.7 (15.2)
Race/Ethnicity	Black		209	10.5	210	10.5
	Hispanic/Latino		216	10.8	217	10.9
	White		1,417	70.9	1,417	70.9
	Other		158	1.0	156	1.4
Education Level	High School or Less		877	43.9	874	43.7
	Some College/University		558	27.9	561	28.1
	College/University or Higher		565	28.3	565	28.3
Geographic Region	U.S.	Northeast	314	15.7	341	17.1
		Midwest	409	20.5	384	19.2
		South	650	32.5	642	32.1
		West	428	21.4	432	21.6
	Canada	West	22	1.1	32	1.6
		Prairies	38	1.9	34	1.7
		Central	124	6.2	120	6.0
		East	15	0.8	15	0.8
Total			2,000	100.0	2,000	100.0

print this table

Table A.17. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results for EQ-i 2.0

The following table provides the fit statistics generated by the confirmatory factor analyses of the EQ-i 2.0. Values below .100 for the RMSEA and above .900 for all other fit statistics, which were found in the majority of the EQ-i 2.0 models, suggest the factor structure that emerged from the exploratory factor analyses was independently replicated in the confirmatory factor analysis.

Fit Index	Overall Model	Composites
Fit Index	Overall Model	Self-Perception	Self-Expression	Interpersonal	Decision Making	Stress Management
GFI	.955	.963	.960	.942	.979	.943
AGFI	.864	.932	.931	.900	.966	.912
NFI	.966	.969	.945	.940	.970	.943
NNFI	.934	.956	.929	.920	.966	.931
CFI	.967	.971	.949	.943	.975	.947
RMSEA	.152	.081	.078	.096	.049	.082

Note. N = 2,000. GFI = Goodness of Fit Index (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1986), AGFI = Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1986), NFI = Normed Fit Index (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), CFI = Comparative Fit Index (Bentler, 1990), RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (Steiger & Lind, 1980).

print this table

Table A.18. Correlations among EQ-i 2.0 Composite Scales

The following table illustrates the correlations among the EQ-i 2.0 composite scales in the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample. Correlations range from 0.00 to 1.00, with higher values suggesting the scales share a relevant common psychological characteristic (i.e., emotional intelligence). Very high values (e.g., > .90) would suggest a unidimensional factor structure. Moderately sized correlations, like those that were found in the EQ-i 2.0, support both the concept that the scales measure a common psychological characteristic, as well as the multidimensional factor structure of the EQ-i 2.0.

Composite Scale	SP	SE	IS	DM	SM
SP. Self-Perception Composite	–
SE. Self-Expression Composite	.73	–
IS. Interpersonal Composite	.71	.55	–
DM. Decision Making Composite	.70	.66	.50	–
SM. Stress Management Composite	.78	.67	.63	.73	–

Note. N = 4,000. All correlations significant at p < .01. Guidelines for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large.

print this table

Table A.19. Correlations among EQ-i 2.0 Subscales

The following table illustrates the correlations among the EQ-i 2.0 subscales in the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample. Correlations range from 0.00 to 1.00, with higher values suggesting the scales share a relevant common psychological characteristic. Shaded cells portray correlations of subscales within their respective composite scales. Moderate correlations were found within the composite scales supporting both the concept that the scales measure a common psychological characteristic, as well as the multidimensional factor structure.

Subscale	Self-Perception			Self-Expression			Interpersonal			Decision Making			Stress Management
Subscale	SR	SA	ES	EE	AS	IN	IR	EM	RE	PS	RT	IC	FL	ST	OP	HA
SR. Self-Regard	–
SA. Self-Actualization	.70	–
ES. Emotional Self-Awareness	.43	.55	–
EE. Emotional Expression	.51	.47	.46	–
AS. Assertiveness	.52	.57	.45	.43	–
IN. Independence	.56	.47	.24	.33	.47	–
IR. Interpersonal Relationships	.56	.62	.52	.59	.46	.31	–
EM. Empathy	.29	.45	.64	.42	.30	.10	.61	–
RE. Social Responsibility	.47	.67	.47	.42	.41	.27	.61	.55	–
PS. Problem Solving	.60	.54	.32	.42	.45	.73	.38	.20	.34	–
RT. Reality Testing	.55	.69	.76	.40	.55	.40	.55	.58	.53	.48	–
IC. Impulse Control	.30	.24	.20	.18	.12	.41	.15	.19	.19	.51	.27	–
FL. Flexibility	.47	.44	.26	.48	.26	.50	.43	.27	.37	.60	.32	.39	–
ST. Stress Tolerance	.59	.65	.42	.34	.49	.56	.46	.32	.46	.67	.61	.33	.50	–
OP. Optimism	.73	.69	.48	.47	.39	.36	.61	.48	.57	.49	.56	.26	.48	.58	–
HA. Happiness	.81	.68	.43	.53	.40	.40	.60	.38	.52	.49	.52	.24	.47	.51	.81	–

Note. N = 4,000. All correlations significant at p < .01. Guidelines for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large.

print this table

Table A.20. Demographic Characteristics of EQ-i 2.0 Validity Samples

The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the samples used in the EQ-i 2.0 validity analyses. Ideally, these samples should include representation from a wide range of demographic groups, as found in the EQ-i 2.0 validity samples.

Demographic		EQ-i 1.0		SSI		NEO-FFI		MSCEIT		Watson-Glaser II
Demographic		N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Gender	Male	50	49.5	50	49.5	50	50.0	50	46.7	51	50.0
Gender	Female	51	50.5	51	50.5	50	50.0	57	53.3	51	50.0
Age Group (Years)	18–29	2	2.0	3	3.0	1	1.0	6	5.6	6	5.9
	30–39	18	17.8	25	24.8	23	23.0	15	14.0	10	9.8
	40–49	29	28.7	27	26.7	36	36.0	24	22.4	20	19.6
	50–59	24	23.8	17	16.8	25	25.0	20	18.7	28	27.5
	60+	28	27.7	29	28.7	15	15.0	42	39.3	38	37.3
	M (SD)	50.6 (12.8)		49.7 (13.6)		47.5 (11.1)		52.8 (14.1)		52.8 (13.5)
Race/ Ethnicity	Black	22	21.8	21	20.8	25	25.0	7	6.5	10	9.8
	Hispanic/Latino	44	43.6	37	36.6	54	54.0	8	7.5	9	8.8
	White	29	28.7	38	37.6	14	14.0	87	81.3	77	75.5
	Other	6	5.9	5	5.0	7	7.0	5	4.7	6	5.9
Education Level	High School or Less	7	6.9	15	14.9	25	25.0	27	25.2	72	70.6
	Some College/University	43	42.6	42	41.6	47	47.0	30	28.0	19	18.6
	College/University or Higher	51	50.5	44	43.6	28	28.0	50	46.7	11	10.8
U.S. Geographic Region	Northeast	16	15.8	14	13.9	10	10.0	22	20.6	24	23.5
	Midwest	3	3.0	15	14.9	6	6.0	16	15.0	21	20.6
	South	42	41.6	38	37.6	37	37.0	48	44.9	37	36.3
	West	40	39.6	34	33.7	47	47.0	21	19.6	20	19.6
Total		101	100.0	101	100.0	100	100.0	107	100.0	102	100.0

Note. SSI = Social Skills Inventory (Riggio & Carney, 2003); NEO-FFI = NEO Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992); MSCEIT = Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer et al., 2002).

print this table

Table A.21. Correlations between EQ-i 2.0 and EQ-i

The following table illustrates correlations between the EQ-i scales and their corresponding EQ-i 2.0 Total EI Score, composite scales, and subscales. Values range from -1.00 to +1.00; values close to -1.00 represent an inverse relationship between scores on the two scales, values close to +1.00 represent a direct relationship, and values close to zero represent a lack of a relationship. Shaded cells indicate constructs that were relatively unchanged from the EQ-i to the EQ-i 2.0. Unshaded cells indicate constructs that changed substantially from the EQ-i to the EQ-i 2.0. The high positive correlations found between the EQ-i and EQ-i 2.0 support the validity of the EQ-i 2.0.

Scale		r	EQ-i		EQ-i 2.0
Scale		r	M	SD	M	SD
Total EI		.90	102.3	14.5	104.6	14.3
Self-Perception Composite	Self-Regard	.88	101.4	14.4	104.1	13.1
	Self-Actualization	.71	100.4	13.0	105.1	13.6
	Emotional Self-Awareness*	.50	103.1	14.5	103.7	15.1
Self-Expression Composite	Emotional Expression*	.84	N/A	N/A	102.6	16.5
	Assertiveness	.65	101.4	12.7	103.9	13.5
	Independence	.81	104.8	13.9	104.5	13.6
Interpersonal Composite	Interpersonal Relationships	.86	99.8	16.2	101.9	14.2
	Empathy	.78	96.1	14.1	101.5	15.4
	Social Responsibility	.49	100.3	13.7	104.3	14.6
Decision Making Composite	Problem Solving	.57	100.7	13.5	103.7	14.3
	Reality Testing	.49	104.7	13.1	103.1	15.2
	Impulse Control	.54	105.6	12.6	100.9	14.0
Stress Management Composite	Flexibility	.67	102.3	15.4	102.0	13.8
	Stress Tolerance	.79	103.7	14.7	103.8	14.9
	Optimism	.69	98.6	14.6	103.1	13.5
Happiness		.84	102.1	14.4	102.8	13.3

Note. N = 101. All correlations are significant at p < .01. Guidelines for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large. N/A = not applicable.
*represents correlations with Emotional Self-Awareness on the original EQ-i.

print this table

Table A.22. Correlations between the EQ-i 2.0 and the Social Skills Inventory

The following table illustrates correlations between the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales, and the Social Skills Inventory (SSI). Values range from -1.00 to +1.00; values close to -1.00 represent an inverse relationship between scores on the two scales, values close to +1.00 represent a direct relationship, and values close to zero represent a lack of a relationship. The positive correlations found between most of the SSI scales (see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity) and the EQ-i 2.0 support the validity of the EQ-i 2.0.

EQ-i 2.0 Scale	SSI Scale
EQ-i 2.0 Scale	Total Score	Total Emotional	Total Social	Total Control	Total Expressivity	Total Sensitivity
Total EI	.54	.54	.47	.63	.47	.08
Self-Perception Composite	.53	.51	.47	.54	.48	.12
Self-Regard	.42	.44	.35	.52	.43	-.06
Self-Actualization	.51	.46	.49	.45	.47	.19
Emotional Self-Awareness	.37	.36	.33	.35	.26	.21
Self-Expression Composite	.47	.47	.41	.53	.46	.03
Emotional Expression	.45	.41	.43	.34	.39	.26
Assertiveness	.24	.24	.21	.35	.24	-.08
Independence	.36	.41	.28	.52	.39	-.13
Interpersonal Composite	.64	.55	.63	.50	.57	.32
Interpersonal Relationships	.66	.57	.63	.54	.62	.25
Empathy	.52	.46	.50	.39	.38	.39
Social Responsibility	.46	.35	.48	.35	.46	.17
Decision Making Composite	.22	.29	.14	.49	.13	-.11
Problem Solving	.29	.39	.17	.55	.23	-.14
Reality Testing	.39	.40	.34	.46	.28	.13
Impulse Control	-.13	-.08	-.15	.15	-.19	-.22
Stress Management Composite	.41	.46	.32	.59	.35	-.03
Flexibility	.37	.40	.29	.50	.33	-.02
Stress Tolerance	.26	.33	.18	.54	.14	-.08
Optimism	.37	.39	.30	.38	.38	.02
Happiness	.37	.39	.31	.41	.41	-.02

Note. N = 101. SSI = Social Skills Inventory (Riggio & Carney, 2003). Correlations of .19 and above are significant at p < .05, correlations of .25 and above are significant at p < .01. Guidelines for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large.

EQ-i 2.0 Scale	SSI Scale
EQ-i 2.0 Scale	Emotional Expressivity	Emotional Sensitivity	Emotional Control	Social Expressivity	Social Sensitivity	Social Control
Total EI	.28	.46	.28	.53	-.35	.65
Self-Perception Composite	.33	.43	.19	.50	-.26	.60
Self-Regard	.27	.29	.28	.47	-.39	.51
Self-Actualization	.34	.44	.06	.48	-.16	.57
Emotional Self-Awareness	.19	.36	.12	.27	-.03	.40
Self-Expression Composite	.35	.41	.12	.45	-.38	.63
Emotional Expression	.33	.41	.00	.37	-.01	.46
Assertiveness	.14	.25	.06	.27	-.38	.44
Independence	.30	.27	.21	.39	-.50	.55
Interpersonal Composite	.34	.53	.15	.63	-.03	.58
Interpersonal Relationships	.36	.52	.19	.69	-.14	.60
Empathy	.22	.49	.14	.42	.11	.43
Social Responsibility	.28	.33	.03	.50	-.07	.46
Decision Making Composite	-.01	.23	.35	.20	-.43	.41
Problem Solving	.12	.27	.36	.26	-.52	.49
Reality Testing	.16	.37	.21	.32	-.18	.47
Impulse Control	-.28	-.09	.22	-.10	-.26	.03
Stress Management Composite	.16	.35	.37	.42	-.42	.52
Flexibility	.16	.30	.31	.39	-.35	.45
Stress Tolerance	.01	.22	.41	.20	-.37	.44
Optimism	.22	.32	.20	.42	-.30	.38
Happiness	.27	.24	.23	.43	-.28	.38

print this table

Table A.23. Correlations between EQ-i 2.0 and NEO Five Factor Inventory

The following table illustrates correlations between the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales, and the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Values range from -1.00 to +1.00; values close to -1.00 represent an inverse relationship between scores on the two scales, values close to +1.00 represent a direct relationship, and values close to zero represent a lack of a relationship. The positive correlations found between most of the NEO-FFI scales (see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity) and the EQ-i 2.0 support the validity of the EQ-i 2.0.

EQ-i 2.0 Scale	NEO-FFI Scale
EQ-i 2.0 Scale	Neuroticism	Extraversion	Openness to Experience	Agreeableness	Conscientiousness
Total EI	-.71	.57	.10	.36	.61
Self-Perception Composite	-.65	.61	.17	.27	.63
Self-Regard	-.68	.57	.04	.21	.46
Self-Actualization	-.53	.54	.18	.18	.63
Emotional Self-Awareness	-.39	.38	.22	.32	.50
Self-Expression Composite	-.57	.45	.14	.15	.46
Emotional Expression	-.39	.45	.19	.29	.32
Assertiveness	-.43	.33	.02	-.09	.44
Independence	-.55	.26	.09	.09	.35
Interpersonal Composite	-.49	.54	.04	.51	.51
Interpersonal Relationships	-.51	.54	-.12	.50	.45
Empathy	-.29	.38	.08	.47	.42
Social Responsibility	-.49	.46	.16	.30	.43
Decision Making Composite	-.64	.29	-.03	.29	.53
Problem Solving	-.50	.21	.02	.14	.36
Reality Testing	-.58	.48	.11	.27	.59
Impulse Control	-.35	-.03	-.20	.25	.25
Stress Management Composite	-.71	.53	.10	.30	.48
Flexibility	-.56	.38	.09	.23	.41
Stress Tolerance	-.58	.38	.07	.17	.41
Optimism	-.61	.56	.10	.34	.38
Happiness	-.64	.49	.05	.13	.44

Note. N = 100. NEO-FFI = NEO Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Correlations of .19 and above are significant at p < .05, correlations of .25 and above are significant at p < .01. Guidelines for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large.

print this table

Table A.24. Correlations between EQ-i 2.0 and Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test - Expert Consensus Scores: Total, Area, and Branch Scores

The following table illustrates correlations between the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales, and the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Total, Area, and Branch Scores). Values range from -1.00 to +1.00; values close to -1.00 represent an inverse relationship between scores on the two scales, values close to +1.00 represent a direct relationship, and values close to zero represent a lack of a relationship. The correlations close to zero found between most of the MSCEIT scores (see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity) and the EQ-i 2.0 support the validity of the EQ-i 2.0.

EQ-i 2.0 Scale	MSCEIT Scale
	Total EIQ	Area Scores		Branch Scores
		Area Scores		Experiential		Strategic
		Experiential	Strategic	Perceiving Emotions	Facilitating Thought	Understanding Emotions	Managing Emotions
Total EI	.12	.15	.04	.12	.15	-.04	.17
Self-Perception Composite	.06	.11	.00	.06	.16	-.07	.10
Self-Regard	-.01	.07	-.11	.06	.06	-.17	.02
Self-Actualization	.03	.06	-.02	.03	.12	-.10	.12
Emotional Self-Awareness	.21	.19	.20	.08	.31	.16	.16
Self-Expression Composite	.05	.07	.02	.05	.04	-.05	.13
Emotional Expression	.13	.14	.09	.07	.19	.01	.18
Assertiveness	-.06	-.03	-.06	-.02	-.07	-.08	-.01
Independence	.02	.04	.01	.05	-.05	-.05	.12
Interpersonal Composite	.07	.08	.01	.03	.15	-.05	.12
Interpersonal Relationships	-.09	-.02	-.17	-.04	.03	-.23	.01
Empathy	.14	.11	.14	.05	.20	.07	.19
Social Responsibility	.17	.14	.12	.10	.20	.08	.14
Decision Making Composite	.27	.27	.16	.27	.18	.09	.24
Problem Solving	.16	.15	.11	.17	.00	.03	.24
Reality Testing	.19	.23	.07	.19	.25	.06	.08
Impulse Control	.23	.22	.16	.24	.14	.10	.20
Stress Management Composite	.09	.12	.01	.11	.09	-.05	.14
Flexibility	.04	.02	.05	.02	-.06	.02	.10
Stress Tolerance	.09	.11	.04	.09	.12	.02	.09
Optimism	.08	.14	-.04	.13	.12	-.14	.14
Happiness	.11	.16	.01	.17	.09	-.08	.16

Note. N = 107. MSCEIT = Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer et al., 2002). Correlations of .19 and above significant at p < .05, correlations of .25 and above significant at p < .01. Guidelines for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large.

print this table

Table A.25. Correlations between EQ-i 2.0 and Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test - Expert Consensus Scores: Task Scores

The following table illustrates correlations between the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales, and the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Task Scores). Values range from -1.00 to +1.00; values close to -1.00 represent an inverse relationship between scores on the two scales, values close to +1.00 represent a direct relationship, and values close to zero represent a lack of a relationship. The correlations close to zero found between most of the MSCEIT scores (see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity) and the EQ-i 2.0 support the validity of the EQ-i 2.0.

EQ-i 2.0 Scale	MSCEIT Task Score
	Experiential				Strategic
	Perceiving Emotions		Facilitating Thought		Understanding Emotions		Managing Emotions
	Faces	Pictures	Sensation	Facilitation	Changes	Blends	Emotional Management	Emotional Relations
Total EI	.17	-.03	.18	.10	-.10	.00	.09	.16
Self-Perception Composite	.10	-.04	.15	.13	-.11	-.04	.02	.11
Self-Regard	.10	-.03	.05	.08	-.20	-.11	-.04	.02
Self-Actualization	.07	-.06	.12	.08	-.09	-.10	.03	.14
Emotional Self-Awareness	.10	.00	.27	.24	.05	.19	.10	.15
Self-Expression Composite	.12	-.10	.09	.04	-.12	.01	.03	.14
Emotional Expression	.17	-.11	.17	.16	-.11	.07	.12	.16
Assertiveness	.01	-.06	.03	-.10	-.10	-.05	-.06	-.01
Independence	.08	-.05	-.02	.00	-.07	-.01	-.01	.16
Interpersonal Composite	.12	-.13	.18	.05	-.13	-.01	.14	.07
Interpersonal Relationships	.05	-.16	.03	.02	-.26	-.17	.02	-.02
Empathy	.12	-.10	.25	.04	-.04	.11	.24	.12
Social Responsibility	.17	-.05	.23	.07	.02	.08	.12	.11
Decision Making Composite	.29	.11	.22	.14	.03	.10	.15	.24
Problem Solving	.22	.00	.04	.06	.03	.03	.14	.22
Reality Testing	.17	.11	.26	.17	.00	.08	.02	.11
Impulse Control	.24	.13	.19	.07	.03	.11	.16	.18
Stress Management Composite	.11	.04	.13	.07	-.08	-.02	.07	.15
Flexibility	.05	.01	-.02	.00	-.06	.05	.02	.14
Stress Tolerance	.05	.09	.18	.05	.06	-.01	.04	.11
Optimism	.15	.01	.13	.10	-.18	-.07	.09	.12
Happiness	.20	.03	.12	.04	-.11	-.07	.08	.14

print this table

Table A.26. Correlations between EQ-i 2.0 and Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal

The following table illustrates correlations between the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales, and the Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal. Values range from -1.00 to +1.00; values close to -1.00 represent an inverse relationship between scores on the two scales, values close to +1.00 represent a direct relationship, and values close to zero represent a lack of a relationship. For most Watson-Glaser II scales (see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity), the correlations close to zero found between most of the Watson-Glaser II scales (see Standardization, Reliability, and Validity) and the EQ-i 2.0 support the validity of the EQ-i 2.0.

EQ-i 2.0 Scale	Watson-Glaser II Critical Thinking Appraisal Scale
EQ-i 2.0 Scale	Total	Recognize Assumptions	Evaluate Arguments	Draw Conclusions
Total EI	-.05	.03	-.25	.02
Self-Perception Composite	-.10	.02	-.23	-.06
Self-Regard	-.06	.10	-.16	-.11
Self-Actualization	-.07	.00	-.20	-.01
Emotional Self-Awareness	-.14	-.09	-.24	-.04
Self-Expression Composite	-.02	.06	-.17	-.01
Emotional Expression	-.07	-.03	-.12	-.02
Assertiveness	-.07	.03	-.18	-.06
Independence	.09	.15	-.10	.06
Interpersonal Composite	-.13	-.08	-.25	-.01
Interpersonal Relationships	-.12	-.04	-.22	-.06
Empathy	-.09	-.05	-.23	.02
Social Responsibility	-.10	-.12	-.16	.04
Decision Making Composite	.03	.08	-.17	.08
Problem Solving	.10	.16	-.19	.13
Reality Testing	-.05	.00	-.26	.06
Impulse Control	.04	.04	.03	.01
Stress Management Composite	.03	.07	-.23	.11
Flexibility	-.04	.02	-.25	.05
Stress Tolerance	.15	.14	-.13	.22
Optimism	-.06	.01	-.19	-.01
Happiness	-.05	.04	-.13	-.05

Note. N = 102. Correlations of .19 and above are significant at p < .05, correlations of .25 and above are significant at p < .01. Guidelines for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large.

print this table

Table A.27. Demographic Characteristics of Corporate Leaders Sample

The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the corporate leaders sample. Ideally, this sample should include leaders representing a wide range of demographic groups, as found in our corporate leaders sample.

Demographic		N	%
Gender	Male	143	64.7
Gender	Female	78	35.3
Age Group (Years)	18–29	16	7.2
	30–39	48	21.7
	40–49	61	27.6
	50–59	66	29.9
	60+	30	13.6
	M (SD)	46.8 (11.4)
Race/Ethnicity	Black	11	5.0
	Hispanic/Latino	8	3.6
	White	175	79.2
	Other	26	11.8
	Missing	1	0.5
Education Level	High School or Less	4	1.8
	Some College/University	27	12.2
	College/University or Higher	189	85.5
	Missing	1	0.5
Occupational Position	CEO	64	29.0
	Other C-level (CFO, COO, etc.)	18	8.1
	Senior Executive	33	14.9
	Director	44	19.9
	Manager	44	19.9
	Other	16	7.2
	Missing	2	0.9
Total		221	100.0

print this table

Table A.28. EQ-i 2.0 Scores in Corporate Leaders

The following table displays the means and standard deviations of the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales in the corporate leaders sample used in validity analyses of the EQ-i 2.0. d values provide an effect size to describe the difference between leaders’ scores and those in the normative sample (M = 100, SD = 15) as small, medium, or large. The meaningfully higher scores (i.e., d ≥ .20) found in leaders relative to the normative sample supports the validity of the EQ-i 2.0.

Scale		Corporate Leaders	Cohen’s d (Relative to Norms)
Total EI	M	112.2	0.82
Total EI	SD	11.7	0.82
Self-Perception Composite	M	111.4	0.77
Self-Perception Composite	SD	11.4	0.77
Self-Regard	M	108.3	0.56
Self-Regard	SD	10.8	0.56
Self-Actualization	M	113.1	0.88
Self-Actualization	SD	10.4	0.88
Emotional Self-Awareness	M	107.0	0.47
Emotional Self-Awareness	SD	14.7	0.47
Self-Expression Composite	M	110.8	0.73
Self-Expression Composite	SD	11.4	0.73
Emotional Expression	M	107.5	0.50
Emotional Expression	SD	12.9	0.50
Assertiveness	M	109.5	0.64
Assertiveness	SD	12.0	0.64
Independence	M	108.4	0.57
Independence	SD	11.6	0.57
Interpersonal Composite	M	109.2	0.62
Interpersonal Composite	SD	11.8	0.62
Interpersonal Relationships	M	108.3	0.56
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	10.9	0.56
Empathy	M	106.2	0.41
Empathy	SD	13.6	0.41
Social Responsibility	M	109.6	0.64
Social Responsibility	SD	12.4	0.64
Decision Making Composite	M	109.6	0.64
Decision Making Composite	SD	13.0	0.64
Problem Solving	M	109.3	0.63
Problem Solving	SD	12.4	0.63
Reality Testing	M	109.0	0.60
Reality Testing	SD	12.4	0.60
Impulse Control	M	104.2	0.28
Impulse Control	SD	14.0	0.28
Stress Management Composite	M	111.1	0.75
Stress Management Composite	SD	12.7	0.75
Flexibility	M	107.4	0.49
Flexibility	SD	13.4	0.49
Stress Tolerance	M	110.5	0.70
Stress Tolerance	SD	13.2	0.70
Optimism	M	109.5	0.64
Optimism	SD	11.5	0.64
Happiness	M	106.9	0.46
Happiness	SD	11.1	0.46

Note. Positive Cohen's d values represent higher mean scores in corporate leaders. Guidelines for evaluating |d| are .20 = small, .50 = medium, .80 = large.

print this table

Table A.29. Education Level Effects on EQ-i 2.0 Scores in the Normative Sample

The following table displays the means and standard deviations of EQ-i 2.0 Total EI scores, composite scales, and subscales in normative participants with a high school education or less and those with a post-secondary college/university degree. d values provide an effect size for describing differences between the two groups as small, medium, or large. The meaningfully higher scores (i.e., d ≥ .20) found in post-secondary graduates relative to individuals with a high school education or less supports the validity of the EQ-i 2.0.

Scale		High School or Less	Post-secondary Graduate	Cohen’s d
Total EI	M	98.1	103.2	0.33
Total EI	SD	15.5	14.8	0.33
Self-Perception Composite	M	98.0	103.8	0.38
Self-Perception Composite	SD	15.5	14.8	0.38
Self-Regard	M	98.4	102.4	0.26
Self-Regard	SD	15.4	14.7	0.26
Self Actualization	M	97.5	105.7	0.54
Self Actualization	SD	15.5	14.8	0.54
Emotional Self-Awareness	M	99.5	101.2	0.11
Emotional Self-Awareness	SD	15.7	15.0	0.11
Self-Expression Composite	M	99.0	100.4	0.09
Self-Expression Composite	SD	15.7	15.0	0.09
Emotional Expression	M	99.1	99.6	0.03
Emotional Expression	SD	15.6	14.9	0.03
Assertiveness	M	99.5	100.3	0.06
Assertiveness	SD	15.7	15.0	0.06
Independence	M	99.3	101.2	0.12
Independence	SD	15.4	14.7	0.12
Interpersonal Composite	M	98.7	102.2	0.23
Interpersonal Composite	SD	15.5	14.8	0.23
Interpersonal Relationships	M	99.8	99.1	-0.05
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	15.7	15.0	-0.05
Empathy	M	99.1	101.9	0.19
Empathy	SD	15.4	14.7	0.19
Social Responsibility	M	97.4	105.3	0.52
Social Responsibility	SD	15.5	14.8	0.52
Decision Making Composite	M	98.3	104.2	0.38
Decision Making Composite	SD	15.6	14.9	0.38
Problem Solving	M	98.7	102.1	0.22
Problem Solving	SD	15.4	14.7	0.22
Reality Testing	M	98.4	103.7	0.34
Reality Testing	SD	15.7	15.0	0.34
Impulse Control	M	99.0	104.2	0.33
Impulse Control	SD	15.8	15.1	0.33
Stress Management Composite	M	97.9	103.0	0.33
Stress Management Composite	SD	15.6	14.9	0.33
Flexibility	M	99.2	100.6	0.10
Flexibility	SD	15.7	15.0	0.10
Stress Tolerance	M	97.5	104.1	0.43
Stress Tolerance	SD	15.4	14.7	0.43
Optimism	M	98.4	102.6	0.27
Optimism	SD	15.6	14.9	0.27
Happiness	M	98.9	101.7	0.18
Happiness	SD	15.7	15.0	0.18

Note. Sample sizes vary due to missing data: High school or less, N = 1,748–1,751; Post-secondary Graduate, N = 402. Positive d values represent higher scores in post-secondary graduates, negative d values represent higher scores in high school or less group.

print this table

Table A.30. Demographic Characteristics of EQ-i 2.0 Clinical and Matched General Population Samples

The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the depressed/dysthymic, other clinical, and matched general population groups used in validity analyses of the EQ-i 2.0. Ideally, these groups should include representation from a wide range of demographic groups, and the general population group should be demographically similar to the depressed/dysthymic and other clinical groups, as was the case in the samples.

Demographic		Depressed/Dysthymic		Other Clinical		Matched General Population
Demographic		N	%	N	%	N	%
Gender	Male	33	42.9	27	54.0	49	49.0
Gender	Female	44	57.1	23	46.0	51	51.0
Age Group (Years)	18–29	12	15.6	9	18.0	17	17.0
	30–39	14	18.2	10	20.0	18	18.0
	40–49	14	18.2	9	18.0	19	19.0
	50–59	21	27.3	7	14.0	20	20.0
	60+	16	20.8	15	30.0	26	26.0
	*M (SD)*	46.2 (15.1)		46.2 (14.7)		46.3 (14.8)
Race/ Ethnicity	Black	0	0.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
	Hispanic/Latino	1	1.3	3	6.0	4	4.0
	White	72	93.5	43	86.0	89	89.0
	Other	4	5.2	4	8.0	7	7.0
Education Level	High School or Less	5	6.5	6	12.0	30	30.0
	Some College/University	24	31.2	19	38.0	28	28.0
	College/University or Higher	48	62.3	25	50.0	42	42.0
U.S. Geographic Region	Northeast	19	24.7	11	22.0	21	21.0
	Midwest	12	15.6	13	26.0	25	25.0
	South	26	33.8	13	26.0	31	31.0
	West	20	26.0	13	26.0	23	23.0
Total		77	100.0	50	100.0	100	100.0

print this table

Table A.31. EQ-i 2.0 Clinical Differences

The following table provides means and standard deviations of EQ-i 2.0 Total EI scores, composite scales, and subscales in the depressed/dysthymic, other clinical, and matched general population samples. F and p values provide statistical significance tests for the overall difference among the groups. d values provide an effect size for evaluating differences as small, medium, or large. Validity of the EQ-i 2.0 is supported by the meaningfully higher scores (i.e., d ≥ .20) found in the general population group relative to the depressed/dysthymic and other clinical groups for most EQ-i 2.0 scales.

Scale		DD. Depressed/Dysthymic	OC. Other Clinical	GP. General Population	F (2, 221)	p	Cohen’s d
Scale		DD. Depressed/Dysthymic	OC. Other Clinical	GP. General Population	F (2, 221)	p	GP vs DD	GP vs OC
Total EI	M	88.9	90.9	98.3	7.89	< .001	0.57	0.45
Total EI	SD	16.5	16.5	16.5	7.89	< .001	0.57	0.45
Self-Perception Composite	M	87.0	92.6	98.1	9.35	< .001	0.66	0.32
Self-Perception Composite	SD	16.9	16.9	16.8	9.35	< .001	0.66	0.32
Self-Regard	M	84.6	89.6	99.4	19.51	< .001	0.93	0.61
Self-Regard	SD	16.0	16.0	16.0	19.51	< .001	0.93	0.61
Self-Actualization	M	89.7	95.5	97.9	4.96	.008	0.47	0.14
Self-Actualization	SD	17.2	17.2	17.1	4.96	.008	0.47	0.14
Emotional Self-Awareness	M	94.6	97.6	97.5	0.73	.481	0.17	-0.01
Emotional Self-Awareness	SD	17.1	17.1	17.0	0.73	.481	0.17	-0.01
Self-Expression Composite	M	94.2	92.6	99.7	4.58	.011	0.36	0.46
Self-Expression Composite	SD	15.5	15.5	15.4	4.58	.011	0.36	0.46
Emotional Expression	M	97.5	96.0	99.3	0.82	.441	0.12	0.21
Emotional Expression	SD	15.5	15.5	15.4	0.82	.441	0.12	0.21
Assertiveness	M	96.7	93.7	99.7	2.24	.109	0.18	0.36
Assertiveness	SD	16.6	16.6	16.6	2.24	.109	0.18	0.36
Independence	M	92.3	92.8	100.4	7.83	.001	0.54	0.51
Independence	SD	15.1	15.1	15.0	7.83	.001	0.54	0.51
Interpersonal Composite	M	93.6	97.0	97.5	1.28	.281	0.23	0.03
Interpersonal Composite	SD	16.6	16.6	16.5	1.28	.281	0.23	0.03
Interpersonal Relationships	M	89.8	92.4	97.9	5.66	.004	0.50	0.34
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	16.4	16.4	16.3	5.66	.004	0.50	0.34
Empathy	M	96.1	99.4	97.5	0.54	.586	0.08	-0.11
Empathy	SD	17.4	17.4	17.4	0.54	.586	0.08	-0.11
Social Responsibility	M	98.7	101.3	98.2	0.70	.497	-0.03	-0.20
Social Responsibility	SD	15.6	15.5	15.5	0.70	.497	-0.03	-0.20
Decision Making Composite	M	89.5	88.4	99.2	10.31	< .001	0.58	0.64
Decision Making Composite	SD	16.7	16.7	16.7	10.31	< .001	0.58	0.64
Problem Solving	M	90.1	89.7	99.9	11.19	< .001	0.62	0.65
Problem Solving	SD	15.8	15.7	15.7	11.19	< .001	0.62	0.65
Reality Testing	M	92.4	97.0	97.8	2.59	.077	0.33	0.05
Reality Testing	SD	16.2	16.2	16.1	2.59	.077	0.33	0.05
Impulse Control	M	92.9	86.7	100.2	11.44	< .001	0.43	0.80
Impulse Control	SD	16.9	16.9	16.8	11.44	< .001	0.43	0.80
Stress Management Composite	M	88.6	89.9	98.6	8.94	< .001	0.59	0.52
Stress Management Composite	SD	17.0	17.0	16.9	8.94	< .001	0.59	0.52
Flexibility	M	94.3	90.1	99.6	6.22	.002	0.33	0.59
Flexibility	SD	16.1	16.1	16.0	6.22	.002	0.33	0.59
Stress Tolerance	M	90.5	90.7	98.8	6.59	.002	0.49	0.48
Stress Tolerance	SD	16.9	16.9	16.8	6.59	.002	0.49	0.48
Optimism	M	87.5	94.0	98.4	8.44	< .001	0.62	0.25
Optimism	SD	17.5	17.5	17.5	8.44	< .001	0.62	0.25
Happiness	M	85.0	91.1	98.8	13.75	< .001	0.79	0.44
Happiness	SD	17.5	17.4	17.4	13.75	< .001	0.79	0.44

Note. Depressed/Dysthymic N = 77, Other Clinical N = 50, General Population N = 100. Positive Cohen's d values represent higher mean scores in general population group. Guidelines for evaluating |d| are .20 = small, .50 = medium, .80 = large.

print this table

Table A.32. EQ-i 2.0 Scores by Racial/Ethnic Group in the Normative Sample

The following table displays means and standard deviations of the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales in the Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White participants from the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample. F values provide statistical significance tests for the overall differences among racial/ethnic groups. Partial η2 values provide an effect size for describing the overall effect of race/ethnicity as small, medium, or large. Partial η2 values between .01 and .06, as found in the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample, suggest that any racial/ethnic differences in EQ-i 2.0 scores are small.

Scale		Black	Hispanic/ Latino	White	F (2, 3680)	Partial η2
Total EI	M	105.7	104.3	98.8	57.68	.03
Total EI	SD	14.7	14.9	14.7	57.68	.03
Self-Perception Composite	M	106.0	104.6	98.5	68.81	.04
Self-Perception Composite	SD	14.7	15.0	14.8	68.81	.04
Self-Regard	M	105.8	104.5	98.5	65.81	.03
Self-Regard	SD	14.6	14.9	14.7	65.81	.03
Self-Actualization	M	104.8	104.2	98.7	49.28	.03
Self-Actualization	SD	14.7	14.9	14.7	49.28	.03
Emotional Self-Awareness	M	104.4	102.8	99.1	30.48	.02
Emotional Self-Awareness	SD	14.8	15.1	14.9	30.48	.02
Self-Expression Composite	M	105.9	104.0	98.9	55.51	.03
Self-Expression Composite	SD	14.8	15.0	14.8	55.51	.03
Emotional Expression	M	102.8	103.0	99.3	18.30	.01
Emotional Expression	SD	14.8	15.1	14.9	18.30	.01
Assertiveness	M	104.7	103.3	99.0	36.59	.02
Assertiveness	SD	14.8	15.1	14.9	36.59	.02
Independence	M	106.5	103.1	99.0	57.08	.03
Independence	SD	14.5	14.7	14.5	57.08	.03
Interpersonal Composite	M	103.3	103.7	99.2	27.17	.01
Interpersonal Composite	SD	14.7	14.9	14.7	27.17	.01
Interpersonal Relationships	M	103.8	104.0	99.2	32.03	.02
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	14.8	15.0	14.8	32.03	.02
Empathy	M	101.4	102.2	99.6	7.53	.00
Empathy	SD	14.5	14.8	14.6	7.53	.00
Social Responsibility	M	103.3	103.2	99.0	26.25	.01
Social Responsibility	SD	14.7	14.9	14.7	26.25	.01
Decision Making Composite	M	105.2	102.2	99.3	32.32	.02
Decision Making Composite	SD	14.6	14.9	14.7	32.32	.02
Problem Solving	M	104.4	101.9	99.5	23.44	.01
Problem Solving	SD	14.5	14.7	14.5	23.44	.01
Reality Testing	M	104.0	102.5	99.3	24.29	.01
Reality Testing	SD	14.8	15.1	14.9	24.29	.01
Impulse Control	M	103.7	100.8	99.7	13.42	.01
Impulse Control	SD	14.9	15.2	15.0	13.42	.01
Stress Management Composite	M	104.1	103.9	99.0	36.11	.02
Stress Management Composite	SD	14.8	15.0	14.8	36.11	.02
Flexibility	M	103.8	103.4	99.1	28.07	.02
Flexibility	SD	15.0	15.2	15.0	28.07	.02
Stress Tolerance	M	102.9	102.6	99.4	17.36	.01
Stress Tolerance	SD	14.6	14.8	14.6	17.36	.01
Optimism	M	103.5	103.7	99.1	29.30	.02
Optimism	SD	14.8	15.1	14.9	29.30	.02
Happiness	M	101.6	104.4	99.2	23.92	.01
Happiness	SD	14.9	15.2	15.0	23.92	.01

Note. Samples sizes vary due to missing data: Black, N = 419, Hispanic/Latino, N = 433, White, N = 2,831–2,834. All F-test values significant at p < .001. Guidelines for evaluating partial η2 are .01 = small; .06 = medium; .14 = large.

print this table

Table A.33. Comparison of Simulation and Control Samples on EQ-i 2.0 Positive Impression and Negative Impression Scale Scores

The following table provides the means and standard deviations for the control and simulation (i.e., fake good/fake bad) groups for the EQ-i 2.0 Positive Impression (PI) and Negative Impression (NI) scales. F and p values provide statistical significance tests for the difference between groups. d values provide an effect size for evaluating differences as small, medium, or large. The validity of the PI and NI scales is supported by the meaningfully higher scores (i.e., d ≥ .20) found in the simulation group relative to the control group.

Response Style Scale	Control Group		Simulation		F (1, 194)	p	d
Response Style Scale	M	SD	M	SD	F (1, 194)	p	d
Positive Impression	0.2	0.9	0.6	0.9	9.36	.003	0.61
Negative Impression	0.2	1.3	1.2	1.3	31.69	< .001	1.12

Note. N = 100 for each group. Positive Cohen's d values represent higher means in simulation samples. Guidelines for evaluating |d| are .20 = small, .50 = medium, .80 = large.

print this table

Table A.34. Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics of Inconsistency Index Scores in EQ-i 2.0 Normative and Random Samples

The following table displays the proportion of participants in the EQ-i 2.0 normative sample and the sample of computer-generated random EQ-i 2.0 responses at each score on the EQ-i 2.0 Inconsistency Index (IncX). The mean and standard deviation of the IncX for each sample is also provided. d provides an effect size for evaluating the difference between the IncX scores of the two groups as small, medium, or large. The validity of the IncX scale is supported by the meaningfully higher scores (i.e., d ≥ .20) found in the random sample relative to the normative sample. The validity of the choice of IncX scale cutoff (i.e., 3) for identifying participants as potentially invalid would also be supported if it classifies a high proportion of random respondents as potentially invalid, as found in the EQ-i 2.0.

Inconsistency Index Score	Normative Sample		Random Sample
Inconsistency Index Score	N	%	N	%
10	0	0.0	1	0.0
9 or higher	0	0.0	28	0.7
8 or higher	1	0.0	152	3.8
7 or higher	3	0.1	543	13.6
6 or higher	5	0.1	1,293	32.3
5 or higher	23	0.6	2,287	57.2
4 or higher	60	1.5	3,172	79.3
3 or higher	140	3.5	3,733	93.3
2 or higher	455	11.4	3,939	98.5
1 or higher	1,449	36.2	3,994	99.9
0 or higher	4,000	100.0	4,000	100.0
M (SD)	0.5 (0.9)		4.8 (1.6)
Cohen’s d	3.36

Note. An IncX score of 3 is used to indicate a potentially inconsistent response style. Positive Cohen's d values represent higher means in the random sample. Guidelines for evaluating |d| are .20 = small, .50 = medium, .80 = large.

For all tables in this section, the “rater” refers to the person completing the assessment, and the “ratee” refers to the person being rated.

print this table

Table A.35. Demographic Description of EQ 360 2.0 Pilot Data (Ratees)

The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the person being rated (i.e., ratees) in the EQ 360 2.0 pilot data sample. Ideally, this sample should include representation from a wide range of demographic groups, as found in the EQ 360 2.0 pilot data.

Demographic		N	%
Ratee Gender	Male	299	39.4
	Female	449	59.2
	Missing	11	1.4
Ratee Age Group (Years)	18–29	167	22.0
	30–39	245	32.3
	40–49	145	19.1
	50–59	134	17.7
	60+	68	9.0
Ratee Race/Ethnicity	Black	54	7.1
	Hispanic/Latino	42	5.5
	White	564	74.3
	Other	99	13.0
Total		759	100.0

print this table

Table A.36. Comparison of EQ 360 2.0 Scores in U.S. and Canadian Samples

The following table provides mean and standard deviations of EQ 360 2.0 scores in U.S. and Canadian samples. d values provide an effect size to describe differences between the two countries as small, medium, or large. F and p values provide statistical significance tests for these differences. The lack of meaningful differences (i.e., |d| ≥ .20) found between U.S. and Canadian participants supports combining the two countries in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample.

Scale		U.S.	Canada	Cohen’s d	F	p
Total EI	M	100.2	97.8	0.16	6.60	.010
Total EI	SD	15.0	15.0	0.16	6.60	.010
Self-Perception Composite	M	100.1	98.8	0.09	1.89	.169
Self-Perception Composite	SD	15.0	15.0	0.09	1.89	.169
Self-Regard	M	100.2	98.2	0.13	4.19	.041
Self-Regard	SD	15.0	15.0	0.13	4.19	.041
Self-Actualization	M	100.1	98.9	0.08	1.52	.217
Self-Actualization	SD	15.0	15.0	0.08	1.52	.217
Emotional Self-Awareness	M	100.0	99.8	0.01	0.05	.822
Emotional Self-Awareness	SD	15.0	15.0	0.01	0.05	.822
Self-Expression Composite	M	100.2	97.5	0.18	8.27	.004
Self-Expression Composite	SD	15.0	15.0	0.18	8.27	.004
Emotional Expression	M	100.3	97.0	0.22	11.71	.001
Emotional Expression	SD	14.8	14.9	0.22	11.71	.001
Assertiveness	M	100.1	99.2	0.06	0.75	.386
Assertiveness	SD	15.0	15.0	0.06	0.75	.386
Independence	M	100.2	97.9	0.16	6.03	.014
Independence	SD	14.9	14.9	0.16	6.03	.014
Interpersonal Composite	M	100.1	98.5	0.11	3.12	.077
Interpersonal Composite	SD	15.0	15.0	0.11	3.12	.077
Interpersonal Relationships	M	100.1	98.6	0.10	2.59	.107
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	15.0	15.0	0.10	2.59	.107
Empathy	M	100.2	98.3	0.12	3.69	.055
Empathy	SD	14.9	15.0	0.12	3.69	.055
Social Responsibility	M	100.1	99.0	0.08	1.40	.237
Social Responsibility	SD	14.9	15.0	0.08	1.40	.237
Decision Making Composite	M	100.3	97.0	0.22	12.03	.001
Decision Making Composite	SD	15.0	15.0	0.22	12.03	.001
Problem Solving	M	100.3	96.9	0.23	12.72	.000
Problem Solving	SD	14.9	15.0	0.23	12.72	.000
Reality Testing	M	100.1	98.6	0.10	2.59	.108
Reality Testing	SD	15.0	15.0	0.10	2.59	.108
Impulse Control	M	100.3	96.7	0.24	14.48	< .001
Impulse Control	SD	15.0	15.0	0.24	14.48	< .001
Stress Management Composite	M	100.2	98.0	0.15	5.46	.019
Stress Management Composite	SD	15.0	15.0	0.15	5.46	.019
Flexibility	M	100.2	97.6	0.18	7.71	.006
Flexibility	SD	14.9	15.0	0.18	7.71	.006
Stress Tolerance	M	100.1	98.5	0.11	2.87	.090
Stress Tolerance	SD	14.9	15.0	0.11	2.87	.090
Optimism	M	100.1	98.4	0.12	3.45	.063
Optimism	SD	15.0	15.0	0.12	3.45	.063
Happiness	M	100.1	99.0	0.07	1.24	.265
Happiness	SD	15.0	15.0	0.07	1.24	.265

Note. Positive Cohen's d values signify higher means in the U.S. group, negative Cohen’s d values signify higher means in the Canadian group. Sample sizes vary due to missing data: U.S. = 2,925 to 2,928, Canada = 272. df for F-tests = 1, 3195 (Total EI); 1, 3194 (composites); 1, 3192 (subscales). Guidelines for evaluating |d| are .20 = small, .50 = medium, .80 = large.

print this table

Table A.37. Length of Rater/Ratee Relationship: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table describes the raters in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample in terms of the length of their relationship with the ratee. Ideally, the majority of raters should have a long (at least one year) relationship with ratees to ensure ratings are well-informed, as found in over 90% of the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample.

Length of Relationship to Ratee	N	%
Less than 3 Months	0	0.0
3 Months to Under 1 Year	308	9.6
1 to 5 Years	1,285	40.2
6 to 10 Years	522	16.3
Over 10 Years	1,085	33.9
Total	3,200	100.0

print this table

Table A.38. Strength of Rater/Ratee Relationship: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table describes the raters in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample in terms of the strength of their relationship with the ratee. Ideally, the majority of raters should have a strong (at least “Fairly Well”) relationship with ratees to ensure ratings are well-informed, as found in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample.

How Well Rater Knows Ratee	N	%
Not Very Well	0	0.0
Fairly Well	1,346	42.1
Well	793	24.8
Very Well	1,061	33.2
Total	3,200	100.0

print this table

Table A.39. Distribution of Rater Types by Gender: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table describes the ratee gender distribution of the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample within rater types. Ideally, males and females should show similar proportions within rater types to ensure equal representation, as found in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample.

Rater Type	Ratee Gender
Rater Type	Male	Female	Total
Direct Report	400	400	800
Manager	400	400	800
Work Peer	400	400	800
Family/Friend	400	400	800
Total	1,600	1,600	3,200

print this table

Table A.40. Ratee Age Group by Gender Distribution: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table describes the gender distribution of the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample within age groups. Ideally, as found in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample, the groups should show similar proportions, reflecting equal representation of all gender x age groups.

Ratee Age Group (Years)	Ratee Gender
	Male		Female		Total
	N	%	N	%	N	%
18–24	118	3.7	124	3.9	242	7.6
25–29	185	5.8	190	5.9	375	11.7
30–34	185	5.8	186	5.8	371	11.6
35–39	191	6.0	189	5.9	380	11.9
40–44	191	6.0	189	5.9	380	11.9
45–49	188	5.9	178	5.6	366	11.4
50–54	183	5.7	189	5.9	372	11.6
55–59	181	5.7	182	5.7	363	11.3
60+	178	5.5	173	5.4	351	10.9
Total	1,600	50.0	1,600	50.0	3,200	100.0

print this table

Table A.41. Distribution of Ratee Race/Ethnicity by Rater Type: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table summarizes the racial/ethnic distribution of the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample along with Census information. Ideally, the normative sample should show race/ethnicity proportions similar to Census. Note that separate Census targets are provided for Direct Report rater types (i.e., the ratee is a manager) because racial/ethnic representation for managers is slightly different from the general population. All race/ethnic groups were within 4% of Census, suggesting the normative sample is representative of the general population.

Country	Ratee Race/Ethnicity	Rater Type
		Direct Report			Other Rater Types (Manager, Work Peer, Family/Friend)
		N	%	Census %	N	%	Census %
U.S.	Other	50	6.8	6.7	156	7.1	6.7
	Black	60	8.1	8.3	269	12.3	12.2
	Hispanic/Latino	45	6.1	7.0	274	12.5	15.0
	White	585	79.1	78.0	1489	68.1	66.1
	Total	740	100.0	100.0	2188	100.0	100.0
Canada	White	47	78.3	80.0	177	83.5	80.0
	Non-White	13	21.7	20.0	35	16.5	20.0
	Total	60	100.0	100.0	212	100.0	100.0

print this table

Table A.42. Ratee Geographic Region Distribution: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table summarizes the geographic region distribution of the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample along with Census information. Ideally, the normative sample should show region proportions similar to Census. These results were found for most of the regional groups in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample, suggesting it is representative of the general population.

Country	Ratee Geographic Region	N	%	Census %
U.S.	Northeast	515	16.1	18.1
	Midwest	646	20.2	21.9
	South	1,063	33.2	36.7
	West	704	22.0	23.3
	Total	2,928	100.0	100.0
Canada	West	29	10.7	13.0
	Prairies	31	11.4	17.1
	Central	200	73.5	62.4
	East	12	4.4	7.3
	Total	272	100.0	100.0

print this table

Table A.43. Multivariate Effects of Ratee Age, Gender, and Rater Type on EQ 360 2.0 Scores

The following table summarizes the results from the multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) conducted on the composite scales and subscales to examine potential effects of gender, age, and rater type, or their respective interactions on EQ 360 2.0 scores in the normative sample. Wilks’ lambda ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 and depicts the amount of variance not explained by the demographic variable. F and p values convey the statistical significance of the demographic variables. Partial η2 values provide an effect size for describing the effects as small, medium, or large. Meaningful effect sizes (i.e., partial η2 ≥ .01) suggest differences among participants based on the demographic variable. Because the interaction effects were not significant at the multivariate level, the univaritate effects of the interactions were not explored.

Analysis	Demographic Variable	Wilks' Lambda	*F (df)*	p	Partial η2
Composites	Gender	.969	20.12 (5, 3166)	< .001	.03
	Age	.970	4.87 (20, 10501.38)	< .001	.01
	Rater Type	.932	15.17 (15, 8740.33)	< .001	.02
	Gender x Age	.992	1.26 (20, 10501.38)	.197	.00
	Gender x Rater Type	.996	0.76 (15, 8740.33)	.726	.00
	Age x Rater Type	.974	1.41 (60, 14828.92)	.021	.01
Subscales	Gender	.909	19.76 (16, 3153)	< .001	.09
	Age	.912	4.57(64, 12345.71)	< .001	.02
	Rater Type	.843	11.52 (48, 9455)	< .001	.06
	Gender x Age	.980	1.01 (64, 12345.71)	.450	.01
	Gender x Rater Type	.927	0.97 (48, 9378.60)	.537	.01
	Age x Rater Type	.927	1.26 (192, 30483.87)	.009	.01

print this table

Table A.44. Effect Sizes for Gender, Age, and Rater Type Effects in the EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table summarizes the effect sizes for the effects of gender, age, and the rater type on the EQ 360 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales and subscales in the normative sample. Meaningful effect sizes (i.e., |d| ≥ .20; partial η2 ≥ .01) suggest differences among participants (ratees) based on the demographic variable, and that separate demographic norm groups may be required. The d and partial η2 values found in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample suggest negligible or very small effects of ratee gender, ratee age, and rater type.

Scale	Ratee Gender (Cohen’s d)	Ratee Age (partial η2)	Rater Type (partial η2)
Total EI	-0.01	.00	.00
Self-Perception Composite	-0.02	.00	.00
Self-Regard	-0.11	.00	.01
Self-Actualization	-0.02	.00	.01
Emotional Self-Awareness	-0.15	.00	.01
Self-Expression Composite	-0.05	.00	.02
Emotional Expression	-0.29	.00	.00
Assertiveness	0.04	.00	.02
Independence	0.13	.01	.04
Interpersonal Composite	-0.12	.00	.01
Interpersonal Relationships	-0.01	.00	.01
Empathy	-0.19	.00	.01
Social Responsibility	-0.11	.01	.00
Decision Making Composite	0.06	.00	.01
Problem Solving	0.14	.00	.02
Reality Testing	0.02	.00	.01
Impulse Control	0.01	.01	.01
Stress Management Composite	0.08	.00	.01
Flexibility	0.04	.01	.01
Stress Tolerance	0.16	.00	.01
Optimism	0.01	.00	.00
Happiness	0.03	.00	.00

Note. N = 3,200. Positive Cohen’s d values represent higher scores in males, negative Cohen’s d values represent higher scores in females. Guidelines for evaluating |d| are .20 = small, .50 = medium, .80 = large. Guidelines for evaluating partial η2 are .01 = small, .06 = medium, .14 = large.

print this table

Table A.45. Ratee Gender Differences in EQ 360 2.0 Scores

The following table provides means and standard deviations for the EQ 360 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales for ratings of male and female ratees in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample. F and p values convey the statistical significance of gender differences. p values less than .01, which were found for a few EQ 360 2.0 scales, suggest differences between male and female ratees.

Scale		Ratee Gender		F	p
Scale		Male	Female	F	p
Total EI	M	99.8	99.8	0.01	.936
Total EI	SD	15.6	15.6	0.01	.936
Self-Perception Composite	M	99.8	99.9	0.05	.818
Self-Perception Composite	SD	15.6	15.7	0.05	.818
Self-Regard	M	101.0	99.1	11.98	.001
Self-Regard	SD	15.6	15.6	11.98	.001
Self Actualization	M	99.8	99.9	0.02	.885
Self Actualization	SD	15.6	15.6	0.02	.885
Emotional Self-Awareness	M	98.6	101.0	18.65	< .001
Emotional Self-Awareness	SD	15.6	15.6	18.65	< .001
Self-Expression Composite	M	99.6	100.2	1.21	.271
Self-Expression Composite	SD	15.5	15.5	1.21	.271
Emotional Expression	M	97.7	101.9	60.03	< .001
Emotional Expression	SD	15.5	15.5	60.03	< .001
Assertiveness	M	100.3	99.6	1.66	.198
Assertiveness	SD	15.5	15.5	1.66	.198
Independence	M	100.9	98.9	14.27	< .001
Independence	SD	15.2	15.2	14.27	< .001
Interpersonal Composite	M	99.0	100.7	10.20	.001
Interpersonal Composite	SD	15.6	15.6	10.20	.001
Interpersonal Relationships	M	99.9	99.9	0.00	.995
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	15.6	15.6	0.00	.995
Empathy	M	98.4	101.3	27.97	< .001
Empathy	SD	15.5	15.5	27.97	< .001
Social Responsibility	M	99.1	100.8	8.97	.003
Social Responsibility	SD	15.6	15.6	8.97	.003
Decision Making Composite	M	100.3	99.4	2.90	.088
Decision Making Composite	SD	15.6	15.6	2.90	.088
Problem Solving	M	100.9	98.9	13.82	< .001
Problem Solving	SD	15.4	15.4	13.82	< .001
Reality Testing	M	100.0	99.7	0.37	.541
Reality Testing	SD	15.6	15.6	0.37	.541
Impulse Control	M	100.0	99.8	0.06	.811
Impulse Control	SD	15.6	15.6	0.06	.811
Stress Management Composite	M	100.4	99.0	5.78	.016
Stress Management Composite	SD	15.6	15.6	5.78	.016
Flexibility	M	99.9	99.3	1.04	.307
Flexibility	SD	15.5	15.5	1.04	.307
Stress Tolerance	M	101.1	98.5	22.99	< .001
Stress Tolerance	SD	15.5	15.5	22.99	< .001
Optimism	M	100.0	99.7	0.34	.559
Optimism	SD	15.6	15.7	0.34	.559
Happiness	M	100.2	99.6	1.11	.291
Happiness	SD	15.7	15.7	1.11	.291

Note. Sample sizes vary due to missing data: Males, N = 1,598–1,600; females, N = 1,599–1,600. df for F-tests = 1, 3190 (Total EI); 1, 3189 (composites); 1, 3187 (subscales). Positive d values represent higher mean scores in males, negative d values represent higher mean scores in females. Guidelines for evaluating |d| = .20 (small); .50 (medium); .80 (large).

print this table

Table A.46. Ratee Age Differences in EQ 360 2.0 Scores

The following table provides means and standard deviations for the EQ 360 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales for the various rate age groups in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample. F and p values convey the statistical significance of age differences. p values less than .01, which were found for a few EQ 360 2.0 scales, suggest a difference in scores among EQ 360 2.0 ratee age groups.

Scale		Ratee Age					F	p
Scale		18–29 Years	30–39 Years	40–49 Years	50–59 Years	60+ Years	F	p
Total EI	M	98.9	100.8	100.4	100.4	98.5	2.39	.048
Total EI	SD	15.2	14.9	15.0	15.0	15.0	2.39	.048
Self-Perception Composite	M	99.0	100.8	100.4	100.1	99.1	1.70	.148
Self-Perception Composite	SD	15.2	15.0	15.0	15.0	15.0	1.70	.148
Self-Regard	M	99.0	100.3	100.1	100.1	100.6	0.84	.500
Self-Regard	SD	15.1	14.9	14.9	14.9	15.0	0.84	.500
Self Actualization	M	98.9	100.9	100.5	100.2	98.6	2.44	.045
Self Actualization	SD	15.1	14.9	14.9	14.9	15.0	2.44	.045
Emotional Self-Awareness	M	99.5	100.7	100.4	100.1	98.3	1.84	.118
Emotional Self-Awareness	SD	15.1	14.9	14.9	14.9	15.0	1.84	.118
Self-Expression Composite	M	98.6	100.3	100.9	100.6	98.9	2.89	.021
Self-Expression Composite	SD	15.0	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.9	2.89	.021
Emotional Expression	M	100.4	100.3	100.5	99.7	98.2	1.72	.143
Emotional Expression	SD	15.1	14.8	14.8	14.9	14.9	1.72	.143
Assertiveness	M	98.9	99.8	100.7	100.6	99.8	1.59	.175
Assertiveness	SD	15.1	14.8	14.8	14.9	14.9	1.59	.175
Independence	M	97.5	100.6	100.9	101.0	99.4	6.64	< .001
Independence	SD	14.8	14.5	14.5	14.6	14.6	6.64	< .001
Interpersonal Composite	M	99.0	100.8	99.9	100.4	99.2	1.68	.153
Interpersonal Composite	SD	15.1	14.9	14.9	14.9	15.0	1.68	.153
Interpersonal Relationships	M	100.4	100.6	99.7	99.8	98.8	1.17	.324
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	15.2	14.9	14.9	15.0	15.0	1.17	.324
Empathy	M	99.0	100.9	100.2	100.1	99.1	1.66	.156
Empathy	SD	15.1	14.9	14.9	14.9	14.9	1.66	.156
Social Responsibility	M	97.4	100.6	99.8	101.6	100.2	6.98	< .001
Social Responsibility	SD	15.1	14.9	14.9	14.9	15.0	6.98	< .001
Decision Making Composite	M	98.4	100.6	100.5	100.8	98.8	3.37	.009
Decision Making Composite	SD	15.1	14.9	14.9	14.9	15.0	3.37	.009
Problem Solving	M	98.5	100.6	100.6	100.5	99.3	2.54	.038
Problem Solving	SD	15.0	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.8	2.54	.038
Reality Testing	M	99.2	100.8	100.4	100.3	98.4	2.12	.076
Reality Testing	SD	15.2	14.9	14.9	15.0	15.0	2.12	.076
Impulse Control	M	98.3	100.2	100.4	101.3	99.3	3.91	.004
Impulse Control	SD	15.1	14.9	14.9	14.9	15.0	3.91	.004
Stress Management Composite	M	100.1	101.0	100.3	99.7	97.4	3.69	.005
Stress Management Composite	SD	15.1	14.9	14.9	14.9	15.0	3.69	.005
Flexibility	M	101.3	101.2	100.4	98.9	96.3	8.97	< .001
Flexibility	SD	15.1	14.8	14.9	14.9	14.9	8.97	< .001
Stress Tolerance	M	99.0	100.9	100.5	100.4	98.0	3.33	.010
Stress Tolerance	SD	15.0	14.8	14.8	14.8	14.9	3.33	.010
Optimism	M	100.1	100.5	100.0	99.8	98.6	0.99	.414
Optimism	SD	15.2	15.0	15.0	15.0	15.0	0.99	.414
Happiness	M	100.6	100.6	99.7	99.6	99.0	1.04	.385
Happiness	SD	15.2	15.0	15.0	15.0	15.1	1.04	.385

Note. Sample sizes vary due to missing data: 18–29 Years, N = 616–617; 30–39 Years, N = 750–751; 40–49 Years, N = 746; 50–59 Years, N = 746; 60+ Years, N = 350–351. df for F-tests = 4, 3190 (Total EI); 4, 3189 (composites); 4, 3187 (subscales).

print this table

Table A.47. Rater Type Differences in EQ 360 2.0 Scores

The following table provides means and standard deviations for the EQ 360 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales for the various rater types in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample. F and p values convey the statistical significance of rater type differences.

Scale		Rater Type				F	p
Scale		Direct Report	Manager	Work Peer	Friend/Family Member	F	p
Total EI	M	101.4	98.2	99.5	100.2	5.63	.001
Total EI	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.5	5.63	.001
Self-Perception Composite	M	101.4	98.5	99.4	100.2	4.89	.002
Self-Perception Composite	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.5	4.89	.002
Self-Regard	M	102.4	98.6	100.2	98.9	9.85	< .001
Self-Regard	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.5	9.85	< .001
Self Actualization	M	101.7	98.6	99.0	100.0	6.25	< .001
Self Actualization	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.5	6.25	< .001
Emotional Self-Awareness	M	99.1	98.9	99.3	102.0	7.38	< .001
Emotional Self-Awareness	SD	15.7	15.8	15.5	15.4	7.38	< .001
Self-Expression Composite	M	103.0	97.1	99.5	99.9	18.78	< .001
Self-Expression Composite	SD	15.7	15.7	15.5	15.3	18.78	< .001
Emotional Expression	M	99.5	99.9	100.9	98.9	2.24	.082
Emotional Expression	SD	15.7	15.7	15.5	15.4	2.24	.082
Assertiveness	M	102.9	97.8	98.7	100.5	16.46	< .001
Assertiveness	SD	15.7	15.7	15.5	15.4	16.46	< .001
Independence	M	104.5	95.6	99.1	100.3	44.86	< .001
Independence	SD	15.4	15.4	15.2	15.1	44.86	< .001
Interpersonal Composite	M	98.6	99.4	99.8	101.8	6.12	< .001
Interpersonal Composite	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.4	6.12	< .001
Interpersonal Relationships	M	98.4	99.0	99.9	102.2	9.45	< .001
Interpersonal Relationships	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.5	9.45	< .001
Empathy	M	98.4	99.4	99.6	102.0	8.05	< .001
Empathy	SD	15.7	15.7	15.5	15.4	8.05	< .001
Social Responsibility	M	99.6	100.1	99.9	100.2	0.27	.847
Social Responsibility	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.5	0.27	.847
Decision Making Composite	M	101.8	98.4	99.9	99.2	7.08	< .001
Decision Making Composite	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.4	7.08	< .001
Problem Solving	M	103.2	97.4	100.4	98.5	21.79	< .001
Problem Solving	SD	15.6	15.6	15.4	15.3	21.79	< .001
Reality Testing	M	99.8	98.7	99.1	101.7	5.75	.001
Reality Testing	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.5	5.75	.001
Impulse Control	M	101.7	99.8	100.3	97.8	8.41	< .001
Impulse Control	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.4	8.41	< .001
Stress Management Composite	M	102.0	98.1	99.2	99.5	8.80	< .001
Stress Management Composite	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.4	8.80	< .001
Flexibility	M	102.2	98.5	99.9	97.8	12.48	< .001
Flexibility	SD	15.7	15.7	15.5	15.4	12.48	< .001
Stress Tolerance	M	102.2	97.8	99.3	99.8	10.79	< .001
Stress Tolerance	SD	15.7	15.7	15.5	15.4	10.79	< .001
Optimism	M	100.9	98.7	98.8	100.8	4.83	.002
Optimism	SD	15.8	15.8	15.6	15.5	4.83	.002
Happiness	M	100.7	98.7	99.9	100.2	2.34	.072
Happiness	SD	15.9	15.9	15.6	15.5	2.34	.072

Note. Sample sizes vary due to missing data: Direct Report, N = 798–800; Manager, N = 799–800; Work Peer, N = 800; Family/Friend, N = 800. df for F-tests = 3, 3190 (Total EI); 3, 3189 (composites); 3, 3187 (subscales).

print this table

Figure A.2. Histogram of EQ 360 2.0 Total EI Standard Score in the Normative Sample

The following figure illustrates the distribution of EQ 360 2.0 Total EI scores in the normative sample. Distributions that approximate a normal (“bell-shaped”) curve, such as in the figure below, suggest it is unnecessary to apply a normalizing transformation to EQ 360 2.0 scores.

EQ 360 2.0 Total EI Standard Score

print this table

Table A.48. Internal Consistency: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table summarizes the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) values for the EQ 360 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample. Alpha values range from 0.00 to 1.00. Higher values, as found in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample, support the excellent reliability of the EQ 360 2.0.

Scale	# of items	EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample
Total EI	118	.98
Self-Perception Composite	24	.94
Self-Regard	8	.87
Self-Actualization	9	.92
Emotional Self-Awareness	7	.86
Self-Expression Composite	23	.89
Emotional Expression	8	.82
Assertiveness	7	.79
Independence	8	.85
Interpersonal Composite	23	.96
Interpersonal Relationships	7	.92
Empathy	9	.94
Social Responsibility	6	.87
Decision Making Composite	24	.94
Problem Solving	8	.90
Reality Testing	9	.89
Impulse Control	8	.86
Stress Management Composite	24	.95
Flexibility	8	.86
Stress Tolerance	8	.90
Optimism	8	.92
Well-Being Indicator	8	.92

Note. N = 3,200.

print this table

Table A.49. Demographic Characteristics of EQ 360 2.0 Test-Retest Sample

The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the EQ 360 2.0 test-retest sample. Ideally, this sample should include representation from a wide range of demographic groups, as found in the EQ 360 2.0 test-retest sample.

Demographic		N	%
Ratee Gender	Male	100	49.3
Ratee Gender	Female	103	50.7
Ratee Race/Ethnicity	Black	45	22.2
	Hispanic/Latino	30	14.8
	White	112	55.2
	Other	16	7.9
Ratee Age Group (Years)	18–29	52	25.6
	30–39	48	23.6
	40–49	45	22.2
	50–59	43	21.2
	60+	15	7.4
Ratee U.S. Geographic Region	Northeast	29	14.3
	Midwest	39	19.2
	South	84	41.4
	West	50	24.6
Rater Type	Direct report	23	11.3
	Manager	51	25.1
	Work Peer	96	47.3
	Friend/Family Member	33	16.3
Total		203	100.0

Note. All demographic variables represent ratees except Rater Type. Mean and standard deviation for age was unavailable. Region value for one participant was Canada. Time interval mean = 19.3 days (SD = 2.4 days), range = 14–23 days.

print this table

Table A.50. EQ 360 2.0 Test-Retest Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

The following table displays the test-retest correlations, as well as time 1 and time 2 means and standard deviations for the EQ 360 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales. Correlations range from 0.00 to 1.00. Higher values, as found in the EQ 360 2.0, suggest very good test-retest reliability.

Scale	Test-retest r	Time 1		Time 2
Scale	Test-retest r	M	SD	M	SD
Total EI	.89	98.4	14.9	98.2	16.0
Self-Perception Composite	.83	98.3	14.8	98.9	16.1
Self-Regard	.82	98.5	14.7	99.0	15.5
Self-Actualization	.81	98.2	14.8	98.6	16.0
Emotional Self-Awareness	.78	98.8	15.0	99.4	16.0
Self-Expression Composite	.84	98.2	14.6	98.0	15.8
Emotional Expression	.79	99.6	14.2	99.2	13.9
Assertiveness	.76	98.8	14.8	98.6	15.2
Independence	.84	97.5	15.7	97.4	16.9
Interpersonal Composite	.89	98.2	15.2	98.3	15.6
Interpersonal Relationships	.89	98.3	15.9	98.0	16.1
Empathy	.86	98.3	15.4	98.2	15.5
Social Responsibility	.84	98.5	14.5	99.4	15.1
Decision Making Composite	.86	98.9	14.5	98.1	15.8
Problem Solving	.82	98.8	15.4	98.1	16.3
Reality Testing	.83	98.7	14.5	98.7	15.4
Impulse Control	.78	99.7	14.0	98.4	15.4
Stress Management Composite	.89	98.8	15.3	98.4	16.3
Flexibility	.81	99.5	15.5	98.3	15.9
Stress Tolerance	.85	99.3	14.9	98.4	15.9
Optimism	.85	98.1	15.5	98.9	15.9
Happiness	.87	98.4	15.0	98.7	15.8

Note. N = 203.

print this table

Table A.51. Differences between Time 1 and Time 2 EQ 360 2.0 Standard Scores

The following table summarizes the differences between time 1 and time 2 scores for the EQ 360 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales. The first set of results (% of Respondents) lists the percentage of respondents whose scores decreased by more than 15 points, changed by 15 points or less, or increased by more than 15 points over time. Test-retest stability is supported if the majority of respondents show changes of 15 points or less over time, as found in the EQ 360 2.0. The mean and standard deviation of these differences across participants is also provided, along with the 95% confidence interval (CI), which illustrates whether the difference is statistically meaningful for the sample as a whole. That is, if the CI includes zero between the lower bound (LB) and upper bound (UB), as found for the majority of EQ 360 2.0 scales, the difference is not statistically meaningful.

Scale	% of Respondents			M Diff	SD	95% CI
Scale	Scores Decreased More than 1 SD (15 Points)	Scores Changed by 1 SD or Less (15 Points)	Scores Increased More than 1 SD (15 Points)	M Diff	SD	LB	UB
Total EI	3.4	95.1	1.5	-0.2	7.4	-0.9	0.6
Self-Perception Composite	3.4	92.1	4.4	0.6	9.1	-0.3	1.6
Self-Regard	2.5	92.2	5.4	0.5	9.2	-0.5	1.6
Self-Actualization	2.5	94.5	3.0	0.4	9.6	-0.7	1.4
Emotional Self-Awareness	3.0	90.6	6.4	0.8	10.4	-0.1	1.7
Self-Expression Composite	3.9	93.6	2.5	-0.3	8.6	-1.1	0.6
Emotional Expression	4.4	90.2	5.4	-0.4	9.2	-1.3	0.6
Assertiveness	7.9	85.3	6.9	-0.2	10.5	-1.1	0.7
Independence	3.9	93.6	2.5	-0.1	9.2	-1.0	0.9
Interpersonal Composite	3.0	95.6	1.5	0.1	7.3	-0.6	0.8
Interpersonal Relationships	2.0	96.1	2.0	-0.3	7.4	-1.2	0.5
Empathy	3.0	94.5	2.5	-0.1	8.1	-0.9	0.7
Social Responsibility	1.5	95.1	3.4	1.0	8.5	0.2	1.7
Decision Making Composite	4.9	94.1	1.0	-0.8	8.2	-1.6	0.0
Problem Solving	4.9	91.7	3.4	-0.7	9.6	-1.7	0.3
Reality Testing	3.4	94.6	2.0	0.0	8.9	-1.0	1.0
Impulse Control	6.9	90.1	3.0	-1.4	9.7	-2.2	-0.5
Stress Management Composite	3.9	95.1	1.0	-0.5	7.6	-1.2	0.3
Flexibility	5.9	89.7	4.4	-1.2	9.7	-2.2	-0.3
Stress Tolerance	5.4	92.6	2.0	-0.9	8.4	-1.7	0.0
Optimism	4.9	93.6	1.5	0.8	8.5	-0.0	1.7
Happiness	3.4	93.6	3.0	0.3	8.0	-0.6	1.1

Note. N = 203. M Diff = mean difference; CI = confidence interval; LB = lower bound, UB = upper bound.

print this table

Table A.52. Correlations among EQ 360 2.0 Composite Scales (Normative Sample)

The following table illustrates the correlations among the EQ 360 2.0 composite scales in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample. Correlations range from 0.00 to 1.00, with higher values suggesting the scales share a relevant common psychological characteristic (i.e., emotional intelligence). Moderately sized correlations, like those that were found in the EQ 360 2.0, support both the concept that the scales measure a common psychological characteristic, as well as the multidimensional factor structure of the EQ 360 2.0.

Composite Scale	SP	SE	IS	DM	SM
SP. Self-Perception Composite	–
SE. Self-Expression Composite	.79	–
IS. Interpersonal Composite	.81	.64	–
DM. Decision Making Composite	.80	.74	.74	–
SM. Stress Management Composite	.85	.75	.80	.86	–

Note. N = 3,200. All correlations significant at p < .01. Guidelines for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large.

print this table

Table A.53. Correlations among EQ 360 2.0 Subscales (Normative Sample)

The following table illustrates the correlations among the EQ 360 2.0 subscales in the EQ 360 2.0 normative sample. Correlations range from 0.00 to 1.00, with higher values suggesting the scales share a relevant common psychological characteristic (i.e., emotional intelligence). Shaded cells portray correlations of subscales within their respective composite scales. Moderate correlations support the multidimensional factor structure of the EQ 360 2.0.

Scale	Self-Perception			Self-Expression			Interpersonal			Decision Making			Stress Management			HA
Scale	SR	SA	ES	EE	AS	IN	IR	EM	RE	PS	RT	IC	FL	ST	OP	HA
SR. Self-Regard	–
SA. Self-Actualization	.72	–
ES. Emotional Self-Awareness	.54	.67	–
EE. Emotional Expression	.51	.49	.56	–
AS. Assertiveness	.58	.62	.53	.41	–
IN. Independence	.64	.63	.40	.37	.60	–
IR. Interpersonal Relationships	.59	.71	.67	.61	.45	.43	–
EM. Empathy	.49	.68	.76	.59	.40	.37	.81	–
RE. Social Responsibility	.56	.76	.65	.50	.48	.43	.71	.75	–
PS. Problem Solving	.68	.68	.50	.48	.54	.80	.55	.53	.53	–
RT. Reality Testing	.64	.79	.82	.52	.60	.56	.74	.80	.72	.66	–
IC. Impulse Control	.43	.49	.42	.31	.23	.50	.45	.54	.47	.67	.55	–
FL. Flexibility	.57	.58	.51	.57	.35	.60	.61	.59	.53	.74	.61	.60	–
ST. Stress Tolerance	.70	.78	.63	.46	.59	.69	.66	.64	.63	.80	.78	.60	.69	–
OP. Optimism	.72	.78	.66	.54	.47	.50	.77	.74	.71	.64	.74	.50	.63	.75	–
HA. Happiness	.80	.76	.62	.59	.48	.52	.77	.68	.67	.63	.71	.48	.63	.71	.87	–

Note. N = 3,200. All correlations significant at p < .01. Cutoffs for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large. Shaded cells represent subscale groupings within composite scales.

print this table

Table A.54. Demographic Distribution of Self-Other Agreement Sample

The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the EQ 360 2.0 self-other agreement sample. Ideally, this sample should include representation from a wide range of demographic groups, as found in the EQ 360 2.0 self-other agreement sample.

Demographic		N	%
Ratee Gender	Male	52	48.1
Ratee Gender	Female	56	51.9
Ratee Race/Ethnicity	Black	4	3.7
	Hispanic/Latino	26	24.1
	White	77	71.3
	Other	1	0.9
Ratee Age Group (Years)	18–29	19	17.6
	30–39	43	39.8
	40–49	29	26.9
	50–59	14	13.0
	60+	3	2.8
	*M (SD)*	38.9 (10.3)
Ratee U.S. Geographic Region	Northeast	35	32.4
	Midwest	11	10.2
	South	62	57.4
	West	0	0.0
Ratee Education Level	High school or less	19	17.6
	Some college	27	25.0
	College or higher	62	57.4
Total		108	100.0

print this table

Table A.55. Self-Other Agreement Correlations between the EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0

The following table summarizes the self (EQ-i 2.0) – other (EQ 360 2.0) agreement correlations for the Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales. Correlations range from 0.00 to 1.00, with higher values suggesting higher levels of self-other agreement. Moderate correlations, like those found in this study, provide support for the validity of the EQ 360 2.0. That is, small correlations would indicate a lack of self-other agreement, and very high correlations would indicate redundancy in capturing both self and other ratings. The moderately sized correlations support the validity of the EQ 360 2.0 and provide support for collecting both self and rater reports.

Scale	Self-Other Agreement (r)	EQ-i 2.0		EQ 360 2.0
Scale	Self-Other Agreement (r)	M	SD	M	SD
Total EI	.60	102.7	15.4	103.9	14.3
Self-Perception Composite	.57	104.7	15.0	105.6	17.1
Self-Regard	.61	101.7	15.3	99.9	18.4
Self-Actualization	.51	105.9	13.3	106.1	14.8
Emotional Self-Awareness	.52	105.0	15.4	108.7	16.7
Self-Expression Composite	.66	101.4	16.3	102.3	15.0
Emotional Expression	.50	101.5	15.4	99.9	17.5
Assertiveness	.56	102.9	16.9	104.2	14.9
Independence	.59	99.0	17.0	101.7	14.1
Interpersonal Composite	.65	105.3	15.8	106.4	14.3
Interpersonal Relationships	.55	103.7	15.3	104.6	13.5
Empathy	.65	104.5	15.6	107.3	15.0
Social Responsibility	.59	105.6	15.0	105.3	14.7
Decision Making Composite	.54	101.2	16.9	103.2	13.4
Problem Solving	.55	97.8	16.7	99.5	12.6
Reality Testing	.52	106.1	15.4	108.9	15.0
Impulse Control	.52	99.6	16.9	100.1	14.4
Stress Management Composite	.52	98.8	13.9	100.0	13.0
Flexibility	.49	93.5	15.3	94.0	15.1
Stress Tolerance	.44	99.6	15.5	101.2	13.1
Optimism	.70	103.3	13.5	104.2	15.1
Happiness	.72	102.6	13.1	102.2	16.0

Note. N = 108. All correlations significant at p < .01. Guidelines for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large.

print this table

Table A.56. Comparison of EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0 Standard Scores

The following table summarizes the differences between self (EQ-i 2.0) and other (EQ 360 2.0) scores for the EQ-i 2.0/EQ 360 2.0 Total EI score, composite scales, and subscales. This table lists the percentage of respondents who showed EQ 360 2.0 scores that were higher than their EQ-i 2.0 scores by more than 10 points, scores that differed by 10 points or less, and those whose EQ-i 2.0 scores were higher than their EQ 360 2.0 scores by more than 10 points. Self-other agreement (or self-other consistency) is supported if many respondents show differences of 10 points or less, as found in the EQ 360 2.0 self-other agreement sample.

Scale	% of Respondents
Scale	EQ 360 2.0 Scores Higher by > 10 Points	Scores Differ by 10 Points or Less	EQ 360 2.0 Scores Higher by > 10 Points
Total EI	23.1	59.3	17.6
Self-Perception Composite	21.3	61.1	17.6
Self-Regard	16.7	61.1	22.2
Self-Actualization	21.3	62.0	16.7
Emotional Self-Awareness	32.4	50.9	16.7
Self-Expression Composite	19.4	63.9	16.7
Emotional Expression	27.8	58.3	13.9
Assertiveness	22.2	60.2	17.6
Independence	27.8	53.7	18.5
Interpersonal Composite	25.0	61.1	13.9
Interpersonal Relationships	21.3	63.9	14.8
Empathy	27.8	58.3	13.9
Social Responsibility	20.4	56.5	23.1
Decision Making Composite	30.6	50.0	19.4
Problem Solving	27.8	53.7	18.5
Reality Testing	28.7	53.7	17.6
Impulse Control	25.9	50.0	24.1
Stress Management Composite	26.9	57.4	15.7
Flexibility	23.1	56.5	20.4
Stress Tolerance	28.7	54.6	16.7
Optimism	14.8	68.5	16.7
Happiness	15.7	67.6	16.7

print this table

Table A.57. Demographic Characteristics of SAS-SR Validity Sample

The following table summarizes the demographic characteristics of the Social Adjustment Scale–Self-Report (SAS-SR ; Weissman, 1999) validity sample. Ideally, this sample should include representation from a wide range of demographic groups, as found in the SAS-SR validity sample.

Demographic		N	%
Ratee Gender	Male	52	48.1
Ratee Gender	Female	56	51.9
Ratee Age Group (Years)	18–29	19	17.6
	30–39	43	39.8
	40–49	29	26.9
	50–59	14	13.0
	60+	3	2.8
	M (SD)	38.9 (10.3)
Ratee Race/Ethnicity	Black	4	3.7
	Hispanic/Latino	26	24.1
	White	77	71.3
	Other	1	0.9
Ratee Education Level	High School or Less	19	17.6
	Some College/University	27	25.0
	College/University or Higher	62	57.4
Ratee U.S. Geographic Region	Northeast	35	32.4
	Midwest	11	10.2
	South	62	57.4
	West	0	0.0
Total		108	100.0

print this table

Table A.58. Multiple Regression Results for EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0 Predicting Social Adjustment Scale–Self-Report Total Scores

The following table summarizes the extent to which the EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 2.0 are independently related to Social Adjustment Scale–Self-Report (SAS–SR) scores. Significant (p < .05) beta (β) values demonstrate independent associations with SAS–SR scores. Significant (p < .05) ƒ2 values, as found for the EQ 360 2.0 Total EI score and many composite scales and subscales suggest the EQ 360 2.0 provides added value over the EQ-i 2.0 in relation to SAS–SR scores.

Scale	R		Step 1		Step 2				R2		R2 change	ƒ2
	R		EQ-i 2.0		EQ-i 2.0		EQ 360 2.0		Step 1	Step 2
	EQ-i 2.0	EQ 360 2.0	β	p	β	p	β	p	Step 1	Step 2
Total EI	-.45	-.42	-0.45	< .01	-0.31	.01	-0.23	.03	.20	.24	.03	.04
Self-Perception Composite	-.45	-.43	-0.45	< .01	-0.30	.01	-0.26	.01	.20	.25	.05	.06
Self-Regard	-.50	-.46	-0.50	< .01	-0.35	< .01	-0.25	.02	.25	.29	.04	.05
Self-Actualization	-.38	-.39	-0.38	< .01	-0.24	.02	-0.27	.01	.14	.19	.05	.06
Emotional Self-Awareness	-.25	-.33	-0.25	.01	-0.11	.30	-0.27	.01	.06	.12	.05	.06
Self-Expression Composite	-.51	-.39	-0.51	< .01	-0.44	< .01	-0.10	.35	.26	.26	.01	.01
Emotional Expression	-.41	-.29	-0.41	< .01	-0.35	< .01	-0.11	.27	.17	.18	.01	.01
Assertiveness	-.34	-.30	-0.34	< .01	-0.26	.02	-0.15	.17	.12	.13	.02	.02
Independence	-.41	-.33	-0.41	< .01	-0.34	< .01	-0.13	.23	.17	.18	.01	.01
Interpersonal Composite	-.27	-.38	-0.27	< .01	-0.04	.71	-0.35	< .01	.07	.15	.07	.09
Interpersonal Relationships	-.30	-.37	-0.30	< .01	-0.14	.20	-0.29	.01	.09	.15	.06	.07
Empathy	-.18	-.36	-0.18	.06	0.10	.41	-0.43	< .01	.03	.14	.11	.12
Social Responsibility	-.24	-.30	-0.24	.01	-0.11	.36	-0.23	.04	.06	.10	.04	.04
Decision Making Composite	-.38	-.35	-0.38	< .01	-0.26	.01	-0.21	.05	.14	.17	.03	.04
Problem Solving	-.42	-.37	-0.42	< .01	-0.32	< .01	-0.19	.07	.18	.21	.03	.03
Reality Testing	-.21	-.37	-0.21	.03	-0.02	.84	-0.36	< .01	.04	.14	.09	.11
Impulse Control	-.26	-.15	-0.26	.01	-0.26	.02	-0.02	.89	.07	.07	.00	.00
Stress Management Composite	-.31	-.31	-0.31	< .01	-0.20	.06	-0.21	.06	.10	.13	.03	.04
Flexibility	-.08	-.11	-0.08	.42	-0.03	.76	-0.09	.42	.01	.01	.01	.01
Stress Tolerance	-.25	-.29	-0.25	.01	-0.15	.15	-0.22	.04	.06	.10	.04	.04
Optimism	-.40	-.35	-0.40	< .01	0.29	.02	-0.15	.23	.16	.17	.01	.01
Happiness	-.56	-.43	-0.56	< .01	-0.51	< .01	-0.07	.57	.31	.31	.00	.00

Note. N = 108. Correlations of .19 and above are significant at p < .05, correlations of .25 and above are significant at p < .01. Guidelines for evaluating r are .10 = small, .30 = medium, .50 = large. Guidelines for evaluating f2 are .02 = small, .15 = medium, .35 = large.

print this table

Table A.59. Interaction Effects between Rater Race/Ethnicity and Ratee Race/Ethnicity: EQ 360 2.0 Normative Sample

The following table summarizes the results from the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) conducted on the composite scales and subscales to examine potential effects of ratee race, rater race, and the interaction between the two on EQ 360 2.0 scores in the normative sample. Wilks’ lambda ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 and depicts the amount of variance not explained by the demographic variable. F and p values convey the statistical significance of the demographic variables. Partial η2 values provide an effect size for describing the effects as small, medium, or large. The effect sizes found (all less than .06) suggest negligible differences among participants based on rater and ratee race.

Analysis	Effect	Wilks’ Lambda	*F (df)*	p	partial η2
Total EI	Rater Race (White vs. non-White)	n/a	0.10 (1, 2948)	.757	.00
	Ratee Race (Black vs. Hispanic/Latino vs. White)	n/a	1.95 (2, 2948)	.143	.00
	Rater Race x Ratee Race	n/a	2.41 (2, 2948)	.090	.00
Composite Scales	Rater Race (White vs. non-White)	.994	3.46 (5, 2944)	.004	.01
	Ratee Race (Black vs. Hispanic/Latino vs. White)	.995	1.43 (10, 5888)	.160	.00
	Rater Race x Ratee Race	.995	1.48 (10, 5888)	.141	.00
Subscales	Rater Race (White vs. non-White)	.980	3.72 (16, 2931)	< .001	.02
	Ratee Race (Black vs. Hispanic/Latino vs. White)	.980	1.89 (32, 5862)	.002	.01
	Rater Race x Ratee Race	.982	1.68 (32, 5862)	.010	.01

Note. N = 2,956. F-test values represent univariate effects for the Total EI score and multivariate effects for the composite scales and subscales. Guidelines for evaluating partial η2 are .01 = small; .06 = medium; .14 = large. n/a = not applicable.

References Appendices Publisher's Preface About the Originator Acknowledgements