Assessing Emotional Intelligence

Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity ofthe Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) in

university students

Darek Dawda, Stephen D. Hart*

Simon Fraser University, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6

Received 6 January 1999; received in revised form 20 April 1999; accepted 25 May 1999

Abstract

The study examined reliability and validity of a new measure of emotional (i.e. non-cognitive)intelligence, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997, in a sample of 243university students. Results indicated that the EQ-i domain and component scales had good itemhomogeneity and internal consistency. Scores were not unduly a�ected by response styles or biases. TheEQ-i scales had a meaningful pattern of convergent validities with respect to measures of normalpersonality, depression, somatic symptomatology, intensity of a�ective experience and alexithymia. Thereliability and validity results for men and women were very similar. Overall, the results suggested thatthe EQ-i is a promising measure of emotional intelligence. We recommend strategies for furthervalidation of the EQ-i, as well as the construct of emotional intelligence. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd.All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Emotional intelligence (EI) is a relatively new term for a construct that is aimed atcomplementing the traditional view of intelligence by emphasizing the emotional, personal, andsocial contributions to intelligent behavior (Gardner, 1983; Mayer & Salovey, 1993, 1995;

Personality and Individual Di�erences 28 (2000) 797±812

0191-8869/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0191-8869(99)00139-7

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-604-291-3354; fax: +1-604-291-3427.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.D. Hart), [email protected] (D. Dawda).

Wechsler, 1940, 1943, 1958). Recently, the concept was popularized by Goleman (Goleman,1995) and researchers undertook e�orts to develop self-report measures of emotionalintelligence (Bar-On, 1997; Schutte, Malou�, Hall, Haggery & Cooper, 1998). One of the mostactive researchers in the area is Bar-On, whose work culminated in the publication of theEmotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997).The EQ-i is a 133-item self-report inventory. Items are declarative statements phrased in the

®rst-person singular. Respondents are asked to indicate the degree to which the statementaccurately describes them on a 5-point scale (1=not true of me, 5=true of me ). Items are

Table 1EQ-i composite scales and subscalesa

Composite/subscale Description of subscale: ability to . . .

EQ-i total (TOTAL)Intrapersonal (INTRA)Emotional self-awareness (ES)

Recognize and understand one's feelings

Assertiveness (AS) Express feelings, beliefs and thoughts and defend one's rights in a non-destructive mannerSelf-regard (SR) Be aware of, understand, accept, and respect oneselfSelf-actualization (SA) Realize one's potential capacities

Independence (IN) Be self-directed and self-controlled in one's thinking and actions and to be free ofemotional dependency

Interpersonal (INTER)

Empathy (EM) Be aware of, to understand, and to appreciate the feelings of othersInterpersonalrelationship (IR)

Establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships that are characterized byemotional closeness and by giving and receiving a�ection

Social responsibility(SR)

Demonstrate oneself as a cooperative, contributing, and constructive member of one'ssocial group

Adaptation (ADAPT)Problem solving (PS) Identify and de®ne problems as well as to generate and implement potentially e�ective

solutionsReality testing (RT) Assess the correspondence between what is subjectively experienced and what objectively

exist

Flexibility (FL) Adjust one's emotions, thoughts, and behavior to changing situations and conditionsStress management(STRES)

Stress tolerance (ST) Withstand adverse events and stressful situations without `falling apart' by actively andpositively coping with stress

Impulse control (IC) Resist or delay an impulse, drive, or temptation to actGeneral mood

(MOOD)Happiness (HA) Feel satis®ed with one's life, to enjoy oneself and others, and to have funOptimism (OP) Look at the brighter side of life and to maintain a positive attitude, even in the face of

adversity

a Subscale descriptions are based on Bar-On (Bar-On, 1997; pp. 44±47).

D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di�erences 28 (2000) 797±812798

summed to yield a total score, which re¯ects overall emotional intelligence; scores on 5 higher-order composite dimensions (Intrapersonal intelligence, Interpersonal intelligence, Adaptability,Stress management, and General mood) and scores on 15 lower-order component scales (seeTable 1). Raw scores on scales are adjusted according to correction factors and thentransformed into standard scores �M � 100, S.D.=15). Standard scores for North Americanrespondents are based on a large, diverse normative sample of adults from various settings�N � 3,831).

The development of the EQ-i took place over many years, starting with the development ofa conceptual framework and leading to the construction and re®nement of scale items. Validityscales and correction indexes were added over time to improve measurement. A substantialbody of research, summarized in the EQ-i manual, indicates that the scales have generally goodinternal consistency and test-retest reliability. Factor analyses also provide some support forthe inventory's hypothesized structure. Finally, the convergent and discriminant validity of theEQ-i has been evaluated in a number of ways. Many studies examined correlations between theEQ-i and various self-report inventories, including the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire(Cattell, Eber & Tatsouka, 1970), the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck,1975) and the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen & Kaemmer, 1989). In general,EQ-i total scores are correlated positively with measures of emotional stability and negativelywith measures of neuroticism and psychopathology. Other studies have examined correlationsbetween the EQ-i and peer ratings of adjustment or compared the EQ-i scores of criteriongroups (e.g. young business leaders versus unemployed youth; prisoners versus communityresidents) and support the conclusion that EQ-i scores are related to general psychosocialadjustment.

The aim of the present paper was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the EQ-i in asample of university students in the context of a larger program of research examining theassociation between emotion and personality. We were interested in assessing the relationshipof the EQ-i dimensions with both normal personality and psychopathology. We expected thathigh EQ-i subjects would show high positive a�ectivity scores (as measured by the NEO FiveFactor Inventory±Extraversion scale; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and low negative a�ectivityscores (as measured by the NEO-FFI Neuroticism scale as well as the Beck DepressionInventory; Beck & Steer, 1987). We also measured somatic symptomatology (assessed by theSomatization scale of the Revised Symptom Checklist-90, SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1983), theincrease of somatic symptoms under stress and intensity of a�ective experience (as measured bythe A�ect Intensity Measure, AIM; Larsen & Diener, 1986). We regarded all three indexes asindicators of failure to cope with a�ect and expected that high EQ-i subjects would show lesspsychosomatic problems overall or under stress as well as less overall a�ective intensity.Finally, the construct of alexithymia is conceptually nearly identical with the EQ-iIntrapersonal composite scale. Consequently, we assessed the relationship between the EQ-iand alexithymia, as measured by both the self-report Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20;Bagby, Parker & Taylor, 1994a, 1994b) and two interview-based observer rating scales (theBeth Israel Questionnaire, BIQ; Sifneos, 1973) and the Structured Interview for Alexithymia,SIFA; Dawda, 1997). We expected to ®nd negative correlations between alexithymia and theIntrapersonal EQ.

D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di�erences 28 (2000) 797±812 799

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Participants were 243 university students (118 men, 125 women), ranging in age from 17 to47 yr (M = 21.27, S.D.=4.54). They were recruited via posters advertising an èmotionsstudy'. They received course credit or a small stipend for their participation. To control for thee�ect of cultural di�erences in emotional expression, participants were excluded if their ®rstlanguage was not English or/and if they were reared outside of North America. As this studyalso involved some cognitive computer tasks aimed at the processing of emotions, left-handedparticipants were excluded to control for potential bias due to abnormal cerebral lateralization.

2.2. Procedure

2.2.1. OverviewThe research was conducted as part of a larger study examining the association between

psychopathy and alexithymia. Relevant to the present study, participants completed a 1.5-hlong testing session. In addition to the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997), the session included two interview-based rating scales for alexithymia, as well as a battery of self-reports that included measuresof alexithymia, personality, a�ect intensity, depression and psychosomatic complaints.

Table 2Distribution of self-report scale scores in men and womana

M (S.D.) a

Scale Men Women All Men Women All

TAS-20 44.69 (9.85) 44.62 (10.14) 44.66 (9.98) 0.77 0.83 0.80BIQ 4.75 (3.42) 3.78 (2.98) 4.29 (3.24) 0.76 0.75 0.76SIFA 17.92 (11.93) 15.17 (9.39) 16.57 (10.81) 0.82 0.76 0.79NEO-N 79. 25 (34.52) 99.51 (34.76) 89.85 (36.04) 0.87 0.89 0.89

NEO-E 116.65 (27.05) 118.16 (24.48) 117.44 (26.70) 0.80 0.83 0.81NEO-O 128.22 (27.02) 119.14 (25.56) 123.47 (26.60) 0.78 0.76 0.78NEO-A 122.14 (25.71) 131.89 (22.56) 127.24 (24.55) 0.78 0.75 0.77

NEO-C 117.15 (26.40) 125.53 (27.05) 121.53 (27.00) 0.80 0.83 0.82BDI 6.30 (5.55) 8.61 (6.48) 7.51 (6.15) 0.85 0.85 0.85AIM 143.81 (20.72) 157.24 (17.56) 150.87 (20.23) 0.90 0.86 0.89

SOM 7.27 (6.79) 9.44 (6.31) 8.41 (6.62) 0.86 0.79 0.83PHYS 1.52 (1.26) 2.05 (1.23) 1.80 (1.27) ± ± ±

a N= 118 men and 125 women. TAS-20=Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby et al., 1994a; Bagby, Taylor &

Parker, 1994b); BIQ=Beth Israel Hospital Questionnaire (Sifneos, 1973); SIFA=Structured Interview forAlexithymia (Dawda, 1997); NEO-FFI=NEO Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992); N = neuroticism;E=extraversion; O=openness to experience; A=agreeableness; C=conscientiousness; BDI=Beck Depression

Inventory (Beck, Steer & Garbin, 1987); AIM=A�ect Intensity Measure (Larsen & Diener, 1986);SOM=Somatization scale from the Symptom Check List (Derogatis, 1983); PHY=self-reported increase in somaticsymptoms when under stress.


Participants completed the interview ®rst, followed by the battery of questionnaires; the orderof self-reports was counterbalanced across participants. The assessment measures are describedbelow; the distribution (M, S.D.) and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's a ) of scores,except for those on the EQ-i, are summarized in Table 2.

2.2.2. EQ-iThe EQ-i, described earlier, was administered according to the standard instructions and

computer-scored by the test publisher, Multi-Health Systems, Inc. EQ-i scores were calculatedwith reference to North American norms for the appropriate age and gender group.

2.2.3. TAS-20The TAS-20 is a 20-item self-report scale of alexithymia. Each item is a statement phrased in

the ®rst-person singular. Respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with thestatement on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree ). The items are summedto yield a total score, as well as scores on three factors: Di�culties identifying feelings (DIF),Di�culties describing feelings (DDF) and Externally oriented cognitive style (EO). We focushere on total scores, which can range from 20 to 100, with scores of 61 and higher beingdiagnostic of alexithymia (Parker, Bagby & Taylor, 1993). There exists considerable evidencesupporting the convergent, discriminant and concurrent validity as well as the structuralproperties of the TAS-20 (Bagby et al., 1994a). The TAS-20 has been used in a variety ofpopulations, including university students, community resident adults, and psychiatricoutpatients (Bagby et al., 1994a).

2.2.4. BIQThe Beth Israel Hospital Questionnaire (BIQ; Sifneos, 1973) is a 17-item observer rating

scale scored on the basis of an unstructured interview; 8 of the items tap characteristics ofalexithymia. Items typically are scored on a 2-point scale (0=absent, 1=present ) and summedto yield total scores. There is some evidence supporting interrater reliability and validity of theeight BIQ alexithymia items (Apfel & Sifneos, 1979; Norton, 1989; Paulson, 1985; Sriram &Pratap, 1988; Taylor, Bagby & Parker, 1988), although in comparison with the TAS-20 andthe SIFA the BIQ seems to assess a somewhat restricted range of alexithymic characteristics(that is, only the External orientation dimension) (Dawda, 1997). As we expected participantsin this study to have relatively low levels of alexithymic traits, we used 3-point scale (0=absent,1=possibly present, 2=present ) to increase variability for correlational analyses. Thus, totalscores can range from 0 to 16.

2.2.5. The SIFAThe Semistructured Interview for Alexithymia (SIFA; Dawda, 1997) is a 12-item rating scale

of alexithymia. Scoring of the SIFA re¯ects participants' nonverbal behavior and response styleas well as verbal content. Raters use a 3-point scale to judge the extent to which an individualexhibits a speci®c characteristic. The score of 2 indicated that the item applied to the individualor there was a reasonably good match in most essential respects. 1 indicated that the itemapplied to a certain extent but not to the degree required for a score of 2 or that there was amatch in some respects but with too many exceptions or doubts to warrant a score of 2. 0


indicated that the item did not apply to the individual or that he/she does not exhibit the traitor behavior in question. The interviewers also used up- and down-arrows for a more re®nedgradation (i.e. 0, 0Q, 1q, 1, 1Q, 2q, 2). Subsequently, these ratings were converted to a simple 7-point scale that was used in the current analysis. Preliminary evidence supports the reliability,structural properties and validity of the SIFA (Dawda, 1997; Dawda, Lymburner & Hart, inpreparation). The SIFA appears to tap a broader range of alexithymic characteristics than doesthe BIQ and can be used to obtain scores on two separate dimensions: Di�culties identifyingfeelings (DIF) and External orientation (EO). We focus here on total scores, which can rangefrom 0 to 72.

2.2.6. NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)Broad dimensions of normal personality were assessed using the NEO-Five Factor Inventory

(NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1991), an abbreviated version of the widely used NEOPersonality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985). The NEO-FFI is a self-reportmeasure comprising 60 items, each a declarative statement phrased in the ®rst-person singular.Respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with the statements on a 5-point scale(1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree ). Items are summed to yield scores on ®ve personalityfactors: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The factorscores of the NEO-FFI are multiplied by 4 and may thus be compared to the full-lengthversion of the test, the NEO-PI.

2.2.7. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)Current psychological distress was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck

& Steer, 1987), a 21-item self-report scale. Each BDI item re¯ects a symptom of depression.For each item, respondents are asked to indicate which of four statements best describes theway they were feeling during the past week. The statements are scored according to the severityof symptomatology they re¯ect (0=symptom is absent; 3=symptom is present and severe ).Items are summed to yield total scores that can range from 0 to 60. The BDI has become oneof the most widely used instruments for assessing the intensity of depression within bothpsychiatric and normal populations. It has good psychometric properties, discriminatessubtypes of depression and di�erentiates depression from anxiety (Beck, Steer & Garbin, 1988).

2.2.8. A�ect Intensity Measure (AIM)The A�ect Intensity Measure (AIM; Larsen & Diener, 1986) is a 40-item self-report scale

designed to measure the intensity of individual reactions to typical life events. Items aredeclarative statements. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which the statementsre¯ect their experiences on a 6-point scale (1=never, 6=always ). Items are summed to yieldtotal scores, which can range from 40 to 240. There exist strong evidence for the reliability andvalidity of the AIM (Larsen & Billings, 1996; Larsen & Diener, 1986, 1987).

2.2.9. SCL-90-R Somatization scaleThe SCL-90-R: somatization scale (Derogatis, 1983; Derogatis, Lipman & Covi, 1973) is a

12-item self-report scale of common physical problems or complaints. Respondents indicatehow much each problem has bothered or distressed them during the past week using a 5-point


scale (0=not at all, 4=extremely ). Items are summed to yield total scores, which can rangefrom 0 to 48. The somatization scale has been demonstrated to discriminate between somaticsymptoms of patients with hypochondriasis and those with other psychiatric disorders,primarily depressive and anxiety disorders (Kellner, Abbott, Winslow & Pathak, 1989).Derogatis (1983) reported good internal consistency and 1-week test-retest reliability for theSomatization scale.

2.2.10. Stress-related somatic symptomsParticipants were asked to indicate whether they were likely to experience an increase in

somatic symptoms (such as those described in the SCL-90-R Somatization scale) when understress. Responses were recorded using a 5-point scale (0=not likely, 4=very likely ).

3. Results

3.1. Response styles and the EQ-i

The impact of response styles on EQ-i results was evaluated using the following criteria:Uniform Item Endorsement, Omission Rate, Inconsistency, Extreme Item Endorsement andPositive and Negative Impression Management. The utility of the EQ-i corrections andrecommended exclusion criteria were also examined.Visual inspection of the questionnaires showed no patterns that suggested uniform item

endorsement. The average omission rate was also very low. Only ®ve participants had aninconsistency index higher than 12, suggesting that the participants did not respond to the EQ-i questions randomly.Extreme item endorsement (endorsing 1 or 5) was strongly and positively correlated with the

EQ-i scores. We therefore reanalyzed the pattern of convergent/discriminant validity resultscontrolling for the e�ect of extreme responding in two ways. First, we rescored the EQ-i itemresponses on a 3-point scale (1 and 2, 3, 4 and 5). Second, we partialled out extreme responses(1 and 5). In neither case did the pattern of correlations between the EQ-i and other measureschange, suggesting that extreme item endorsement did not in¯uence the validity of the EQ-i.Scores on the Positive Impression Index were positively correlated with EQ-i total and

composite scales. However, adjusting EQ-i scores in the manner recommended by Bar-On(1997) Ð that is, using the ®ve correction indexes and excluding invalid administrations Ðreduced the correlation of the Positive Impression Index with the EQ-i total to non-signi®cantlevels. Conversely, scores on the Negative Impression Index were negatively correlated with theEQ-i scores. The recommended scoring adjustments reduced, but did not eliminate, thesecorrelations. However, as we failed to ®nd any indication of malingering or negativeimpression management during other parts of the study (e.g. during the SIFA interview), weconcluded that the correlation between the EQ-i and negative impression was not the result ofdeliberate negative impression management or malingering, but was rather due to the fact thatnegative impression re¯ects substantive facets of emotional intelligence. (This conclusion isconsistent with Bar-On's speculation that negative impression may be related to feelings ofsocial and emotional alienation, rather than actual or feigned psychopathology.)


In summary, EQ-i scores did not appear to be unduly in¯uenced by response styles. We usedthe adjusted EQ-i scores in subsequent analyses.

3.2. Structural properties of the EQ-i

3.2.1. Distribution of scoresAs shown in Table 3, the present sample scored lower than the North American normative

sample (M = 100; S.D.=15) on most EQ-i scales. The di�erences were signi®cant for the EQTotal score, as well as the EQ composite scales for both men and women (t tests corrected forunequal variances, all p < 01). The only exception was the EQ Interpersonal composite scalefor women, which did not signi®cantly di�er from the norms. The reason for the low scores inthe present sample is unclear, especially given that the EQ-i North American norms are basedon a large sample �N � 3,831� comprising primarily college and university students orgraduates. Explanation of these results was further complicated by the fact that alexithymiascores in the present sample were lower than those typically observed in university students.Low alexithymia scores may be explained by the fact that the study was advertised as an

Table 3Distribution of EQ-i scales in men and womana

Men Women Contrast

Scale M (S.D.) M (S.D.) t d.f. p

TOTAL 94.25 (14.83) 92.80 (14.99) 0.76 241 nsINTRA 95.63 (15.66) 93.82 (16.04) 0.89 241 nsES 99.00 (16.18) 100.20 (15.09) ÿ0.60 241 ns

AS 95.33 (16.19) 96.34 (15.36) ÿ0.50 241 nsSR 96.51 (17.58) 92.50 (17.56) 1.78 241 nsSA 94.81. (16.45) 95.36 (14.78) ÿ0.27 241 nsIN 97.03 (14.58) 91.90 (16.81) 2.53 241 < 0.05

INTER 94.68 (15.91) 97.97 (13.56) ÿ1.74 241 nsEM 97.72 (16.57) 100.57 (13.45) ÿ1.47 241 nsIR 95.21 (16.58) 97.32 (14.09) ÿ1.07 241 ns

RE 94.66 (16.28) 98.52 (14.10) ÿ1.98 241 < 0.05ADAPT 95.21 (13.93) 92.52 (14.50) 1.48 241 nsPS 98.46 (14.68) 96.43 (13.00) 1.14 241 ns

RT 92.82 (15.44) 92.19 (16.00) 0.31 241 nsFL 97.38 (14.36) 93.60 (15.88) 1.95 241 nsSTRES 95.28 (16.14) 94.99 (13.71) 0.15 241 nsST 96.31 (15.35) 93.10 (16.08) 1.59 241 ns

IC 95.59 (16.73) 98.45 (12.83) ÿ1.50 241 nsMOOD 95.55 (17.06) 93.23 (16.78) 1.07 241 nsHA 95.14 (17.17) 95.23 (16.61) ÿ0.04 241 ns

OP 96.93 (16.06) 92.58 (17.07) 2.04 241 < 0.05

a N= 118 men and 125 women. Contrasts are t tests; ns=p> 0.05.


emotion study that might have drawn people who felt con®dent about their emotional style.Such explanation, however, appears to be inconsistent with the ®nding of low EQ-i scores.As shown in Table 3, no signi®cant gender di�erences were found for the EQ Total score or

the EQ composite scales. However, women scored signi®cantly lower than men onIndependence and Optimism subscales and higher on Social responsibility subscale.

3.2.2. Internal consistency and item homogeneityInternal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's a and item homogeneity was assessed

using mean inter-item correlation (MIC). As shown in Table 4, internal consistency of the EQTotal and composite scales was excellent. Internal consistency of EQ subscales showed somevariability, but was adequate for most subscales. It is worth pointing out that the MICcoe�cients for the subscales of Self-regard for both men and women and Self-awareness formen were very high, indicating possible redundancy among items comprising these subscales.MIC coe�cients indicated that General mood was the most homogeneous composite scale. TheEQ Total was less homogeneous than any composite scale which was expected given that EQTotal was designed to tap a broad dimension of emotional intelligence.

Table 4Reliability of EQ-i scales in men and womena

Men Women

Scale # Items MIC a MIC a

TOTAL 117 0.18 0.96 0.18 0.96INTRA 40 0.26 0.93 0.29 0.94ES 8 0.39 0.84 0.41 0.85

AS 7 0.36 0.79 0.38 0.81SR 9 0.59 0.93 0.55 0.92SA 9 0.67 0.83 0.31 0.79IN 7 0.30 0.74 0.40 0.82

INTER 24 0.22 0.86 0.20 0.85EM 8 0.29 0.75 0.25 0.72IR 11 0.32 0.83 0.27 0.80

RE 10 0.24 0.74 0.21 0.71ADAPT 26 0.20 0.87 0.19 0.86PS 8 0.32 0.79 0.29 0.77

RT 10 0.27 0.79 0.27 0.78FL 8 0.28 0.75 0.37 0.82STRES 18 0.25 0.86 0.19 0.81ST 9 0.32 0.81 0.41 0.86

IC 9 0.35 0.83 0.21 0.69MOOD 17 0.36 0.91 0.36 0.90HA 9 0.41 0.86 0.37 0.85

OP 8 0.36 0.82 0.42 0.85

a N= 118 men and 125 women. MIC = mean inter-item correlation; a=Cronbach's alpha.


3.2.3. Correlations among EQ-i scalesAs shown in Table 5, all composite scales correlated highly with EQ-i Total scores, ranging

from 0.67 to 0.93 (Mdn=0.85). Also, the correlations among the composite scales generallywere moderate, ranging from 0.32 to 0.83 (Mdn=0.57). The Interpersonal composite scale hadthe smallest correlation with Total scores and also had the smallest correlations (on average)with other composite scales. The pattern of correlations among the EQ-i scales was remarkablysimilar for men and women.

3.3. Convergent/discriminant (construct-related) validity of the EQ scales

3.3.1. IntrapersonalAs shown in Tables 7 and 8, the Intrapersonal EQ composite scale showed strong negative

correlations with neuroticism and depression (i.e. negative a�ectivity) and strong positivecorrelation with extraversion (i.e. positive a�ectivity). These results support the EQ-i manual'scontention that a high score on the Intrapersonal EQ captures people who `feel good aboutthemselves and feel positive about what they are doing in their lives' (Bar-On, 1997, p. 44). Inparticular, the subscale of Self-regard had a strong negative association with negativea�ectivity �r � ÿ0:66 with neuroticism and r � ÿ0:57 depression). These results are verysimilar for men and women.The Intrapersonal EQ scale was also designed to capture `ìndividuals who are in touch with

their feelings [and] able to express their feelings'' (Bar-On, 1997, p. 44). The negativecorrelations with measures of alexithymia, summarized in Table 6, support this claim. Thesecorrelations are particularly strong for women. The subscale of Emotional self-awareness Ð asubscale which most closely resembles alexithymia Ð had a strong and negative correlationwith alexithymia �r � ÿ0:71 with the TAS-20 and r � ÿ0:35 with the SIFA). An interestinggender di�erence ®nding is that the EQ Intrapersonal composite scale had a strong correlationwith the External orientation dimension of alexithymia (as measured by the SIFA) in women,but not in men. It appears that the generally higher correlations of the EQ-i with the self-report measure of alexithymia than with the interview-based rating scales may have been anartifact of measurement method.The Intrapersonal EQ scale was also positively related to conscientiousness, which might be

Table 5

Correlations among the EQ-i composite scales in men and womena

EQ-i scale TOTAL INTRA INTER ADAPT STRES MOOD

TOTAL 0.93 0.67 0.87 0.73 0.86INTRA 0.91 0.53 0.72 0.57 0.83INTER 0.71 0.55 0.51 0.32 0.52

ADAPT 0.86 0.70 0.46 0.70 0.64STRES 0.77 0.56 0.39 0.80 0.54MOOD 0.84 0.78 0.53 0.62 0.53

a N= 118 men and 125 women. Correlations above the diagonal are for women; those below, for men. All rs aresigni®cant at p < 0.001 (two-tailed).


explained by the characteristics of strength and con®dence shared by both of these constructs(Bar-On, 1997; Costa & McCrae, 1992). In addition, the Intrapersonal EQ scale was negativelycorrelated with somatic symptomatology and with increased experience of somatic symptomsunder stress. Finally, the lack of correlations with openness and intensity of a�ectiveexperience provides some support for discriminant validity of the Intrapersonal EQ scale.These results were very similar for men and women.Finally, it is worth noting that the Intrapersonal subscales had reasonably similar patterns of

convergent/discriminant validities, which in turn were similar to those of the composite scale.This suggests that the subscales provided relatively little unique information over and abovethat provided by the composite scale.

Table 6EQ-i scales: correlations with measures of Alexithymia in men and womena

Men Women

TAS-20 BIQ SIFA TAS-20 BIQ SIFA

TOTAL ÿ0.49 0.14 ÿ0.09 ÿ0.55 ÿ0.38 ÿ0.52INTRA ÿ0.53 0.09 ÿ0.17 ÿ0.57 ÿ0.35 ÿ0.51INTER ÿ0.38 ÿ0.05 ÿ0.20 ÿ0.40 ÿ0.33 ÿ0.35ADAPT ÿ0.39 0.23 0.06 ÿ0.47 ÿ0.32 ÿ0.43STRES ÿ0.37 0.18 0.07 ÿ0.33 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.42MOOD ÿ0.27 0.13 ÿ0.04 ÿ0.40 ÿ0.32 ÿ0.42N 118 115 118 125 117 124

a TAS-20=Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby et al., 1994a,b); BIQ=Beth Israel Hospital Questionnaire (Sifneos,1973); SIFA=Structured Interview for Alexithymia (Dawda, 1997). All rs> 0.18 are signi®cant at p< 0.05;

rs> 0.24 are signi®cant at p < 0.01.

Table 7

EQ-i scales: correlations with the `Big 5' domains of normal personality (NEO-FFI) in men and womena

Men Women

EQ-i scale N E O A C N E O A C

TOTAL ÿ0.62 0.52 ÿ0.12 0.43 0.51 ÿ0.72 0.56 0.17 0.43 0.33INTRA ÿ0.59 0.48 ÿ0.06 0.21 0.54 ÿ0.70 0.51 0.11 0.24 0.33INTER ÿ0.21 0.55 ÿ0.02 0.58 0.34 ÿ0.23 0.51 0.11 0.62 0.21

ADAPT ÿ0.53 0.32 ÿ0.15 0.38 0.45 ÿ0.58 0.40 0.22 0.40 0.37STRES ÿ0.54 0.18 ÿ0.11 0.39 0.32 ÿ0.58 0.22 0.22 0.38 0.16MOOD ÿ0.69 0.61 ÿ0.22 0.32 0.40 ÿ0.77 0.64 0.09 0.27 0.17

a N= 118 men and 124 women. N=neuroticism; E=extraversion; O=openness to experience; A=agreeableness;C=conscientiousness. All rs> 0.18 are signi®cant at p < 0.05; rs> 0.24 are signi®cant at p < 0.01.


3.3.2. InterpersonalThe Interpersonal EQ composite scale had strong positive correlations with extraversion,

agreeableness and the intensity of a�ective experience; a positive correlation withconscientiousness and negative correlations with alexithymia and negative a�ectivity(depression or neuroticism). These results suggest that people with high score on theInterpersonal EQ scale are positive, agreeable, animated, outgoing, socially oriented andcapable of expressing feelings. All these results are consistent with the intention of theInterpersonal dimension of the EQ-i to capture the person's social skills (Bar-On, 1997). Thefact that the Interpersonal EQ scale was not correlated with somatic symptomatology providedsupport for its discriminant validity. The Interpersonal subscales had quite di�erent patterns ofconvergent and discriminant validity, which raises questions regarding the homogeneity of thescale. Interestingly, the ®ndings for the Interpersonal EQ scale were somewhat di�erent fromthose for the EQ-i Total and other composite scales, which suggests the Interpersonal scalebroadens the overall content domain of the EQ-i. Given these results, further research shouldconsider the usefulness of the inclusion of the Interpersonal EQ composite scale in the EQ-i.All the validity results for the EQ Interpersonal composite scale were very similar for bothgenders.

3.3.3. AdaptationThe Adaptation EQ composite scale showed a pattern of validity results very similar to that

of the Intrapersonal scale. The only noteworthy di�erence was that the Adaptation EQ showedhigher positive correlation with agreeableness than the Intrapersonal EQ. This pattern ofresults is consistent with the manual's description of individuals who are ``¯exible, realistic,e�ective in understanding problematic situations, and competent at arriving at adequatesolutions'' (Bar-On, 1997; p. 45).

Table 8EQ-i scales: correlations with measures of depression, intensity of a�ective experience and somatic symptomatology

in men and womena

Men Women

BDI AIM SOM PHY BDI AIM SOM PHY

TOTAL -0.57 0.08 ÿ0.30 ÿ0.33 ÿ0.62 0.03 ÿ0.32 ÿ0.22INTRA ÿ0.50 0.14 ÿ0.26 ÿ0.20 ÿ0.67 ÿ0.03 ÿ0.33 ÿ0.24INTER ÿ0.25 0.43 ÿ0.09 ÿ0.07 ÿ0.22 0.39 ÿ0.01 ÿ0.11ADAPT ÿ0.52 ÿ0.14 ÿ0.32 ÿ0.41 ÿ0.47 ÿ0.13 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.16STRES ÿ0.45 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.50 ÿ0.40 ÿ0.34 ÿ0.28 ÿ0.25MOOD ÿ0.67 0.10 ÿ0.27 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.64 0.03 ÿ0.34 ÿ0.28N 118 116 117 112 124 123 122 121

a BDI=Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1987); AIM=A�ect Intensity Measure (Larsen & Diener,

1986); SOM=Somatization scale from the Symptom Check List (Derogatis, 1983); PHY=self-reported increase insomatic symptoms when under stress. All rs > 0.18 are signi®cant at p < 0.05; rs> 0.24 are signi®cant at p < 0.01.


3.3.4. Stress managementThe Stress management composite scale showed a pattern of results similar to that of the

Adaptation and Intrapersonal EQ scales. The di�erences were that Stress management wasnegatively correlated with a�ect intensity. These results are congruent with the description ofthis scale as capturing people who are `àble to withstand stress without falling apart or losingcontrol'' and ``calm, rarely impulsive and work well under pressure'' (Bar-On, 1997, p. 45).

3.3.5. General moodThe General mood composite scale showed a pattern of results very similar to that of the

Adaptation EQ. The most noteworthy di�erences were somewhat larger correlations of theGeneral mood scale with extraversion (positive in direction), neuroticism (negative) anddepression (negative) than the corresponding correlations of the Adaptation scale. Thisdescription is consistent with the EQ-i manual's description of the scale as capturing peoplewho are ``cheerful, positive, hopeful and optimistic'' (Bar-On, 1997; p. 45).

3.3.6. EQ totalEQ Total scores had a pattern of convergent and discriminant validities similar to that of all

the composite scales, with the possible exception of Interpersonal EQ. In general, people withhigh EQ Total scores had low levels of negative a�ectivity and high levels of positivea�ectivity; were conscientious and agreeable; had fewer di�culties identifying and describingfeelings; and were not prone to somatic symptomatology or increased somatic symptoms understress. Most convergent/discriminant validity results were very similar for both genders.

4. Discussion

The present study provided support for the reliability and validity of a new measure ofemotional intelligence, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997). Theinventory had good structural properties. The correlations among the EQ composite scales aswell as the pattern of convergent and discriminant validities suggested that the EQ-i taps afairly broad range of related emotional constructs. One potential concern was that theInterpersonal scale had relatively small correlations with the other EQ composite scales, as wellas a markedly di�erent pattern of convergent and discriminant validities. With minorexceptions, the EQ-i scales show a remarkably similar pattern of validity results for men andwomen, which provides preliminary evidence for a lack of gender bias. However, in order toaddress the issue of potential gender bias properly, future research should use moreappropriate statistical approaches (e.g. testing for di�erential item function using item responsetheory methods or testing for di�erential validity using multiple regression analyses).We were unable to explain below-normal EQ-i scores in the present sample. These

unexpected results and their implication for the adequacy of the current EQ-i norm needs to befurther explored in future research. It is important to note, however, that the low EQ-i scoresin this study should not have had much impact on the observed convergent/discriminantvalidity indexes.


On the basis of the present results, we suggest that the EQ Total score may be a goodoverall index of emotional intelligence. We also suggest that the usefulness of the intermediatelevel EQ composite scales may be limited. First, the Interpersonal, Adaptation and Stressmanagement EQ scales comprise subscales that show markedly di�erent convergent/discriminant validity indexes. Using the Intrapersonal and General mood EQ scales is moreappropriate. Second, when using any composite scales, one has to be aware of a greatsimilarity in convergent/discriminant validity among the four of ®ve EQ composite scales.Consequently, when assessing more speci®c aspects of emotional intelligence, we suggest thatinstead of the EQ composite scales the 15 EQ subscale scores, which are for the most partmore internally consistent, be used.Our results also suggested that EQ-i scores were not unduly in¯uenced by response biases.

This general conclusion requires some elaboration, however. First, although the correctionindexes were e�ective in controlling for positive impression management, they were lesse�ective in controlling for negative impression management. In our study, as reported in theEQ-i manual, the negative impression index was correlated negatively with EQ-i scores. TheEQ-i manual suggests that one possible remedy to this problem is to use a small subset of NIitems that tap severe psychopathology. This subset, in contrast to the other NI items, has lowcorrelations with EQ-i scores and thus may be a better measure of actual response bias.Future research should further concentrate on the validity of both the EQ-i and the

construct of emotional intelligence. First, in order to assess the construct validity of emotionalintelligence adequately, a multi-method approach should be used. The sole use of one self-report measure may lead to what Cook and Campbell (1979) termed mono-method bias, avalidity bias which results from using one assessment method, as well as mono-operational bias,resulting from using a single instrument to assess an underlying construct. Since Cattell (1957),attention has been paid to the fact that observed and self-reported personality traits do notshow perfect correspondence (Wiggins, 1973) and researchers have called for a multimethodapproach to assessment to minimize measurement error and thus maximize construct validity(Nay, 1979). Especially when assessing emotional constructs, which by de®nition include non-verbal components, such assessment methodology as interview-based rating scales or peer-ratings may be necessary in conjunction with self-reports, particularly at the stage of constructvalidation.Second, the relationship between the construct of emotional intelligence and other related

constructs needs to be clearly established. For example, a substantial amount of literature hasaccumulated on such constructs as alexithymia (Taylor, Bagby & Parker, 1997), psychologicalmindedness (McCallum & Piper, 1997), coping (Endler & Parker, 1994) and normal personality(McCrae & Costa, 1997). Future research is needed to establish the usefulness of emotionalintelligence over and above these well-validated constructs. Both a clear conceptual delineationand further empirical research is required to clarify this issue. Multitrait±multimethod (Cook &Campbell, 1979) methodology is appropriate for the analysis of the relationship amongmultiple related constructs.Third, after clarifying the relationship among emotional intelligence and related constructs,

the relative decision-making validity of emotional intelligence (as well as the EQ-i), incomparison to the existing well-validated constructs, needs to be further established. Potentialareas of interest may be clinical applications (e.g. counseling) or personnel selection.


Acknowledgements

The research described in this study was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences andHumanities Research Council of Canada (#410-96-1305) awarded to S. Hart. We express ourgratitude to Multi-Health Systems, Inc., for supplying the EQ-i materials and providingcomputer scoring services. Thanks also to Dr. Gill Sitarenios and Dr. Reuven Bar-On for theirhelpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Apfel, R. J., & Sifneos, P. E. (1979). Alexithymia: concept and measurement. Psychosomatic Medicine, 32, 180±190.Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994a). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia scale. I. Item selec-

tion and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 23±32.Bagby, R. M., Taylor, G. J., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994b). The twenty-item Alexithymia scale. II. Convergent, discri-

minant and concurrent validity. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38, 33±40.

Bar-On, R. (1997). In Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: technical manual. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological

Corporation.Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck depression inventory:

Twenty ®ve years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77±100.Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellengen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). In Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press.Cattell, R. B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. New York: World Book.Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsouka, M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire

(16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation design and analysis issues for ®eld settings. Chicag:

Rand McNally.

Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). In The NEO Personality Inventory: manual. New York: PsychologicalAssessment Resources, Inc.

Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1991). In The NEO Five Factor Inventory: manual. New York: PsychologicalAssessment Resources, Inc.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practices. The NEO personalityinventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5±13.

Dawda, D., Lymburner, J.A. & Hart, S.D. (in preparation). Multimethod assessment of alexithymia: a comparison

of self-report and observer rating scales.Dawda, D. (1997). The development and validation of an interview-based observer rating scale for alexithymia

(SIFA). Unpublished master's thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Derogatis, L. R. (1983). In SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring and procedure manual II. Towson, MD: ClinicalPsychometric Research.

Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., & Covi, L. (1973). SCL-90: An outpatient psychiatric rating scale: preliminaryreport. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 9, 13±18.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1994). Assessment of multidimensional coping: task, emotion and avoidance strat-egies. Psychological Assessment, 6, 50±60.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA:

Educational and Industry Testing Service.Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.Goleman, D. (1995). In Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.


Kellner, R., Abbott, P., Winslow, W., & Pathak, D. (1989). Anxiety, depression, and somatization in DSM-IIIhypochondriasis. Psychosomatics, 30, 57±64.

Larsen, R. J., & Billings, D. W. (1996). A�ect intensity and individual di�erences in informational style. Journal ofPersonality, 64, 185±207.

Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1986). A�ect intensity and reaction to daily life events. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 51, 803±814.Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1987). A�ect intensity as an individual di�erence characteristic: a review. Journal of

Research in Personality, 21, 1±39.

Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433±442.Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and

Preventive Psychology, 4, 197±208.

McCallum, M., & Piper, W. E. (1997). Psychological mindedness: a contemporary understanding. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52,509±516.

Nay, W. R. (1979). Multimethod clinical assessment. New York: Gardner Press.Norton, N. C. (1989). Three scales of alexithymia: do they measure the same thing? Journal of Personality

Assessment, 53, 621±637.

Parker, J. D., Taylor, G. J., & Bagby, R. M. (1993). Alexithymia and the processing of emotional stimuli: an exper-imental study. New Trends in Experimental Clinical Psychiatry, IX(1-2), 9±14.

Paulson, J. E. (1985). State of art of alexithymia measurement. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 44, 57±64.

Schutte, N. S., Malou�, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998).Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Di�erences, 25,167±177.

Sifneos, P. E. (1973). The prevalence of àlexithymic' characteristics in psychosomatic patients. Psychotherapy andPsychosomatics, 22, 255±262.

Sriram, T. G., Pratap, L., & Shanmugham, V. (1988). Towards enhancing the utility of Beth Israel HospitalPsychosomatic questionnaire. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 49, 205±211.

Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Parker, J. D. (1988). Measurement of Alecithymia recommendations for clinical andfuture research. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 11, 180±190.

Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Parker, J. D. (1997). In L. Op, Disorders of a�ect regulation: Alexithymia in medical

and psychiatric illness. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.Wechsler, D. (1958). In The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence (4). Baltimore, MD: William & Wilkins

Company.

Wechsler, D. (1940). Nonintellective factors in general intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 444±445.Wechsler, D. (1943). Nonintellective factors in general intelligence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 38, 100±104.Wiggins, J. S. (1973). In Personality and prediction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.


Documents

Assessing Emotional Intelligence