-
analytic methodology employed by Bar-On (1997a), and his
interpretation of the results that render theSince Salovey and
Mayers conceptualisation of emotional intelligence (EI; Salovey
& Mayer,dimensional structure of the EQ-i unclear. In contrast
to claims by Bar-On, in the present study a series ofexploratory
and conrmatory factor analyses found evidence for a general factor
of emotional intelligenceand six primary factors. Dierences between
the results reported by Bar-On (1997a) and those of the cur-rent
study are attributed largely to the more appropriate factor
analytic methodology employed. Implica-tions and directions for
future research are discussed.# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Emotional Intelligence; Emotional Competencies; Bar-On
EQ-i; Factor structure
1. Introduction
1.1. Models and measures of emotional intelligencegeneral
population sample
Benjamin R. Palmera, Ramesh Manochab, Gilles Gignaca, Con
Stougha,*aOrganisational Psychology Research Unit, Neuropsychology
Laboratory, School of Biophysical Sciences and Electrical
Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box, 218,
Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122, AustraliabUniversity of New South Wales,
Australia
Received 10 October 2001; received in revised form 16 September
2002; accepted 29 October 2002
Abstract
It has been claimed that the dimensional structure of the Bar-On
Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i)(Bar-On, 1997a) represents a
hierarchical model of emotional and social intelligence describing
a generalfactor, ve-second order factors and 15 primary factors.
However, there are several anomalies in the factorExamining the
factor structure of the Bar-OnEmotional Quotient Inventory with an
Australian
Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 11911210
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter #
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights
reserved.doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00328-8
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-3-9214-8167; fax:
+61-3-9214-5230.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Stough).1990), a number
of dierent models and measures have been developed (e.g. Bar-On,
1997a;
-
Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, 1995; Mayer & Salovey,
1997). These alternative models andmeasures have been compared
according to their theoretical structure (Mayer, Salovey, &
Car-uso, 2000; McCrae, 2000), and according to the way they measure
EI (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey,2000; Petrides & Furnham,
2000). Models of EI have been placed into two general
categories,ability and mixed (or personality) models of EI. Ability
models have been identied as thosethat dene EI as intelligence in
the traditional sense (e.g. Mayer & Salovey, 1997). That is, as
aconceptually related set of mental abilities to do with emotions
and the processing of emotionalinformation, that are apart of, and
contribute to, logical thought and intelligence in general.
Incomparison, mixed models of EI (e.g. Bar-On, 1997a) have been
identied as those that dene EIas a mixture of emotion-related
competencies, personality traits and dispositions. Measures of
EIsimilarly fall into two categories, self-report measures of EI,
and performance-based (objective)measures. Self-report measures
pertaining to ability models of EI (e.g. Trait-Meta Mood
Scale,TMMS; Salovey, Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995)
are purported to assess individualsbeliefs about emotional
abilities rather than their actual capacity (Mayer, Caruso et al.,
2000).Self-report measures pertaining to mixed models (e.g. the
Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory,Bar-On EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997a)
have been described as embedded within the personality frame-work,
and to assess cross-situational consistencies in behaviour
(Petrides & Furnham, 2000).Performance-based measures of EI
pertain to ability models (e.g. Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emo-tional
Intelligence Test, MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1999), and
involve a series ofemotion-related questions for which there are
more and less correct answers according to con-sensual responses.
The present paper examines the dimensional structure of one of the
pre-dominant mixed model self-report measures of EI, the Bar-On
EQ-i, (Bar-On, 1997a), in anAustralian general population
sample.
1.2. Bar-Ons (1997a) model of emotional intelligence
Bar-Ons model of EI (1997a) involves an array of personal,
emotional, and social abilities andskills thus constituting a mixed
model. While Bar-On places this model under the banner of EI, itis
a somewhat broader construct that he more generically refers to as
. . .emotional and socialintelligence (Bar-On 2000, p. 363). Bar-On
purports to have identied 15 determinants of suc-cessful emotional
functioning and positive psychological well-being from a review of
the mentalhealth literature, which have been operationally dened
and conceptualised as the 15 componentsof his model. These
components include: Emotional Self-Awareness (ES), the ability to
recogniseand to understand ones feelings; Assertiveness (AS), the
ability to express feelings, beliefs andthoughts, and to defend
ones rights in a non-destructive manner; Self-Regard (SR), the
ability torespect and accept oneself; Self-Actualisation (SA), the
ability to realise ones potential capacities;Independence (IN), the
ability to be self-directed and self-controlled in ones thinking
and actionsand to be free of emotional dependency; Empathy (EM),
the ability to be aware of, to under-stand, and to appreciate the
feelings of others; Interpersonal Relationship (IR), the ability
toestablish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships; Social
Responsibility (RE), the ability todemonstrate oneself as a
cooperative contributing, and constructive member of ones
socialgroup; Problem Solving (PS), the ability to identify and dene
problems as well as to generateand implement potentially eective
solutions; Reality Testing (RT), the ability to assess the cor-
1192 B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences
35 (2003) 11911210respondence between what is experienced and what
objectively exists; Flexibility (FL), the ability
-
to adjust ones emotions, thoughts, and behaviour to changing
situations and conditions; StressTolerance (ST), the ability to
withstand adverse events and stressful situations; Impulse
Control(IC), the ability to resist or delay an impulse, drive or
temptation to act; Happiness (HA), theability to feel satised with
ones life, to enjoy oneself and others, and to have fun;
Optimism(OP), the ability to look at the brighter side of life and
to maintain a positive attitude. These 15components of Bar-Ons
model are described in greater detail in the EQ-i Technical Manual
(Bar-On, 1997a).Within Bar-Ons (1997a) model, the 15 components are
theoretically arranged into ve broader
or major conceptual components. These include; Intrapersonal
Emotional intelligence (RAeq),representing abilities, capabilities,
competencies and skills pertaining to the inner self, i.e. the
ES,AS, SR, SA and IN components; Interpersonal Emotional
intelligence (EReq), representinginterpersonal skills and
functioning i.e. EM, IR, RE; Adaptability Emotional
Intelligence(ADeq), representing how successfully one is able to
cope with environmental demands by eec-tively sizing-up and dealing
with problematic situations, comprising PS, RT and FL;
StressManagement Emotional Intelligence (SMeq), representing the
ability to manage and cope eec-tively with stress comprising the ST
and IC components; and General Mood Emotional Intelli-gence (GMeq),
representing the ability to enjoy life and maintain a positive
disposition whichcomprises the HA and OP components. These ve major
components of EI are theoreticallyrelated to a general factor of EI
thus constituting a hierarchical model comprising overall EI,
ve-composite components, and 15 specic components at the bottom of
the hierarchy. Within thismodel, EI is dened as . . .an array of
non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills thatinuence
ones ability to succeed in coping with environmental demands and
pressures (Bar-On,1997a, p. 16). The 15 components of the model are
described as non-cognitive variables that. . .resemble personality
factors (Bar-On, 1997b, p. 6). It is also proposed that the
componentsof the model develop over time (with age), change
throughout life, and can be improved throughtraining and remedial
programs.
1.3. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory
The Bar-On EQ-i (1997a) has been designed to assess Bar-Ons
(1997a) model of EI. Consistentwith Bar-Ons proposed theoretical
structure of EI, the EQ-i comprises 15 sub-scales pertainingto the
15 components of the model, which render 15 sub-scale scores, ve EQ
composite scalescores and an overall or total EQ score. As with
other self-report measures of EI, the EQ-i isdescribed to provide
an index of cross-situational consistencies in (emotionally and
socially)competent behaviour and as such, provides an estimate of
an individuals EI (Bar-On, 2000).Psychometric analyses of the EQ-i
reported in the technical manual (Bar-On, 1997a), indicate
that it has good internal reliability and testretest
reliability. Across seven population samples, the 15sub-scales are
reported to have average-to-high internal consistency coecients
with Cronbachalphas ranging from =0.69 for RE to =0.86 for SR.
Similarly, with a South African sample(n=44) the average stability
coecient of the 15 sub-scales after a 1-month period was found to
ber=0.85, and with a smaller sub-set of this sample (n=27) was
found to be r=0.75 after a4-month period. A large number of
correlation studies are also reported in the technical
manual(Bar-On, 1997a), in support of the validity of the EQ-i as a
measure of the ability to succeed in
B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35
(2003) 11911210 1193coping with environmental demands and
pressures, and psychological well-being. For example;
-
total EQ-i scores have been shown to correlate positively with
measures of emotional stability(e.g. r=0.72 with the Emotional
Stability factor of the Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire,16PF; Cattell, Cattell, & Cattell, 1993); overall
life satisfaction (e.g. r=0.41 with the KirkcaldyQuality of Life
Questionnaire, Kirkcaldy 1995); acculturation (e.g. r=0.34 with the
ShortAcculturation Scale, SAS; Marin, Sabogal, Marin,
Otero-Sabogal, & Perex-Stable, 1987); attri-bution style (e.g.
r=0.37, with the Attributional Style Questionnaire, ASQ; Peterson,
Semmel,von Baeyer, Abramson, Metalsky, & Seligman, 1982); and
proxy measures of job performanceand satisfaction (e.g. r=0.51 with
the Sense of Competence Questionnaire, SCQ; Wagner &Morese,
1975). Furthermore, total EQ-i scores correlate negatively with
measures of poor emo-tional health (e.g. r=0.85 with the Ninety
Symptom Check List, SCL-90; Derogatis, 1973); anddepression (e.g.
r=0.56 with the Beck Depression Inventory, BDI; Beck & Steer,
1987). Overallthese results provide preliminary evidence for the
construct validity of the EQ-i, however, as withmost existing
measures of EI, the validity of the EQ-i needs to be further
established by inde-pendent research and with larger samples
(Bar-On 2000).One question that is currently relevant to the EQ-i
is its discriminant validity from per-
sonality traits such as neuroticism and general aect (Mayer,
Caruso et al. 2000; Newsome,Day, & Catano, 2000). A recent
study by Newsome et al. (2000) reports correlations betweenthe ve
personality factors of the 16PF (Cattell et al., 1993) and the ve
EQ-i compositescores ranging from r=0.1 to r=0.77. The highest
correlation in this study was between thetotal EQ scale score of
the EQ-i and the Anxiety factor of the 16PF (r=0.77) leading
theseresearchers to conclude . . .that the EQ-i is largely a
measure of neuroticism. . . (Newsome et al.,2000; p. 1014). Dawda
and Hart (2000) have also demonstrated considerable overlap between
theEQ-i and personality. These authors found the total EQ scale
score of the EQ-i correlated withthe NEO FFI (Costa & McCrae,
1992): for males Neuroticism (N) (r=0.62), Extraversion
(E)(r=0.52), Openness (O) (r=0.12), Agreeableness (A) (r=0.43), and
Conscientiousness (C)(r=0.51); and for females N (r=0.72), E
(r=0.56), O (r=0.17), A (r=0.43), and C (r=0.33).Given this overlap
with personality, it is possible that the EQ-i may be predicting
theoreticallyrelated life criteria in preliminary validity studies
(e.g. life satisfaction, workplace performance,psychological
well-being) because the EQ-i is measuring personality traits and
dispositionsknown to account for these important human values. The
discriminant validity of the EQ-ifrom personality traits and
dispositions, and indeed whether it accounts for variance in
lifesatisfaction, job performance and psychological well-being not
accounted for by well establishedpersonality traits has not yet
been empirically substantiated and needs be addressed by
futureresearch.While there are issues concerning the discriminant
and predictive validity of the EQ-i, this scale
is one of the most advanced self-report measures of EI currently
available. The EQ-i has beentranslated into 22 languages and
normative data has been established in more than 15
countries(Bar-On, 2000). Furthermore, the EQ-i shows a meaningful
pattern of convergent validity withmeasures of psychological
well-being and alexithymia (Dawda & Hart, 2000). In addition,
theEQ-i is a well-constructed measure, involving indices of social
response bias, and response valid-ity indicators (i.e. omission
rate and an inconsistency index), that are purported to increase
theaccuracy of test scores. Finally, the EQ-i is a relatively brief
and easy scale to administer andinterpret. Results are computer
generated, interpreted by the test publisher Multi-Heath
Systems
1194 B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences
35 (2003) 11911210(MHS), and are represented in layperson terms
numerically, graphically and textually in feedback
-
reports. Given the potential utility of the EQ-i, further
validation with more diverse and largerpopulation samples is
essential (Bar-On, 2000).
1.4. Dimensional structure of the Bar-On EQ-i
While validation of the discriminant and predictive validity of
the EQ-i is needed, it could beargued that further validation of
its dimensional structure is also required. To-date, Bar-On(1997a,
2000) is the only researcher to have examined the factor structure
of the EQ-i. Empiricalsupport is claimed, with a large
representative population sample (n=3831) through bothexploratory
and conrmatory factor analyses, that the hierarchical factor
structure of Bar-Onsmodel of EI is measured by the 15 component
sub-scales of the EQ-i. However, there are someanomalies in the
interpretation of the results and factor solutions chosen to
represent the datathat need to be addressed.Bar-On (1997a),
performed a principal components factor analysis of the EQ-i and
reported
using the eigen value-greater-than-one, and the scree criteria
to determine the correct number offactors in the data set. Neither
the number of factors with eigen values greater than one, nor
thenumber of factors suggested by the scree plot were reported.
Rather, Bar-On reported that therewere 13 factors in the data set
and that the variance revealed by each of the factors was, in
order,23.1, 4.8, 3.6, 2.8, 2.6, 2.0, 1.7, 1.5, 1.3, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1
and 1. With large sample sizes of 300 or more,factor loadings as
small as .15 (indicating that 2.25% of the variance is accounted
for by thefactor) are typically signicant at the P
-
Bar-On (1997a) labelled the 13-factors that emerged from the
data set by examining the highestloading items on each factor
(factor loadings of 0.4 and higher across and within factors).
Therewere some dierences between Bar-Ons (1997a) theoretical
structure of EI, and that whichemerged from the EQ-i as a result of
the exploratory analysis. Firstly, two factors, rather thanone
single factor, emerged from the items pertaining to the Impulse
Control sub-scale of the EQ-i.Secondly, the items pertaining to the
Self-Regard, Self-Actualisation, Optimism and Happinesssub-scales
loaded on two factors (factor 1 & 10), rather than four single
factors. Similarly, theitems from the Assertiveness and
Independence sub-scales loaded on one factor (factor 6) ratherthan
two single factors. Finally, Bar-On (1997a) reported that the
Empathy and Self-Regard sub-scales emerged as separable factors in
the data set, however, they were highly correlated r =0.80,a
surprising result given that the solution was rotated orthogonally.
In summary, Bar-On con-cluded that the major discrepancy between
the theoretical 15-factor structure of the EQ-i and the13-factor
structure that emerged from factor analysis was due to the fact
that ve factors emergedfrom seven original sub-scales.A series of
conrmatory analyses by way of structural equation modelling were
performed by
Bar-On (1997a), to determine whether sub-scales that loaded on
single factors could be treated asseparable factors. It was
reported that the results of these analyses conrmed that
Self-Regard,Self-Actualisation, Optimism and Happiness could be
treated as separable factors as could theAssertiveness and
Independence sub-scales. Conrmatory analyses were also applied to
assesswhether a one-factor second order model involving a general
factor of emotional intelligence andthe hypothesised ve composite
factors tted the data. Multiple t statistics supporting thismodel
were reported (i.e. GFI=0.971, Adjusted GFI=0.892, NFI=0.956, and
CFI=0.982), andit was concluded that there was empirical support
that the EQ-i accounted for the 1515 totalEQcomposite
scalessubscales) hierarchical structure of Bar-Ons (1997a) model.
Despite theseconrmatory results supporting the dimensional
structure of the EQ-i as a match with thetheoretical structure of
Bar-Ons (1997a) model, other possible structural equation models of
thedata were not reported. Moreover Bar-Ons conrmatory models have
not yet been replicated,and need to be by independent research with
similar population samples before it can beconcluded that the EQ-i
provides an index of the 1515 hierarchical model of emotional
andsocial intelligence.In summary it could be argued that the
dimensional structure of the EQ-i is unclear. While Bar-
On (1997a) claims to have found empirical support through both
exploratory and conrmatoryanalyses that the dimensional structure
of the EQ-i represents the 1515 hierarchical model ofemotional and
social intelligence, the results of these analyses are not
substantive. The con-rmatory analyses have not been replicated, and
a wider range of alternative structural models ofthe EQ-i need to
be assessed. Moreover, there are a number of issues concerning the
interpreta-tion of the exploratory results that need to be
addressed, such as, the factor solution that bestrepresents the
dimensional structure of the EQ-i.
1.5. The current study
Given that the factor structure of the EQ-i is unclear, in the
current study we employedexploratory factor analyses at the outset.
Principal axis factoring was performed and joint Par-
1196 B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences
35 (2003) 11911210allel Analysis (Horn, 1965)/Scree Test (Cattell,
1966) criteria were used to determine the factor
-
On reports no gender dierences in overall EI, consistently (i.e.
over a number of populationsamples reported in the EQ-i Technical
Manual), females tend to have signicantly higher Inter-
personal EQ than males, however, males tend to have signicantly
higher Intrapersonal EQ,Adaptability EQ, and Stress Management EQ
than females. Finally, the EQ-i reports severalstudies comparing
the EI of clinical groups and matched normative groups showing that
those whosuer from mental illness tend to exhibit lower EI than
normal populations. We hypothesisedthat there would be a positive
correlation between Age and EI; that females would score higheron
EI than males; and that individuals reporting no history of mental
illness would have asignicantly higher EI than those reporting a
history of, and/or current mental illness.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The sample comprised 377 participants (270 females, 103 males,
four unreported ranging in agefrom 15 to 79 with a mean age 39.44
years S.D.=13.83) drawn from the general population
viaadvertisements detailing the research. Participants received a
small stipend for completing theEQ-i. The ethnic composition
comprised; 71%(260) White Caucasian Australians; 19%(70)White
Caucasian Emigrants; 9%(34) Asian/Pacic Islanders; Other/Not
Reported 1%(9). Incomparison to the Australian population, the
sample was slightly above average in education;2.7%(10) had
completed primary school education only; 22%(82) had completed
secondaryschool education only; 20%(73) had completed a tertiary
certicate/diploma; 28%(105) hadcompleted an undergraduate degree;
22%(81) had completed a postgraduate degree; [6%(22) notreported].
Of the 377 participants 58 reported having a history of mental
illness, 10 reportedhaving a current mental illness whilst the
majority (288) reported having no known history ofmental illness.
While there was a gender imbalance in the sample, the age, ethnic,
and educationalsolution that best represented the data. There is an
emerging consensus amongst the factor ana-lytic literature that
these two criteria (Parallel Analysis/Scree Test) are the most
accurate fordetermining the number of factors in a data set
(Barrett and Kline, 1992). We then performedconrmatory factor
analyses via structural equation modelling to compare the goodness
of t ofthe exploratory factor solution identied in the current
study and the second order dimensionalstructure of the EQ-i
proposed by Bar-On (1997a) comprising Overall EI (or a general
factor) andthe ve composite components (Intrapersonal EI;
Interpersonal EI; Adaptability EI; StressManagement EI; General
Mood EI). Finally we examined whether the factor solution
identiedin the current study and the second order dimensional
structure of the EQ-i proposed by Bar-Ondiered in terms of their
relationships with age, gender and two criterion groups; (1)
individualsreporting no history of mental illness; and (2)
individuals reporting a history of, and/or currentmental
illness.Although the eects are small in magnitude, Bar-On (1997a),
reports signicant dierences in
EI according to age and gender. Bar-On (1997a) has shown that
individuals aged 4049 havesignicantly higher overall EI than
individuals aged 2029 (M=102.7 and M=96.8 respectivelyF=0.46. 3,
P
-
aTh mo nt Ba n,
true of the way they typically think, feel or act on a ve-point
scale (1=Very Seldom or Not trueof me, 5=Very often true of me or
True of me). The items of the EQ-i are summed to yield
Omission Rate is higher than 6% for a given participant, their
EQ-i results are considered invalid(Bar-On, 1997a).
1198 B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences
35 (2003) 119112102.3. Procedure
Participants were administered the EQ-i according to the
instructions outlined in the EQ-itechnical manual (Bar-On,
1997a).
3. Results
Prior to conducting the factor analyses, the validity of
participants responses were examined.Four of the participants
responses were found to be invalid as per the Omission Rate
criterion,and 15 participants responses were found to be invalid as
per the inconsistency index criterion.These participants responses
were removed from subsequent analyses. In order to
facilitatecomparisons among population samples the test publisher
(MHS) converts raw scores to stan-dard scores such that each scale
score has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.Accordingly
standardised means and standard deviations of the present sample
are provided inTable 1.
Table 1Means and standard deviations for the Bar-On EQ-i
Scales
Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress management
General mood Total EQ
Mean 94.80 96.48 94.46 94.56 93.92 93.70S.D. 16.17 15.54 15.33
15.58 17.04 15.93scores on 15 lower-order sub-scales, ve
higher-order composite scores, and an overall emotionalintelligence
score. Of the 133 items that comprise the EQ-i, eight items
comprise a PositiveImpression Scale, and seven items comprise a
Negative Impression Scale. These two scales aredesigned to
determine whether a participant is responding in an overly positive
or overly negativefashion. In addition, there is an Inconsistency
Index, calculated by summing the dierences inscores between
responses on ten pairs of similar items designed to assess random
responding.Finally, item 133 I responded openly and honestly to the
above sentences, also assesses randomresponding. If a participants
response to this item is either 2 or 1 (Seldom true of me orVery
seldom or Not true of me), their results are considered invalid.
Participants responses arealso considered invalid if a certain
percentage of items are not answered (Omission Rate). If theThe
EQ-i is a self-report inventory comprising 133 (items) declarative
statements phrased in therst-person singular. Participants are
required to indicate the degree to which each statement is2.2.1. e
Bar-On E tional Quotie Inventory ( r-On EQ-i; Bar-O 1997a)2.2. M
terials
-
As shown in Table 1, the present sample scored slightly lower
than the North American nor-mative sample (M=100; S.D.=15) for the
EQ Total score as well as the EQ composite scaleshowever, the
dierence in average performance for all composite scales fall
within one standarddeviation and are therefore considered to be
within the normal range according to the EQ-iTechnical Manual.
3.1. Exploratory factor analyses
Principal axis factoring was applied to the items pertaining to
the 15 sub-scales of the EQ-i(validity items omitted). The scree
test suggested that six factors should be extracted fromthe data
set a result conrmed by a parallel analysis using the procedure
provided byOConnor (2000). In total, the six factors accounted for
40.3% of the variance (22.8, 5.0,4.3, 3.1, 2.8, and 2.3%,
respectively) in the data set. In the un-rotated solution most
itemsloaded on a single factor providing evidence for a general
factor of EI, a nding consistent withthe interrelatedness of the
EQ-i sub-scales reported by Bar-On (1997a). According to the
screetest and parallel analysis, six factor (orthogonal- and
oblique-rotated) solutions were examined inorder to further
interpret the factor structure of the EQ-i. Examination of the
factor solu-tions revealed that the six-factor oblique (Direct
Oblimin with Kaiser Normalisation) rotatedsolution best represented
the present data. Both the orthogonal and oblique factor
solutionsproduced highly similar results, however, the
oblique-rotated solution was clearer, involving amore even spread
of items loading on each factor. The resulting factor loadings are
pre-sented in Table 2.We used the process employed by Bar-On
(1997a) to identify and label the factors shown
in Table 2, that is, items loading 0.4 or higher. Consistent
with Bar-Ons exploratory factoranalyses of the EQ-i, the rst factor
that emerged in the analysis accounted for more thanhalf of the
variance (22.8%) in the data set, and had items loading .4 and
higher primarilyfrom the Self-Regard and Happiness sub-scales with
some items from the Optimism, Self-Actualisation and Stress
Tolerance sub-scales. Bar-On (1997a, pp. 50,51) describes peoplewho
score high on the Self-Regard sub-scale as those who . . .have a
good sense of self-esteem,feel positive about themselves, and know
who they are. Similarly, people who score high on theHappiness
sub-scale of the EQ-i are described by Bar-On as those who have . .
.a happydisposition and are pleasant to be with. Although Bar-On
labelled this factor Self-Con-tentment because it measures
emotionality in general, we labelled this factor
EmotionalDisposition.Items loading 0.4 or higher on the second
factor that emerged in the present analysis were from
the Interpersonal Relationship, Social Responsibility and
Empathy sub-scales of the EQ-i.According to Bar-On (1997a) these
three sub-scales all measure aspects of interpersonal skills
andfunctioning thus we labelled this factor Interpersonal EQ. The
third factor that emerged wasalmost an exact replication of the
Impulse Control sub-scale of the EQ-i with one item loading0.4 and
higher from the Reality Testing sub-scale, as such, this factor was
labelled Impulse Con-trol. Items loading 0.4 and higher on the
fourth factor were predominantly from the ProblemSolving sub-scale
of the EQ-i, with one item from each of the Self Actualisation,
Stress Toleranceand Optimism sub-scales, thus this factor was
labelled Problem Solving. The fth factor that
B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35
(2003) 11911210 1199emerged in the present analyses had items
loading 0.4 and higher primarily from the Emotional
-
dings pe the Ba (direct-
1200 B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences
35 (2003) 1191121Q61 0.123 0.333 0.132 0.214 0.144Q82 0.167 0.317
0.119 0.162 0.230 0.175Q62Q690.3230.1800.3570.3360.134
0.2230.1750.2290.235Q55
Q120 0.3520.3890.379 0.3120.178 0.2170.143Q39 0.311 0.390 0.134
0.320 0.141
Q113 0.246 0.407 0.155 0.251 0.228
Q105 0.347 0.417 0.178
Q16 0.421 0.121
Q72 0.440 0.229 0.152 0.102
Q44 0.200 0.449 0.162 0.115 0.265 0.200
Q84 0.478 0.124 0.211 0.165
Q124 0.483 0.163 0.203 0.172
Q90 0.151 0.501 0.173 0.118
Q98 0.149 0.531 0.226 0.181
Q99 0.195 0.650 0.121 0.148
Q36 0.301 0.153 0.101 0.173
Q125 0.303 0.112 0.277 0.276
Q17 0.312 0.294 0.236 0.210 0.174
Q38 0.345 0.258 0.125 0.318
Q132 0.352 0.106 0.215 0.268Q95 0.356 0.300 0.241 0.348
0.101
Q53 0.366 0.351 0.112
Q11 0.390 0.160 0.149 0.270Q127 0.393 0.183 0.210 0.226
0.147
Q106 0.448 0.388 0.182
Q110 0.455 0.138 0.164 0.190 0.122
Q100 0.460 0.133
Q24 0.465 0.187 0.319 0.244
Q26 0.476 0.196 0.239 0.114
Q54 0.478 0.301 0.232 0.153
Q114 0.491 0.109 0.164
Q122 0.509 0.183 0.133 0.122 0.227
Q64 0.515 0.119 0.252 0.259Q31 0.516 0.393 0.115
Q51 0.542 0.104 0.101
Q40 0.561 0.191 0.190Q129 0.563 0.159 0.112
Q77 0.592 0.273
Q85 0.599 0.162 0.105
Q47 0.622 0.147 0.119 0.206
Q70 0.676 0.169 0.175 0.131
Q2 0.678 0.153 0.125
Q91 0.712 0.157Q56 0.725 0.167Item No. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor
3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6Factor loa rtaining to r-On EQ-i
oblimin)a
Table 20(continued on next page)
-
ontinued
0.146 0.384
B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35
(2003) 119112Q21 0.242Q18 0.139 0.179 0.318 0.383 0.102Q68 0.287
0.111 0.116 0.106 0.406Q22Q350.2010.201 0.2820.108
0.4870.4390.166
Q63 0.183 0.238 0.488
Q10 0.129 0.194 0.212 0.498 0.162
Q9 0.105 0.224 0.104 0.569 0.112
Q116 0.609 0.160
Q52 0.131 0.732
Q23 0.107 0.757
Q7 0.181 0.128 0.772
Q112 0.151 0.190 0.212 0.202 0.114Q37 0.225 0.309 0.287
Q75 0.199 0.266 0.138 0.313 0.171 0.190
Q88 0.296 0.335 0.151Q32 0.244 0.362 0.263 0.324
Q4 0.130 0.133 0.375 0.201 0.210
Q8 0.254 0.135 0.196 0.375 0.117
Q67 0.195 0.379 0.204 0.250
Q48 0.312 0.384 0.189 0.273
Q78 0.132 0.238 0.394 0.174 0.349
Q108 0.201 0.101 0.396 0.249
Q6 0.167 0.411
Q20 0.153 0.419 0.262
Q1 0.104 0.108 0.465Q81 0.322 0.154 0.242 0.477
Q29 0.128 0.561 0.126
Q89 0.581Q15 0.609
Q45 0.110 0.160 0.617
Q80 0.145 0.618
Q60 0.145 0.111 0.623
Q107 0.129 0.182 0.281 0.238 0.281
Q58 0.314
Q27 0.121 0.335 0.141 0.118
Q83 0.303 0.250 0.350 0.180 0.136 0.112
Q66 0.315 0.102 0.363 0.167 0.194
Q97 0.182 0.413 0.283 0.123Q13 0.221 0.313 0.548 0.148 0.125
Q86 0.122 0.565 0.115
Q130 0.163 0.282 0.586 0.118
Q102 0.116 0.605 0.196Q42 0.606 0.217
Q73 0.638 0.124 0.158
Q117 0.138 0.193 0.647 0.129
Q119 0.309 0.187
Item No. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor
6Table 2 (c )10 1201(continued on next page)
-
reness le of th ith on rom ea e Inter Relatiness a ty Tes scales
Q-i, th actor w led Emreness ading ixth fac prima the F and
Inb-scale EQ-i w item e the S lerance f-Regalexibili ported s how
ndividu n their s andepend urport sess ho eliant i ls are, indepin
their g and a s such lled th Chara exiblepende dent). lations these
rs rang 0.01 tomary, ults of lorato r anal ed to the 13of the
evious ed by B 1997a) deed th tical 15f emot d socia ence. R he
resu e curr y suggprises al facto and six y facto
rmato r analy
analys amine the six
r loadin en sorted g. Items 0:4j j ar ace, and s
loadinomittedTable 2 (continued)
Item No. Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor
6
Q96 0.137 0.259 0.215 0.372 0.214Q111 0.218 0.370 0.233Q126
0.288 0.261 0.111 0.368 0.230Q30 0.276 0.215 0.296 0.320 0.123Q46
0.198 0.219 0.301Q128 0.228 0.108 0.106 0.295 0.132Q131 0.155 0.105
0.571Q92 0.102 0.194 0.167 0.224 0.508
Q104 0.151 0.136 0.135 0.382 0.487Q93 0.135 0.172 0.125
0.437Q103 0.194 0.148 0.125 0.426
Q19 0.106 0.208 0.214 0.266 0.409Q87 0.191 0.255 0.137 0.407Q59
0.245 0.189 0.108 0.403Q76 0.134 0.267 0.249 0.379Q28 0.182 0.149
0.369
1202 B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences
35 (2003) 11911210Next we conducted a series of conrmatory factor
es to ex whether -factor3.2. Con ry facto sesEQ-i com a gener r of
EI primar rs.
model o ional an l intellig ather, t lts of th ent stud est
that
structure EQ-i pr ly report ar-On ( , and in e theore
-factor
In sum the res the exp ry facto ysis fail support -factorible,
inde nt/depen Intecorre between six facto ed from 0.37.
they are thinkin ctions. A , we labe is factor cter (i.e.
/inex-
while ind ence is p ed to as w self-r ndividua and how
endent
scales. F ty is pur to asses exible i als are i thought
actions,
dence su s of the ith one ach from tress To and Sel rd sub-
Self-Awa . Items lo on the s tor were rily from lexibility
depen-
Assertive nd Reali ting sub- of the E us this f as label
otional
Self-Awa sub-sca e EQ-i w e item f ch of th personal onship,have
been .Facto gs have be ascendin loading > e in bold f those item
g < 0:1j ja
Q121 0.150 0.188 0.203 0.145 0.243
Q118 0.169 0.140 0.186 0.181 0.266
Q74 0.177 0.134 0.200 0.285
Q43 0.140 0.218 0.242 0.286
Q3 0.110 0.127 0.249 0.115 0.287
Q14 0.194 0.336Q33 0.280 0.157 0.245 0.357Q49 0.253 0.194 0.195
0.339model determined by the current study better represented the
dimensional structure of the EQ-i in
-
equation modelling (AMOS 4.01; Arbuckle, 1999). Bar-Ons
ve-factor model, as illustrated in
Fig. 1, was found to provide a reasonably good t with the
present data set (CFI=0.97,RFI=0.95, RMSEA=0.15). Similarly, the
6-factor model derived from the exploratory factoranalysis, as
illustrated in Fig. 2, also had a good t (CFI=0.98, RFI=0.96,
RMSEA=0.12).To test statistically which model provided a better
overall t of the data the dierence in the
chi-square values were determined (Breckler, 1990). The
ve-factor model yielded a chi-squarevalue of 742.92 with 85 degrees
of freedom. In contrast, the six-factor model from the
exploratoryfactor analysis yielded a chi-square value of 664.76
with 113 degrees of freedom. As such, the six-factor model
determined by the current study provided a signicantly better t
than Bar-Onsoriginal ve-factor model (chi-square dierence was
78.16, df. 28, P
-
1204 B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences
35 (2003) 11911210Fig. 1. Bar-Ons (1997a) second order ve-factor
model of EI.
-
B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35
(2003) 11911210 1205Fig. 2. Exploratory six-factor model of the
Bar-On EQ-i determined by the current study.
-
i 7 r n n ry s a W ma a 2 t a s e o f i
a o m C l x h a t sin n t t u a P i
e re o
4. Discussion
the current study failed to support previous claims by Bar-On
(1997a) tcture of the EQ-i comprises 13 factors that closely match
the theoreticalsite scalessubscales) model of emotional and social
intelligence. In contrnd that the dimensional structure of the EQ-i
comprised a general factofactors.ued that the ndings of the current
study oer a more conclusive interpr
Table 4Dierences in emotional intelligence as a function of age,
sex, mental illness
Interb=Interpersonal; Imp=Impulse Control; Prob=Problem Solving;
Emo self=Emotional Self-Awareness;Five-factor model Six-factor
model g
Intra Inter Adapt Stress Mood Emo Disp Interb Imp Prob Emo Self
Char
Age 0.09 0.11 0.16 0.20 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.22 0.15 0.02 0.04
0.13
Sex 0.22 0.86 0.13 0.04 0.16 0.08 0.87 0.04 0.09 0.50 0.04
0.33MI 0.42 0.35 0.44 0.47 0.63 0.68 0.34 0.04 0.46 0.28 0.22
0.50Eect sizes in bold are P
-
in the EQ-i using joint scree test/parallel analysis criteria
which have been shown to be the mostaccurate methods for
determining the correct number of factors in a correlation matrix
(Fava,Velicer, & Eaton, 2000; Zwick & Velicer, 1986). In
addition, Bar-On (1997a, 1997b) used anorthogonal (varimax)
rotation procedure to interpret the 13-factor solution found in his
analysesof the EQ-i. When correlations of r=0.3 or higher exist
between variables it has been argued thatoblique-rotated solutions
oer a clearer interpretation than orthogonal rotated solutions from
anempirical standpoint, providing superior simple structure,
superior factor replicability, andcorrelations between the factors
which provide insightful information about the construct
beinganalysed (Reise, Waller, & Comrey, 2000). In the current
study an oblique rotation procedurewas used to interpret the
dimensional structure of the EQ-i. Indeed three of the
correlationsbetween the six factors identied in the current study
were greater than r=0.3 suggesting that theoblique-rotated solution
oered the most meaningful interpretation of the current data.The
rst factor that emerged in the exploratory analyses of the current
study, Emotional Dis-
position, had items loading primarily from the Self-Regard and
Happiness sub-scales of the EQ-iwith some items from the Optimism,
Self-Actualisation and Stress Tolerance sub-scales. Thesecond
factor that emerged, Interpersonal EQ, had items loading from the
Interpersonal Rela-tionship, Social Responsibility and Empathy
sub-scales of the EQ-i. The Impulse Control, Prob-lem Solving and
Emotion Self-Awareness sub-scales of the EQ-i emerged relatively
clearly asseparable dimensions (factors 3, 4 and 5), whilst the
sixth factor that emerged in the current studyloaded items from the
Flexibility and Independence sub-scales of the EQ-i. This
six-factor model isconsiderably dierent from Bar-Ons (1997a)
second-order ve-factor model of EI that describeshow the 15
sub-scales of the EQ-i cluster to provide broader denitive
dimensions (IntrapersonalEQ; Interpersonal EQ; Adaptability EQ;
Stress Management EQ; and General Mood EQ). Theonly subscales of
the EQ-i that were found in the current study to cluster together
according toBar-Ons (1997a) ve-factor model were Interpersonal
Relationship, Social Responsibility andEmpathy that form the
broader Interpersonal EQ dimension. None of the other sub-scales of
theEQ-i were found to cluster according to Bar-Ons second order
ve-factor model.Conrmatory factor analyses using structural
equation modelling were conducted to compare
the goodness of t of the six-factor model determined in the
exploratory analyses of the currentstudy, and Bar-Ons (1997a)
second order ve-factor model of EI. Both models were found tohave
adequate t, although a statistical comparison of the two models
demonstrated the six-fac-tor model determined by the current study
was superior. It should be emphasized, however, thatthere is likely
a large number of models that would have t the correlation matrix
well, as hasbeen demonstrated to be a common characteristic of SEM
(MacCallum, Wegener, Uchino, &Fabrigar, 1993). In this case,
the dominance of a general factor would likely have supported
alarge number of models with a higher-order general factor. The
strength of the general factor canbe appreciated by the PCA that
found all ve facets to load positively on one factor thataccounted
for 72% of the variance. The problem of equivalent models
(MacCallum et al., 1993) islikely not solvable using comparative t
model t statistics. Rather, the dierential validity of anymodel
must be tested using external criterion variables.A series of
discriminant function analyses did not nd either Bar-Ons (1997a)
second order
ve-factor model or the six-factor model determined by the
current study to be more predictive ofgender or mental illness.
However, there were dierences in the pattern of eects. For example,
in
B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35
(2003) 11911210 1207the current study Bar-Ons (1997a) second order
ve-factor model only had the Interpersonal EQ
-
the six-factor solution identied by the current study. However,
the ndings of the current studydo suggest that researchers should
factor analyse the scale and use total scores and factor scores
1208 B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences
35 (2003) 11911210given that the items of the EQ-i may not comprise
either the 15 or 5 composite components ofBar-Ons (1997a) model of
EI. Perhaps the most important implication of the current
studyconcerns psychologists, psychiatrists, human resources
professionals and organisational devel-opment consultants. Such
practitioners have been informed (by both the Technical Manual of
theEQ-i and in accreditation courses run by the test publisher
MHS), that the EQ-i can clearly mapout individual dierences in
emotional and social competencies (e.g. the EQ-i can be used as. .
.an aid in the more indepth psychodiagnostic assessment process to
clearly map out areas thatneed to be explored and managed in
therapy., Bar-On, 1997a, p. 152), when many of its com-ponent parts
do not clearly emerge as separable dimensions in factor analyses,
(e.g. Assertiveness,Self-Actualisation, Reality Testing,
Flexibility, Stress Tolerance, Optimism, and Happiness).Given the
EQ-i meaningful pattern of convergent validity with measures of
psychological well-being however, as outlined in the introduction
of this paper, the EQ-i does appear to provide ageneral index of
individual dierences in psychological health, and perhaps
therefore, individualscapacity to succeed in coping with
environmental demands and pressures.At a broader level the ndings
of the current study highlight the need for the psychometric
properties of existing measures of EI to be substantiated by
independent research. The dimen-sional structure of tests is one of
the most rudimentary of these psychometric elements (Kline,2000),
and there is little research to-date that has examined the
dimensional structure of existingmeasures of EI.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (1999). Amos 4.01. SmallWaters Corp.Bar-On, R.
(1997a). Emotional Quotient Inventory: technical manual. Toronto:
Multi-Health Systems.
Bar-On, R. (1997b). Development of the Bar-On EQ-i: a measure of
emotional and social intelligence. Paper presented atthe 105th
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
Chicago, USA.
Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: insights
from the Emotional Quotient Inventory. In R. Bar-On,& J. D. A.
Parker (Eds.), The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 363388).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bar-On, R., Brown, J. M., Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Thome, E. P.
(2000). Emotional expression and implications for occu-pational
stress; an application of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (1997a,
2000).
Barrett, P., & Kline, P. (1992). Factor extraction: an
examination of three methods. Journal of Personality and Group
Behaviour, 2, 9498.dimension as evidencing a signicant dierence
betweenmales and females. In contrast, the six-factormodel identied
by the current study had both the Interpersonal and Emotional
Self-Awarenessdimensions as evidencing signicant dierences between
males and females. The items comprisingEmotional Self-Awareness
were in the Intrapersonal facet of the ve-factor model; however,
theeect was reduced to non-signicance, because of the other items
grouped into Intrapersonal (e.g.Assertiveness, and
Self-Actualisation). Thus, although neither model oered more
predictive valid-ity, the six-factor model oered a more insightful
interpretation when analysing gender dierences.It should be noted
that the six-factor solution of the EQ-i identied by the current
study needs
to be replicated in order to substantiate whether this solution
oers a more accurate descriptionof the EQ-i dimensional structure.
Indeed, there is a considerable portion of error variance with
-
B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35
(2003) 11911210 1209Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck
Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corpora-
tion.Breckler, S. J. (1990). Applications of covariance
structure modeling in psychology: cause for concern?
PsychologicalBulletin, 107, 260273.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors.
Multivariate Behavioural Research, 1, 141161.Cattell, R. B. (1978).
The scientic use of factor analysis. New York: Plenum.Cattell, R.
B., Cattell, A. K., & Cattell, H. E. (1993). Sixteen
personality factor questionnaire (5th ed.). Champaign, IL:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Cattell, R. B.,
& Kline, P. (1977). The scientic analysis of personality and
motivation. London: Academic Press.Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A.
(1997). Executive EQ: emotional intelligence in leadership and
organizations. New York:Grosset/Putnum.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventoryprofessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional
intelligence: reliability and validity of the Bar-On Emotional
Quotient Inventory (1997A; 2000) in university students.
Personality and Individual Dierences, 28, 797812.Derogatis, L. R.
(1973). SCL-90: Administration, scoring and procedures. Baltimore,
MD: John Hopkins UniversitySchool of Medicine.
Fava, J. L., Velicier, W. F., & Eaton, C. A. (2000).
Construct explication through factor or component analysis: areview
and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number
of factors or components. InR. D. Gon, & E. Helmes (Eds.),
Problems and solutions in human assessment: honoring Douglas N.
Jackson at
seventy (pp. 4171). New York, NY, US: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York:
Bantam Books.Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and technique for
estimating the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrika,30, 179185.
Kirkcaldy, B. (1995). The Kirkcaldy Quality of Life
Questionnaire. Unpublished test.Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to
factor analysis. London: Routledge.Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of
psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar,
L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent models inapplications of
covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
185199.
Marin, G., Sabogal, F., Marin, B., Otero-Sabogal, R., &
Perex-Stable, E. (1987). The development of a Short
Acculturation Scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioural Sciences, 9, 183205.Mayer, J., Caruso, D. R., &
Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of emotional intelligence:
the case for ability scales. InR. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker
(Eds.),The handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 320342). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Mayer, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional
intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D. Sluyter (Eds.),
Emotionaldevelopment and emotional intelligence: implications for
educators (pp. 331). New York: Basicbooks.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (1999). Working
manual for the MSCEIT research version 1.1. Toronto,Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso (2000). Models of
emotional intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook
ofintelligence (pp. 396420). New York: Cambridge.
McCrae, R. R. (2000). Emotional intelligence from the
perspective of the ve-factor model of personality. In
R. Bar-On, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook of
emotional intelligence (pp. 263276). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing
the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Person-
ality and Individual Dierences, 29, 10051016.OConnor, P. (2000).
SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components
using parallel analysis andVeliciers MAP test. Behaviour Research
Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32(3), 396402.
Peterson, C., Semmel, A., von Baeyer, C., Abramson, L. Y.,
Metalsky, G. I., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1982). The Attri-
bution Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy Research, 16,
287300.Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional
structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and
IndividualDierences, 29, 313320.
-
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor
analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment,
12(3), 287297.Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional
intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9,
185211.Salovey, P., Mayer, J., Goldman, S., Turvey, C., &
Palfai, T. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity and repair:
exploring
emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W.
Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health(pp. 125154).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wagner, F. R., & Morese, J. J. (1975). A measure of
individual sense of competence. Psychological Reports, 36, 451
459.Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of ve
rules for determining the number of components to
retain.Psychological Bulletin, 17, 253269.
1210 B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences
35 (2003) 11911210
Examining the factor structure of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient
Inventory with an Australian general population
sampleIntroductionModels and measures of emotional
intelligenceBar-Ons (1997a) model of emotional intelligenceThe
Bar-On Emotional Quotient InventoryDimensional structure of the
Bar-On EQ-iThe current study
MethodParticipantsMaterialsThe Bar-On Emotional Quotient
Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997a)
Procedure
ResultsExploratory factor analysesConfirmatory factor
analysesDemographic differences
DiscussionReferences