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

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Assessing emotional intelligence: reliability and validity of

the 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 243
university students. Results indicated that the EQ-i domain and component scales had good item
homogeneity and internal consistency. Scores were not unduly a€ected by response styles or biases. The
EQ-i scales had a meaningful pattern of convergent validities with respect to measures of normal
personality, depression, somatic symptomatology, intensity of a€ective experience and alexithymia. The
reliability and validity results for men and women were very similar. Overall, the results suggested that
the EQ-i is a promising measure of emotional intelligence. We recommend strategies for further
validation 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 at
complementing the traditional view of intelligence by emphasizing the emotional, personal, and
social contributions to intelligent behavior (Gardner, 1983; Mayer & Salovey, 1993, 1995;

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-604-291-3354; fax: +1-604-291-3427.

E-mail addresses: hart@sfu.ca (S.D. Hart), ddawda@arts.sfu.ca (D. Dawda).

0191-8869/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 9 1 - 8 8 6 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 3 9 - 7
798 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812

Wechsler, 1940, 1943, 1958). Recently, the concept was popularized by Goleman (Goleman,
1995) and researchers undertook e€orts to develop self-report measures of emotional
intelligence (Bar-On, 1997; Schutte, Malou€, Hall, Haggery & Cooper, 1998). One of the most
active researchers in the area is Bar-On, whose work culminated in the publication of the
Emotional 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 statement
accurately describes them on a 5-point scale (1=not true of me, 5=true of me ). Items are

Table 1
EQ-i composite scales and subscalesa

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

EQ-i total (TOTAL)

Intrapersonal (INTRA)
Emotional self- Recognize and understand one's feelings
awareness (ES)
Assertiveness (AS) Express feelings, beliefs and thoughts and defend one's rights in a non-destructive manner
Self-regard (SR) Be aware of, understand, accept, and respect oneself
Self-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 of
emotional dependency
Interpersonal (INTER)
Empathy (EM) Be aware of, to understand, and to appreciate the feelings of others
Interpersonal Establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships that are characterized by
relationship (IR) emotional closeness and by giving and receiving a€ection
Social responsibility Demonstrate oneself as a cooperative, contributing, and constructive member of one's
(SR) social group
Adaptation (ADAPT)
Problem solving (PS) Identify and de®ne problems as well as to generate and implement potentially e€ective
solutions
Reality 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 conditions
Stress management
(STRES)
Stress tolerance (ST) Withstand adverse events and stressful situations without `falling apart' by actively and
positively coping with stress
Impulse control (IC) Resist or delay an impulse, drive, or temptation to act
General mood
(MOOD)
Happiness (HA) Feel satis®ed with one's life, to enjoy oneself and others, and to have fun
Optimism (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±812 799

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 (see
Table 1). Raw scores on scales are adjusted according to correction factors and then
transformed into standard scores M ˆ 100, S.D.=15). Standard scores for North American
respondents are based on a large, diverse normative sample of adults from various settings
N ˆ 3,831).
The development of the EQ-i took place over many years, starting with the development of
a conceptual framework and leading to the construction and re®nement of scale items. Validity
scales and correction indexes were added over time to improve measurement. A substantial
body of research, summarized in the EQ-i manual, indicates that the scales have generally good
internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Factor analyses also provide some support for
the inventory's hypothesized structure. Finally, the convergent and discriminant validity of the
EQ-i has been evaluated in a number of ways. Many studies examined correlations between the
EQ-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 negatively
with measures of neuroticism and psychopathology. Other studies have examined correlations
between the EQ-i and peer ratings of adjustment or compared the EQ-i scores of criterion
groups (e.g. young business leaders versus unemployed youth; prisoners versus community
residents) and support the conclusion that EQ-i scores are related to general psychosocial
adjustment.
The aim of the present paper was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the EQ-i in a
sample of university students in the context of a larger program of research examining the
association between emotion and personality. We were interested in assessing the relationship
of the EQ-i dimensions with both normal personality and psychopathology. We expected that
high EQ-i subjects would show high positive a€ectivity scores (as measured by the NEO Five
Factor Inventory±Extraversion scale; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and low negative a€ectivity
scores (as measured by the NEO-FFI Neuroticism scale as well as the Beck Depression
Inventory; Beck & Steer, 1987). We also measured somatic symptomatology (assessed by the
Somatization scale of the Revised Symptom Checklist-90, SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1983), the
increase of somatic symptoms under stress and intensity of a€ective experience (as measured by
the A€ect Intensity Measure, AIM; Larsen & Diener, 1986). We regarded all three indexes as
indicators of failure to cope with a€ect and expected that high EQ-i subjects would show less
psychosomatic 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-i
Intrapersonal composite scale. Consequently, we assessed the relationship between the EQ-i
and 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 (the
Beth Israel Questionnaire, BIQ; Sifneos, 1973) and the Structured Interview for Alexithymia,
SIFA; Dawda, 1997). We expected to ®nd negative correlations between alexithymia and the
Intrapersonal EQ.
800 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812

2. Method

2.1. Participants

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

2.2. Procedure

2.2.1. Overview
The 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-h
long 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 measures
of alexithymia, personality, a€ect intensity, depression and psychosomatic complaints.

Table 2
Distribution 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 0.80
BIQ 4.75 (3.42) 3.78 (2.98) 4.29 (3.24) 0.76 0.75 0.76
SIFA 17.92 (11.93) 15.17 (9.39) 16.57 (10.81) 0.82 0.76 0.79
NEO-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 0.81
NEO-O 128.22 (27.02) 119.14 (25.56) 123.47 (26.60) 0.78 0.76 0.78
NEO-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 0.82
BDI 6.30 (5.55) 8.61 (6.48) 7.51 (6.15) 0.85 0.85 0.85
AIM 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 0.83
PHYS 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 for
Alexithymia (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 somatic
symptoms when under stress.
 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812 801

Participants completed the interview ®rst, followed by the battery of questionnaires; the order
of self-reports was counterbalanced across participants. The assessment measures are described
below; 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-i
The 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 calculated
with reference to North American norms for the appropriate age and gender group.

2.2.3. TAS-20
The 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 the
statement on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree ). The items are summed
to 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 focus
here on total scores, which can range from 20 to 100, with scores of 61 and higher being
diagnostic of alexithymia (Parker, Bagby & Taylor, 1993). There exists considerable evidence
supporting the convergent, discriminant and concurrent validity as well as the structural
properties of the TAS-20 (Bagby et al., 1994a). The TAS-20 has been used in a variety of
populations, including university students, community resident adults, and psychiatric
outpatients (Bagby et al., 1994a).

2.2.4. BIQ
The 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 of
alexithymia. Items typically are scored on a 2-point scale (0=absent, 1=present ) and summed
to yield total scores. There is some evidence supporting interrater reliability and validity of the
eight BIQ alexithymia items (Apfel & Sifneos, 1979; Norton, 1989; Paulson, 1985; Sriram &
Pratap, 1988; Taylor, Bagby & Parker, 1988), although in comparison with the TAS-20 and
the 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 participants
in 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, total
scores can range from 0 to 16.

2.2.5. The SIFA

The 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 style
as well as verbal content. Raters use a 3-point scale to judge the extent to which an individual
exhibits a speci®c characteristic. The score of 2 indicated that the item applied to the individual
or there was a reasonably good match in most essential respects. 1 indicated that the item
applied to a certain extent but not to the degree required for a score of 2 or that there was a
match in some respects but with too many exceptions or doubts to warrant a score of 2. 0
802 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812

indicated that the item did not apply to the individual or that he/she does not exhibit the trait
or behavior in question. The interviewers also used up- and down-arrows for a more re®ned
gradation (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, in
preparation). The SIFA appears to tap a broader range of alexithymic characteristics than does
the BIQ and can be used to obtain scores on two separate dimensions: Diculties identifying
feelings (DIF) and External orientation (EO). We focus here on total scores, which can range
from 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 NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985). The NEO-FFI is a self-report
measure 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 personality
factors: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The factor
scores of the NEO-FFI are multiplied by 4 and may thus be compared to the full-length
version 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 the
way they were feeling during the past week. The statements are scored according to the severity
of 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 one
of the most widely used instruments for assessing the intensity of depression within both
psychiatric and normal populations. It has good psychometric properties, discriminates
subtypes 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 are
declarative statements. Respondents are asked to indicate the extent to which the statements
re¯ect their experiences on a 6-point scale (1=never, 6=always ). Items are summed to yield
total scores, which can range from 40 to 240. There exist strong evidence for the reliability and
validity of the AIM (Larsen & Billings, 1996; Larsen & Diener, 1986, 1987).

2.2.9. SCL-90-R Somatization scale

The 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 indicate
how much each problem has bothered or distressed them during the past week using a 5-point
 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812 803

scale (0=not at all, 4=extremely ). Items are summed to yield total scores, which can range
from 0 to 48. The somatization scale has been demonstrated to discriminate between somatic
symptoms 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 the
Somatization scale.

2.2.10. Stress-related somatic symptoms

Participants 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 under
stress. 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 and
Positive and Negative Impression Management. The utility of the EQ-i corrections and
recommended 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 an
inconsistency 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 results
controlling for the e€ect of extreme responding in two ways. First, we rescored the EQ-i item
responses 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 measures
change, 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 Ð
reduced the correlation of the Positive Impression Index with the EQ-i total to non-signi®cant
levels. Conversely, scores on the Negative Impression Index were negatively correlated with the
EQ-i scores. The recommended scoring adjustments reduced, but did not eliminate, these
correlations. However, as we failed to ®nd any indication of malingering or negative
impression management during other parts of the study (e.g. during the SIFA interview), we
concluded that the correlation between the EQ-i and negative impression was not the result of
deliberate negative impression management or malingering, but was rather due to the fact that
negative impression re¯ects substantive facets of emotional intelligence. (This conclusion is
consistent with Bar-On's speculation that negative impression may be related to feelings of
social and emotional alienation, rather than actual or feigned psychopathology.)
804 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812

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

3.2. Structural properties of the EQ-i

3.2.1. Distribution of scores

As 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 EQ
Total score, as well as the EQ composite scales for both men and women (t tests corrected for
unequal variances, all p < 01). The only exception was the EQ Interpersonal composite scale
for women, which did not signi®cantly di€er from the norms. The reason for the low scores in
the present sample is unclear, especially given that the EQ-i North American norms are based
on a large sample N ˆ 3,831† comprising primarily college and university students or
graduates. Explanation of these results was further complicated by the fact that alexithymia
scores 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 3
Distribution 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 ns

INTRA 95.63 (15.66) 93.82 (16.04) 0.89 241 ns
ES 99.00 (16.18) 100.20 (15.09) ÿ0.60 241 ns
AS 95.33 (16.19) 96.34 (15.36) ÿ0.50 241 ns
SR 96.51 (17.58) 92.50 (17.56) 1.78 241 ns
SA 94.81. (16.45) 95.36 (14.78) ÿ0.27 241 ns
IN 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 ns
EM 97.72 (16.57) 100.57 (13.45) ÿ1.47 241 ns
IR 95.21 (16.58) 97.32 (14.09) ÿ1.07 241 ns
RE 94.66 (16.28) 98.52 (14.10) ÿ1.98 241 < 0.05
ADAPT 95.21 (13.93) 92.52 (14.50) 1.48 241 ns
PS 98.46 (14.68) 96.43 (13.00) 1.14 241 ns
RT 92.82 (15.44) 92.19 (16.00) 0.31 241 ns
FL 97.38 (14.36) 93.60 (15.88) 1.95 241 ns
STRES 95.28 (16.14) 94.99 (13.71) 0.15 241 ns
ST 96.31 (15.35) 93.10 (16.08) 1.59 241 ns
IC 95.59 (16.73) 98.45 (12.83) ÿ1.50 241 ns
MOOD 95.55 (17.06) 93.23 (16.78) 1.07 241 ns
HA 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.
 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812 805

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 on
Independence and Optimism subscales and higher on Social responsibility subscale.

3.2.2. Internal consistency and item homogeneity

Internal 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 EQ
Total and composite scales was excellent. Internal consistency of EQ subscales showed some
variability, but was adequate for most subscales. It is worth pointing out that the MIC
coecients for the subscales of Self-regard for both men and women and Self-awareness for
men were very high, indicating possible redundancy among items comprising these subscales.
MIC coecients indicated that General mood was the most homogeneous composite scale. The
EQ Total was less homogeneous than any composite scale which was expected given that EQ
Total was designed to tap a broad dimension of emotional intelligence.

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

Men Women

Scale # Items MIC a MIC a

TOTAL 117 0.18 0.96 0.18 0.96

INTRA 40 0.26 0.93 0.29 0.94
ES 8 0.39 0.84 0.41 0.85
AS 7 0.36 0.79 0.38 0.81
SR 9 0.59 0.93 0.55 0.92
SA 9 0.67 0.83 0.31 0.79
IN 7 0.30 0.74 0.40 0.82
INTER 24 0.22 0.86 0.20 0.85
EM 8 0.29 0.75 0.25 0.72
IR 11 0.32 0.83 0.27 0.80
RE 10 0.24 0.74 0.21 0.71
ADAPT 26 0.20 0.87 0.19 0.86
PS 8 0.32 0.79 0.29 0.77
RT 10 0.27 0.79 0.27 0.78
FL 8 0.28 0.75 0.37 0.82
STRES 18 0.25 0.86 0.19 0.81
ST 9 0.32 0.81 0.41 0.86
IC 9 0.35 0.83 0.21 0.69
MOOD 17 0.36 0.91 0.36 0.90
HA 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.
806 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812

3.2.3. Correlations among EQ-i scales

As 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 generally
were moderate, ranging from 0.32 to 0.83 (Mdn=0.57). The Interpersonal composite scale had
the 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 remarkably
similar for men and women.

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

3.3.1. Intrapersonal
As 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 positive
correlation with extraversion (i.e. positive a€ectivity). These results support the EQ-i manual's
contention that a high score on the Intrapersonal EQ captures people who `feel good about
themselves and feel positive about what they are doing in their lives' (Bar-On, 1997, p. 44). In
particular, the subscale of Self-regard had a strong negative association with negative
a€ectivity r ˆ ÿ0:66 with neuroticism and r ˆ ÿ0:57 depression). These results are very
similar for men and women.
The Intrapersonal EQ scale was also designed to capture ``individuals who are in touch with
their feelings [and] able to express their feelings'' (Bar-On, 1997, p. 44). The negative
correlations with measures of alexithymia, summarized in Table 6, support this claim. These
correlations are particularly strong for women. The subscale of Emotional self-awareness Ð a
subscale which most closely resembles alexithymia Ð had a strong and negative correlation
with alexithymia r ˆ ÿ0:71 with the TAS-20 and r ˆ ÿ0:35 with the SIFA). An interesting
gender di€erence ®nding is that the EQ Intrapersonal composite scale had a strong correlation
with 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 an
artifact 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 0.86

INTRA 0.91 0.53 0.72 0.57 0.83
INTER 0.71 0.55 0.51 0.32 0.52
ADAPT 0.86 0.70 0.46 0.70 0.64
STRES 0.77 0.56 0.39 0.80 0.54
MOOD 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 are
signi®cant at p < 0.001 (two-tailed).
 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812 807

Table 6
EQ-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 ÿ0.52

INTRA ÿ0.53 0.09 ÿ0.17 ÿ0.57 ÿ0.35 ÿ0.51
INTER ÿ0.38 ÿ0.05 ÿ0.20 ÿ0.40 ÿ0.33 ÿ0.35
ADAPT ÿ0.39 0.23 0.06 ÿ0.47 ÿ0.32 ÿ0.43
STRES ÿ0.37 0.18 0.07 ÿ0.33 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.42
MOOD ÿ0.27 0.13 ÿ0.04 ÿ0.40 ÿ0.32 ÿ0.42
N 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.

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 negatively
correlated with somatic symptomatology and with increased experience of somatic symptoms
under stress. Finally, the lack of correlations with openness and intensity of a€ective
experience 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 above
that provided by the composite scale.

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 0.33
INTRA ÿ0.59 0.48 ÿ0.06 0.21 0.54 ÿ0.70 0.51 0.11 0.24 0.33
INTER 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 0.37
STRES ÿ0.54 0.18 ÿ0.11 0.39 0.32 ÿ0.58 0.22 0.22 0.38 0.16
MOOD 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.
808 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812

Table 8
EQ-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 ÿ0.22

INTRA ÿ0.50 0.14 ÿ0.26 ÿ0.20 ÿ0.67 ÿ0.03 ÿ0.33 ÿ0.24
INTER ÿ0.25 0.43 ÿ0.09 ÿ0.07 ÿ0.22 0.39 ÿ0.01 ÿ0.11
ADAPT ÿ0.52 ÿ0.14 ÿ0.32 ÿ0.41 ÿ0.47 ÿ0.13 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.16
STRES ÿ0.45 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.50 ÿ0.40 ÿ0.34 ÿ0.28 ÿ0.25
MOOD ÿ0.67 0.10 ÿ0.27 ÿ0.29 ÿ0.64 0.03 ÿ0.34 ÿ0.28
N 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 in
somatic 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.

3.3.2. Interpersonal
The Interpersonal EQ composite scale had strong positive correlations with extraversion,
agreeableness and the intensity of a€ective experience; a positive correlation with
conscientiousness and negative correlations with alexithymia and negative a€ectivity
(depression or neuroticism). These results suggest that people with high score on the
Interpersonal EQ scale are positive, agreeable, animated, outgoing, socially oriented and
capable of expressing feelings. All these results are consistent with the intention of the
Interpersonal dimension of the EQ-i to capture the person's social skills (Bar-On, 1997). The
fact that the Interpersonal EQ scale was not correlated with somatic symptomatology provided
support for its discriminant validity. The Interpersonal subscales had quite di€erent patterns of
convergent and discriminant validity, which raises questions regarding the homogeneity of the
scale. Interestingly, the ®ndings for the Interpersonal EQ scale were somewhat di€erent from
those for the EQ-i Total and other composite scales, which suggests the Interpersonal scale
broadens the overall content domain of the EQ-i. Given these results, further research should
consider 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 both
genders.

3.3.3. Adaptation
The 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 showed
higher positive correlation with agreeableness than the Intrapersonal EQ. This pattern of
results is consistent with the manual's description of individuals who are ``¯exible, realistic,
e€ective in understanding problematic situations, and competent at arriving at adequate
solutions'' (Bar-On, 1997; p. 45).
 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812 809

3.3.4. Stress management

The 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 was
negatively correlated with a€ect intensity. These results are congruent with the description of
this scale as capturing people who are ``able to withstand stress without falling apart or losing
control'' and ``calm, rarely impulsive and work well under pressure'' (Bar-On, 1997, p. 45).

3.3.5. General mood

The 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 the
General mood scale with extraversion (positive in direction), neuroticism (negative) and
depression (negative) than the corresponding correlations of the Adaptation scale. This
description is consistent with the EQ-i manual's description of the scale as capturing people
who are ``cheerful, positive, hopeful and optimistic'' (Bar-On, 1997; p. 45).

3.3.6. EQ total
EQ 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 with
high EQ Total scores had low levels of negative a€ectivity and high levels of positive
a€ectivity; were conscientious and agreeable; had fewer diculties identifying and describing
feelings; and were not prone to somatic symptomatology or increased somatic symptoms under
stress. 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 of
emotional intelligence, the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997). The
inventory had good structural properties. The correlations among the EQ composite scales as
well as the pattern of convergent and discriminant validities suggested that the EQ-i taps a
fairly broad range of related emotional constructs. One potential concern was that the
Interpersonal scale had relatively small correlations with the other EQ composite scales, as well
as a markedly di€erent pattern of convergent and discriminant validities. With minor
exceptions, the EQ-i scales show a remarkably similar pattern of validity results for men and
women, which provides preliminary evidence for a lack of gender bias. However, in order to
address the issue of potential gender bias properly, future research should use more
appropriate statistical approaches (e.g. testing for di€erential item function using item response
theory 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 be
further explored in future research. It is important to note, however, that the low EQ-i scores
in this study should not have had much impact on the observed convergent/discriminant
validity indexes.
810 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812

On the basis of the present results, we suggest that the EQ Total score may be a good
overall index of emotional intelligence. We also suggest that the usefulness of the intermediate
level EQ composite scales may be limited. First, the Interpersonal, Adaptation and Stress
management EQ scales comprise subscales that show markedly di€erent convergent/
discriminant validity indexes. Using the Intrapersonal and General mood EQ scales is more
appropriate. Second, when using any composite scales, one has to be aware of a great
similarity in convergent/discriminant validity among the four of ®ve EQ composite scales.
Consequently, when assessing more speci®c aspects of emotional intelligence, we suggest that
instead of the EQ composite scales the 15 EQ subscale scores, which are for the most part
more 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 correction
indexes were e€ective in controlling for positive impression management, they were less
e€ective in controlling for negative impression management. In our study, as reported in the
EQ-i manual, the negative impression index was correlated negatively with EQ-i scores. The
EQ-i manual suggests that one possible remedy to this problem is to use a small subset of NI
items that tap severe psychopathology. This subset, in contrast to the other NI items, has low
correlations 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 emotional
intelligence 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, a
validity 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 not
show perfect correspondence (Wiggins, 1973) and researchers have called for a multimethod
approach 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 construct
validation.
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 has
accumulated on such constructs as alexithymia (Taylor, Bagby & Parker, 1997), psychological
mindedness (McCallum & Piper, 1997), coping (Endler & Parker, 1994) and normal personality
(McCrae & Costa, 1997). Future research is needed to establish the usefulness of emotional
intelligence over and above these well-validated constructs. Both a clear conceptual delineation
and further empirical research is required to clarify this issue. Multitrait±multimethod (Cook &
Campbell, 1979) methodology is appropriate for the analysis of the relationship among
multiple 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), in
comparison to the existing well-validated constructs, needs to be further established. Potential
areas of interest may be clinical applications (e.g. counseling) or personnel selection.
 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812 811

Acknowledgements

The research described in this study was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada (#410-96-1305) awarded to S. Hart. We express our
gratitude to Multi-Health Systems, Inc., for supplying the EQ-i materials and providing
computer scoring services. Thanks also to Dr. Gill Sitarenios and Dr. Reuven Bar-On for their
helpful 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: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1991). In The NEO Five Factor Inventory: manual. New York: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practices. The NEO personality
inventory. 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: Clinical
Psychometric Research.
Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., & Covi, L. (1973). SCL-90: An outpatient psychiatric rating scale: preliminary
report. 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.
812 D. Dawda, S.D. Hart / Personality and Individual Di€erences 28 (2000) 797±812

Kellner, R., Abbott, P., Winslow, W., & Pathak, D. (1989). Anxiety, depression, and somatization in DSM-III
hypochondriasis. Psychosomatics, 30, 57±64.
Larsen, R. J., & Billings, D. W. (1996). A€ect intensity and individual di€erences in informational style. Journal of
Personality, 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 `alexithymic' characteristics in psychosomatic patients. Psychotherapy and
Psychosomatics, 22, 255±262.
Sriram, T. G., Pratap, L., & Shanmugham, V. (1988). Towards enhancing the utility of Beth Israel Hospital
Psychosomatic questionnaire. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 49, 205±211.
Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Parker, J. D. (1988). Measurement of Alecithymia recommendations for clinical and
future 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.