The factorial structure of the Bar-On modelDate of publication: 08/07/2007 This section is still being developed but will eventually contain complete summaries of studies that have examined the factorial structure of the Bar-On conceptual and psychometric model of emotional-social intelligence. In the meantime, I have summarized the key studies that I am aware of. Should you wish to share findings from a study that you have conducted or have detailed information on studies that others have conducted focusing on this topic, please use the template provided above for summarizing this study and email it to us (info@reuvenbaron.org). You are invited to provide results that confirm or refute these findings and help us understand this area better. I applied factor analysis to study the 15-factor structure of the EQ-i to empirically evaluate the extent to which it is theoretically valid. Moreover, this statistical procedure was used to examine the factorial structure of the Bar-On conceptual model (i.e., to examine the extent to which the factorial components of this model structurally exist). This analysis was first performed on the normative sample, progressing from exploratory to confirmatory factor analysis [Bar-On, 1997b].
Based on a varimax rotation, a 13-factor solution afforded the most theoretically meaningful interpretation. These results provided a reasonable match with the subscale structure of the EQ-i. Nonetheless, the 13-factor empirical structure that emerged raised an important question that had to be addressed: Can the 15-factor model used in the Bar-On model and measure of emotional-social intelligence still be justified in light of the findings which suggested a 13-factor structure? The essential differences that were identified between the theoretical structure and the one that surfaced as a result of exploratory factor analysis were as follows: (a) two factors emerged from the Impulse Control items; (b) although Self-Regard, Self-Actualization, Optimism and Happiness represent four separate scales, most of their items loaded on two factors; (c) although Assertiveness and Independence are considered to be two separate subscales, items from both subscales loaded on one factor; and (d) although two separate experimental factors emerged from the Empathy and Social Responsibility items, they are the two highest correlating factors (.80).
A confirmatory factor analysis was initially applied to resolve the above-mentioned differences between the 15-factor structure of the Bar-On model and the 13 factors that emerged from the exploratory factor analysis. Although the results supported a 15-factor structure in the end, which fits the theoretical basis of the Bar-On model and measure [Bar-On, 1997b], an additional confirmatory factor analysis was subsequently applied to the same dataset (n=3,831) in an attempt to explore an alternative factorial structure [Bar-On, 2000]. The items from the above-mentioned problematic factors (Independence, Self-Actualization, Optimism, Happiness, and Social Responsibility) were excluded from the second analysis. Self-Actualization, Optimism and Happiness were excluded from this analysis in that a number of their items loaded on the Self-Regard factor while others loaded on an additional yet weaker factor; moreover, these three factors appear in the literature primarily as facilitators of emotional-social intelligence rather than actual components of the construct itself; Wechsler referred to them as "conative factors" [Wechsler, 1940, 1943]. Independence was excluded from the analysis because its items loaded heavily on the Assertiveness factor, and because it rarely appears in the literature as an integral component of emotional-social intelligence; however, assertiveness (the ability to express one's emotions and feelings) most definitely appears in the literature, from Darwin to the present, as an important part of this construct. For similar empirical and theoretical reasons, it was decided to exclude Social Responsibility items; moreover, this subscale was shown to correlate extremely high with Empathy as was previously mentioned, meaning that they are most likely measuring the same domain.
The results of this second analysis clearly suggested a 10-factor structure, which is both empirically feasible and theoretically acceptable as an alternative to the above-mentioned 15-factor structure. In the order of their extraction, the ten factors that emerged are: (1) Self-Regard, (2) Interpersonal Relationship, (3) Impulse Control, (4) Problem-Solving, (5) Emotional Self-Awareness, (6) Flexibility, (7) Reality-Testing, (8) Stress Tolerance, (9) Assertiveness, and (10) Empathy. These ten factors appear to be the key components of emotional-social intelligence, while the five factors that were excluded from the second confirmatory factor analysis (Optimism, Self-Actualization, Happiness, Independence, and Social Responsibility) appear to be important correlates and facilitators of this construct. These ten key components and the five facilitators together describe and predict emotionally and socially intelligent behavior.
The factorial validation of the EQ-i presented here compares favorably with that of the MSCEIT and ECI. While the 4-metafactor structure of the MSCEIT is evidently confirmed by factor analysis [Brackett & Salovey, 2004], an examination of the sub-factor structure of the 8 EI tasks included within the measure’s four branches has not been found in the literature which could mean that it has not been confirmed. The 18-factor structure of the ECI does not appear to be empirically justified based on the latest findings [Boyatzis & Sala, 2004]; a 9-factor structure has emerged in place of the measure’s present structure [Boyatzis et al., 2001] as well as earlier conceptualizations of the Goleman model [Goleman, 1998].
|
|
