The reliability of the Bar-On psychometric modelDate of publication: 08/07/2007 This section is still being developed but will eventually contain complete summaries of studies that have examined the reliability 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. The reliability of the EQ-i has been examined by a number of researchers over the past 20 years. A consensus of findings reveals that the Bar-On conceptual and assessment model is consistent, stable and reliable [Bar-On, 2004]. More specifically, the overall internal consistency coefficient of the EQ-i is .97 based on the North American normative sample [Bar-On, 1997b]. This well exceeds the .90 minimum for total scores suggested by Nunnally [Nunnally, 1978]. Internal consistency was recently reexamined on 51,623 adults in North America, revealing nearly identical results with a slight mean increase of .025 in consistency coefficients [Bar-On, 2004]. An overall retest reliability examination of the EQ-i is .72 for males (n=73) and .80 for females (n=279) at six months [Bar-On, 2004].
Other researchers around the world have reported similar findings regarding the reliability of the EQ-i [e.g., Matthews et al., 2002; Newsome et al., 2000; Petrides & Furnham, 2000]. These findings compare favorably with those of other measures of this construct. Brackett and Salovey reported split-half reliability correlations of .93 and .91 for the MSCEIT’s total score and a retest reliability of .86 after a relatively short period of three weeks [Brackett and Salovey, 2004].
|
|
