Personality and Individual Differences 35 (2003) 11911210 www.elsevier.

com/locate/paid

Examining the factor structure of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory with an Australian general population sample
Benjamin R. Palmera, Ramesh Manochab, Gilles Gignaca, Con Stougha,*
a

Organisational Psychology Research Unit, Neuropsychology Laboratory, School of Biophysical Sciences and Electrical Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box, 218, Hawthorn, Victoria, 3122, Australia b University 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 general factor, ve-second order factors and 15 primary factors. However, there are several anomalies in the factor analytic methodology employed by Bar-On (1997a), and his interpretation of the results that render the dimensional structure of the EQ-i unclear. In contrast to claims by Bar-On, in the present study a series of exploratory and conrmatory factor analyses found evidence for a general factor of emotional intelligence and six primary factors. Dierences between the results reported by Bar-On (1997a) and those of the current study are attributed largely to the more appropriate factor analytic methodology employed. Implications 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 intelligence Since Salovey and Mayers conceptualisation of emotional intelligence (EI; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), a number of dierent models and measures have been developed (e.g. Bar-On, 1997a;

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-3-9214-8167; fax: +61-3-9214-5230. E-mail address: cstough@swin.edu.au (C. Stough).
0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00328-8

1192

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

Cooper & Sawaf, 1997; Goleman, 1995; Mayer & Salovey, 1997). These alternative models and measures have been compared according to their theoretical structure (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 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 those that dene EI as intelligence in the traditional sense (e.g. Mayer & Salovey, 1997). That is, as a conceptually related set of mental abilities to do with emotions and the processing of emotional information, that are apart of, and contribute to, logical thought and intelligence in general. In comparison, mixed models of EI (e.g. Bar-On, 1997a) have been identied as those that dene EI as a mixture of emotion-related competencies, personality traits and dispositions. Measures of EI similarly 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 individuals beliefs 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 framework, 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 Emotional Intelligence Test, MSCEIT; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 1999), and involve a series of emotion-related questions for which there are more and less correct answers according to consensual responses. The present paper examines the dimensional structure of one of the predominant mixed model self-report measures of EI, the Bar-On EQ-i, (Bar-On, 1997a), in an Australian 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 and skills thus constituting a mixed model. While Bar-On places this model under the banner of EI, it is a somewhat broader construct that he more generically refers to as . . .emotional and social intelligence (Bar-On 2000, p. 363). Bar-On purports to have identied 15 determinants of successful emotional functioning and positive psychological well-being from a review of the mental health literature, which have been operationally dened and conceptualised as the 15 components of his model. These components include: Emotional Self-Awareness (ES), the ability to recognise and to understand ones feelings; Assertiveness (AS), the ability to express feelings, beliefs and thoughts, and to defend ones rights in a non-destructive manner; Self-Regard (SR), the ability to respect 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 actions and to be free of emotional dependency; Empathy (EM), the ability to be aware of, to understand, and to appreciate the feelings of others; Interpersonal Relationship (IR), the ability to establish and maintain mutually satisfying relationships; Social Responsibility (RE), the ability to demonstrate oneself as a cooperative contributing, and constructive member of ones social group; Problem Solving (PS), the ability to identify and dene problems as well as to generate and implement potentially eective solutions; Reality Testing (RT), the ability to assess the correspondence between what is experienced and what objectively exists; Flexibility (FL), the ability

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

1193

to adjust ones emotions, thoughts, and behaviour to changing situations and conditions; Stress Tolerance (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), the ability 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 15 components of Bar-Ons model are described in greater detail in the EQ-i Technical Manual (BarOn, 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), representing interpersonal skills and functioning i.e. EM, IR, RE; Adaptability Emotional Intelligence (ADeq), representing how successfully one is able to cope with environmental demands by eectively sizing-up and dealing with problematic situations, comprising PS, RT and FL; Stress Management Emotional Intelligence (SMeq), representing the ability to manage and cope eectively with stress comprising the ST and IC components; and General Mood Emotional Intelligence (GMeq), representing the ability to enjoy life and maintain a positive disposition which comprises the HA and OP components. These ve major components of EI are theoretically related to a general factor of EI thus constituting a hierarchical model comprising overall EI, vecomposite components, and 15 specic components at the bottom of the hierarchy. Within this model, EI is dened as . . .an array of non-cognitive capabilities, competencies, and skills that inuence 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 components of the model develop over time (with age), change throughout life, and can be improved through training 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. Consistent with Bar-Ons proposed theoretical structure of EI, the EQ-i comprises 15 sub-scales pertaining to the 15 components of the model, which render 15 sub-scale scores, ve EQ composite scale scores and an overall or total EQ score. As with other self-report measures of EI, the EQ-i is described 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 15 sub-scales are reported to have average-to-high internal consistency coecients with Cronbach alphas 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 be r=0.85, and with a smaller sub-set of this sample (n=27) was found to be r=0.75 after a 4-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 coping with environmental demands and pressures, and psychological well-being. For example;

1194

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

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 Kirkcaldy Quality of Life Questionnaire, Kirkcaldy 1995); acculturation (e.g. r=0.34 with the Short Acculturation Scale, SAS; Marin, Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, & Perex-Stable, 1987); attribution 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 performance and 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 emotional health (e.g. r=0.85 with the Ninety Symptom Check List, SCL-90; Derogatis, 1973); and depression (e.g. r=0.56 with the Beck Depression Inventory, BDI; Beck & Steer, 1987). Overall these results provide preliminary evidence for the construct validity of the EQ-i, however, as with most existing measures of EI, the validity of the EQ-i needs to be further established by independent research and with larger samples (Bar-On 2000). One question that is currently relevant to the EQ-i is its discriminant validity from personality 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 between the ve personality factors of the 16PF (Cattell et al., 1993) and the ve EQ-i composite scores ranging from r=0.1 to r=0.77. The highest correlation in this study was between the total EQ scale score of the EQ-i and the Anxiety factor of the 16PF (r=0.77) leading these researchers 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 the EQ-i and personality. These authors found the total EQ scale score of the EQ-i correlated with the 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 theoretically related life criteria in preliminary validity studies (e.g. life satisfaction, workplace performance, psychological well-being) because the EQ-i is measuring personality traits and dispositions known to account for these important human values. The discriminant validity of the EQ-i from personality traits and dispositions, and indeed whether it accounts for variance in life satisfaction, job performance and psychological well-being not accounted for by well established personality traits has not yet been empirically substantiated and needs be addressed by future research. 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 been translated 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 with measures of psychological well-being and alexithymia (Dawda & Hart, 2000). In addition, the EQ-i is a well-constructed measure, involving indices of social response bias, and response validity indicators (i.e. omission rate and an inconsistency index), that are purported to increase the accuracy of test scores. Finally, the EQ-i is a relatively brief and easy scale to administer and interpret. Results are computer generated, interpreted by the test publisher Multi-Heath Systems (MHS), and are represented in layperson terms numerically, graphically and textually in feedback

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

1195

reports. Given the potential utility of the EQ-i, further validation with more diverse and larger population 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 be argued 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. Empirical support is claimed, with a large representative population sample (n=3831) through both exploratory and conrmatory factor analyses, that the hierarchical factor structure of Bar-Ons model of EI is measured by the 15 component sub-scales of the EQ-i. However, there are some anomalies in the interpretation of the results and factor solutions chosen to represent the data that 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 of factors in the data set. Neither the number of factors with eigen values greater than one, nor the number of factors suggested by the scree plot were reported. Rather, Bar-On reported that there were 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 the factor) are typically signicant at the P < 0.01 level (Kline, 1994). Factors that explain less than 2.25% of the variance in a data set are typically considered to be insignicant and not to be accounting for anything meaningful in the data set (Cattell, 1978). As such, although Bar-On (1997a) interpreted 13 factors in the data set, it could be argued that of these only ve accounted for meaningful variance in the data. Bar-On (1997a) reported that a number of factor solutions were examined for interpretability. Specically, 12, 13, and 14 factor solutions were examined (although, in a more recent book chapter (Bar-On 2000), this number increases to include a 15 factor solution), and it was reported that a 13-factor varimax rotated solution . . .aorded the most meaningful interpretation theoretically (Bar-On, 2000, p. 369). That an orthogonal varimax rotation provided the most meaningful interpretation theoretically is not consistent with Bar-Ons (1997a) theoretical structure of EI. As aforementioned, within Bar-Ons (1997a) model of EI similar key components are logically clustered together into ve major composite components of the model, representing a homogeneous construct of EI (i.e. a general factor of EI). Orthogonal-rotated factor solutions preclude the emergence of a general factor (Kline, 2000). Moreover, many of the key components of the Bar-Ons model are conceptually very similar (e.g. Happiness and Optimism, Empathy, Social Responsibility and Interpersonal Relationship) and indeed highly correlated (e.g. Bar-On, Brown, Kirkcaldy, & Thome, 2000; Dawda & Hart, 2000; Newsome et al., 2000). In an orthogonal rotation, the factor axes are kept at 90 to each other and are thus uncorrelated. Obliquerotated factor solutions of psychological variables typically provide a better t to psychological theory than orthogonal-rotated solutions because psychological variables are typically correlated (e.g. personality factors; Cattell & Kline, 1977). Bar-On (1997a) does not report examining oblique-rotated factor solutions. Whether the orthogonal varimax-rotated solution provided the best t with the theoretical structure of Bar-Ons (1997a) model seems unlikely.

1196

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

Bar-On (1997a) labelled the 13-factors that emerged from the data set by examining the highest loading items on each factor (factor loadings of 0.4 and higher across and within factors). There were some dierences between Bar-Ons (1997a) theoretical structure of EI, and that which emerged from the EQ-i as a result of the exploratory analysis. Firstly, two factors, rather than one 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 Happiness sub-scales loaded on two factors (factor 1 & 10), rather than four single factors. Similarly, the items from the Assertiveness and Independence sub-scales loaded on one factor (factor 6) rather than two single factors. Finally, Bar-On (1997a) reported that the Empathy and Self-Regard subscales 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 concluded that the major discrepancy between the theoretical 15-factor structure of the EQ-i and the 13-factor structure that emerged from factor analysis was due to the fact that ve factors emerged from 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 as separable 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 the Assertiveness and Independence sub-scales. Conrmatory analyses were also applied to assess whether a one-factor second order model involving a general factor of emotional intelligence and the hypothesised ve composite factors tted the data. Multiple t statistics supporting this model were reported (i.e. GFI=0.971, Adjusted GFI=0.892, NFI=0.956, and CFI=0.982), and it was concluded that there was empirical support that the EQ-i accounted for the 1515 total EQcomposite scalessubscales) hierarchical structure of Bar-Ons (1997a) model. Despite these conrmatory results supporting the dimensional structure of the EQ-i as a match with the theoretical structure of Bar-Ons (1997a) model, other possible structural equation models of the data 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 be concluded that the EQ-i provides an index of the 1515 hierarchical model of emotional and social intelligence. In summary it could be argued that the dimensional structure of the EQ-i is unclear. While BarOn (1997a) claims to have found empirical support through both exploratory and conrmatory analyses that the dimensional structure of the EQ-i represents the 1515 hierarchical model of emotional and social intelligence, the results of these analyses are not substantive. The conrmatory analyses have not been replicated, and a wider range of alternative structural models of the EQ-i need to be assessed. Moreover, there are a number of issues concerning the interpretation of the exploratory results that need to be addressed, such as, the factor solution that best represents 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 employed exploratory factor analyses at the outset. Principal axis factoring was performed and joint Parallel Analysis (Horn, 1965)/Scree Test (Cattell, 1966) criteria were used to determine the factor

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

1197

solution that best represented the data. There is an emerging consensus amongst the factor analytic literature that these two criteria (Parallel Analysis/Scree Test) are the most accurate for determining the number of factors in a data set (Barrett and Kline, 1992). We then performed conrmatory factor analyses via structural equation modelling to compare the goodness of t of the exploratory factor solution identied in the current study and the second order dimensional structure of the EQ-i proposed by Bar-On (1997a) comprising Overall EI (or a general factor) and the ve composite components (Intrapersonal EI; Interpersonal EI; Adaptability EI; Stress Management EI; General Mood EI). Finally we examined whether the factor solution identied in the current study and the second order dimensional structure of the EQ-i proposed by Bar-On diered in terms of their relationships with age, gender and two criterion groups; (1) individuals reporting no history of mental illness; and (2) individuals reporting a history of, and/or current mental 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 have signicantly higher overall EI than individuals aged 2029 (M=102.7 and M=96.8 respectively F=0.46. 3, P < 0.001), supporting the claim that EI increases with age. Similarly, although BarOn reports no gender dierences in overall EI, consistently (i.e. over a number of population samples reported in the EQ-i Technical Manual), females tend to have signicantly higher Interpersonal 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 several studies comparing the EI of clinical groups and matched normative groups showing that those who suer from mental illness tend to exhibit lower EI than normal populations. We hypothesised that there would be a positive correlation between Age and EI; that females would score higher on EI than males; and that individuals reporting no history of mental illness would have a signicantly 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 age from 15 to 79 with a mean age 39.44 years S.D.=13.83) drawn from the general population via advertisements detailing the research. Participants received a small stipend for completing the EQ-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). In comparison 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 secondary school education only; 20%(73) had completed a tertiary certicate/diploma; 28%(105) had completed an undergraduate degree; 22%(81) had completed a postgraduate degree; [6%(22) not reported]. Of the 377 participants 58 reported having a history of mental illness, 10 reported having a current mental illness whilst the majority (288) reported having no known history of mental illness. While there was a gender imbalance in the sample, the age, ethnic, and educational composition was fairly representative of the Australian population.

1198

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

2.2. Materials 2.2.1. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On EQ-i; Bar-On, 1997a) The EQ-i is a self-report inventory comprising 133 (items) declarative statements phrased in the rst-person singular. Participants are required to indicate the degree to which each statement is true of the way they typically think, feel or act on a ve-point scale (1=Very Seldom or Not true of me, 5=Very often true of me or True of me). The items of the EQ-i are summed to yield scores on 15 lower-order sub-scales, ve higher-order composite scores, and an overall emotional intelligence score. Of the 133 items that comprise the EQ-i, eight items comprise a Positive Impression Scale, and seven items comprise a Negative Impression Scale. These two scales are designed to determine whether a participant is responding in an overly positive or overly negative fashion. In addition, there is an Inconsistency Index, calculated by summing the dierences in scores 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 random responding. If a participants response to this item is either 2 or 1 (Seldom true of me or Very seldom or Not true of me), their results are considered invalid. Participants responses are also considered invalid if a certain percentage of items are not answered (Omission Rate). If the Omission Rate is higher than 6% for a given participant, their EQ-i results are considered invalid (Bar-On, 1997a). 2.3. Procedure Participants were administered the EQ-i according to the instructions outlined in the EQ-i technical 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 facilitate comparisons among population samples the test publisher (MHS) converts raw scores to standard 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 in Table 1.

Table 1 Means and standard deviations for the Bar-On EQ-i Scales Intrapersonal Mean S.D. 94.80 16.17 Interpersonal 96.48 15.54 Adaptability 94.46 15.33 Stress management 94.56 15.58 General mood 93.92 17.04 Total EQ 93.70 15.93

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

1199

As shown in Table 1, the present sample scored slightly lower than the North American normative sample (M=100; S.D.=15) for the EQ Total score as well as the EQ composite scales however, the dierence in average performance for all composite scales fall within one standard deviation and are therefore considered to be within the normal range according to the EQ-i Technical 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 from the data set a result conrmed by a parallel analysis using the procedure provided by OConnor (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 items loaded on a single factor providing evidence for a general factor of EI, a nding consistent with the interrelatedness of the EQ-i sub-scales reported by Bar-On (1997a). According to the scree test and parallel analysis, six factor (orthogonal- and oblique-rotated) solutions were examined in order to further interpret the factor structure of the EQ-i. Examination of the factor solutions revealed that the six-factor oblique (Direct Oblimin with Kaiser Normalisation) rotated solution best represented the present data. Both the orthogonal and oblique factor solutions produced highly similar results, however, the oblique-rotated solution was clearer, involving a more even spread of items loading on each factor. The resulting factor loadings are presented 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 factor analyses of the EQ-i, the rst factor that emerged in the analysis accounted for more than half of the variance (22.8%) in the data set, and had items loading .4 and higher primarily from the Self-Regard and Happiness sub-scales with some items from the Optimism, SelfActualisation and Stress Tolerance sub-scales. Bar-On (1997a, pp. 50,51) describes people who 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 the Happiness sub-scale of the EQ-i are described by Bar-On as those who have . . .a happy disposition and are pleasant to be with. Although Bar-On labelled this factor Self-Contentment because it measures emotionality in general, we labelled this factor Emotional Disposition. 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 and functioning thus we labelled this factor Interpersonal EQ. The third factor that emerged was almost an exact replication of the Impulse Control sub-scale of the EQ-i with one item loading 0.4 and higher from the Reality Testing sub-scale, as such, this factor was labelled Impulse Control. Items loading 0.4 and higher on the fourth factor were predominantly from the Problem Solving sub-scale of the EQ-i, with one item from each of the Self Actualisation, Stress Tolerance and Optimism sub-scales, thus this factor was labelled Problem Solving. The fth factor that emerged in the present analyses had items loading 0.4 and higher primarily from the Emotional

1200

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

Table 2 Factor loadings pertaining to the Bar-On EQ-i (direct-oblimin)a Item No. Q56 Q91 Q2 Q70 Q47 Q85 Q77 Q129 Q40 Q51 Q31 Q64 Q122 Q114 Q54 Q26 Q24 Q100 Q110 Q106 Q127 Q11 Q53 Q95 Q132 Q38 Q17 Q125 Q36 Q99 Q98 Q90 Q124 Q84 Q44 Q72 Q16 Q105 Q113 Q39 Q55 Q120 Q62 Q69 Q61 Q82 Factor 1 0.725 0.712 0.678 0.676 0.622 0.599 0.592 0.563 0.561 0.542 0.516 0.515 0.509 0.491 0.478 0.476 0.465 0.460 0.455 0.448 0.393 0.390 0.366 0.356 0.352 0.345 0.312 0.303 0.301 0.195 0.149 0.151 Factor 2 0.167 0.157 0.153 0.169 0.147 0.162 0.125 0.175 0.105 0.273 0.159 0.191 0.104 0.393 0.119 0.183 0.301 0.196 0.187 0.138 0.388 0.183 0.133 0.164 0.210 0.252 0.133 0.109 0.112 0.190 0.101 0.115 0.259 0.227 0.164 0.153 0.319 0.190 0.182 0.226 0.160 0.348 0.215 0.125 0.210 0.276 0.173 0.148 0.181 0.118 0.172 0.165 0.265 0.152 0.122 0.147 0.149 0.351 0.114 0.244 0.131 0.119 0.206 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

0.122 0.232 0.239

0.300 0.106 0.294 0.112 0.153 0.650 0.531 0.501 0.483 0.478 0.449 0.440 0.421 0.417 0.407 0.390 0.389 0.379 0.357 0.336 0.333 0.317

0.241 0.258

0.200

0.163 0.124 0.162 0.121 0.178 0.155 0.134

0.236 0.277 0.101 0.121 0.226 0.173 0.203 0.211 0.115 0.229

0.270 0.112 0.101 0.268 0.318 0.174

0.200 0.102

0.347 0.246 0.311 0.352 0.323 0.180 0.123 0.167

0.178 0.312 0.134 0.132 0.162

0.251 0.320 0.217 0.223 0.175 0.214 0.230

0.228 0.141 0.143 0.229 0.235 0.144 0.175

0.119

(continued on next page)

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210 Table 2 (continued) Item No. Q119 Q117 Q73 Q42 Q102 Q130 Q86 Q13 Q97 Q66 Q83 Q27 Q58 Q107 Q60 Q80 Q45 Q15 Q89 Q29 Q81 Q1 Q20 Q6 Q108 Q78 Q48 Q67 Q8 Q4 Q32 Q88 Q75 Q37 Q112 Q7 Q23 Q52 Q116 Q9 Q10 Q63 Q22 Q35 Q68 Q21 Q18 Factor 1 0.138 Factor 2 0.309 0.193 Factor 3 0.647 0.638 0.606 0.605 0.586 0.565 0.548 0.413 0.363 0.350 0.335 0.314 0.281 0.111 0.160 Factor 4 0.129 0.124 0.217 0.196 Factor 5

1201

Factor 6 0.187 0.158

0.163 0.122 0.221 0.315 0.303

0.116 0.282 0.313 0.182 0.102 0.250 0.121 0.182 0.145 0.110

0.118 0.148 0.283 0.180 0.141 0.238 0.623 0.618 0.617 0.609 0.581 0.561 0.477 0.465 0.419 0.411 0.396 0.394 0.384 0.379 0.375 0.375 0.362 0.335 0.313 0.309 0.212 0.107 0.131 0.115 0.125 0.123 0.167 0.136 0.118

0.194 0.112

0.129 0.145

0.281

0.322 0.104 0.153 0.201 0.132

0.128 0.154

0.126

0.242 0.108

0.262 0.249 0.349 0.273 0.250 0.117 0.210 0.324 0.190 0.114

0.167 0.101 0.238 0.312 0.195 0.196 0.133 0.296 0.138 0.225 0.190 0.128

0.174 0.189 0.204 0.201 0.263 0.151 0.171 0.287 0.202 0.772 0.757 0.732 0.609 0.569 0.498 0.488 0.487 0.439 0.406 0.384 0.383

0.254

0.135 0.130 0.244 0.266

0.199 0.151

0.181

0.105 0.129 0.201 0.201 0.287 0.242 0.139

0.224 0.194 0.183 0.282 0.116 0.318

0.104 0.212 0.238 0.108 0.106 0.146

0.160 0.112 0.162 0.166

0.111 0.179

0.102

(continued on next page)

1202 Table 2 (continued) Item No. Q96 Q111 Q126 Q30 Q46 Q128 Q131 Q92 Q104 Q93 Q103 Q19 Q87 Q59 Q76 Q28 Q33 Q49 Q14 Q3 Q43 Q74 Q118 Q121
a

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

Factor 1 0.137 0.218 0.288 0.276 0.228 0.102 0.151 0.194 0.106 0.191 0.245 0.134 0.182 0.280 0.253 0.194 0.140 0.177 0.169

Factor 2

Factor 3 0.259

Factor 4 0.215 0.111

Factor 5 0.372 0.370 0.368 0.320 0.301 0.295 0.105 0.224 0.125 0.266 0.137

Factor 6 0.214 0.233 0.230 0.123 0.132 0.571 0.508 0.487 0.437 0.426 0.409 0.407 0.403 0.379 0.369 0.357 0.339 0.336 0.287 0.286 0.285 0.266 0.243

0.261 0.215 0.108 0.155 0.194 0.136 0.135 0.208

0.296 0.198

0.219 0.106 0.167 0.382 0.172 0.125 0.214 0.108 0.249

0.135 0.148 0.255

0.189 0.267 0.157 0.194 0.110 0.218 0.134 0.150 0.127 0.242 0.140 0.188

0.149 0.245 0.195 0.249 0.200 0.186 0.203 0.115

0.181 0.145

Factor loadings have been sorted ascending. Items loading > j0:4j are in bold face, and those items loading < j0:1j have been omitted.

Self-Awareness sub-scale of the EQ-i with one item from each of the Interpersonal Relationship, Assertiveness and Reality Testing sub-scales of the EQ-i, thus this factor was labelled Emotional Self-Awareness. Items loading on the sixth factor were primarily from the Flexibility and Independence sub-scales of the EQ-i with one item each from the Stress Tolerance and Self-Regard subscales. Flexibility is purported to assess how exible individuals are in their thoughts and actions, while independence is purported to assess how self-reliant individuals are, and how independent they are in their thinking and actions. As such, we labelled this factor Character (i.e. exible/inexible, independent/dependent). Intecorrelations between these six factors ranged from 0.01 to 0.37. In summary, the results of the exploratory factor analysis failed to support the 13-factor structure of the EQ-i previously reported by Bar-On (1997a), and indeed the theoretical 15-factor model of emotional and social intelligence. Rather, the results of the current study suggest that EQ-i comprises a general factor of EI and six primary factors. 3.2. Conrmatory factor analyses Next we conducted a series of conrmatory factor analyses to examine whether the six-factor model determined by the current study better represented the dimensional structure of the EQ-i in

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

1203

comparison to the second-order ve-factor model proposed by Bar-On (1997a) using structural 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 factor analysis, 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-square value of 742.92 with 85 degrees of freedom. In contrast, the six-factor model from the exploratory factor analysis yielded a chi-square value of 664.76 with 113 degrees of freedom. As such, the sixfactor model determined by the current study provided a signicantly better t than Bar-Ons original ve-factor model (chi-square dierence was 78.16, df. 28, P < 0.05). 3.3. Demographic dierences Finally we examined whether the six-factor model determined by the current study diered from the second-order ve-factor model determined by Bar-On (1997a) in terms of their relationships with Age, Gender, and History of Mental Illness. To determine if EI correlated with Age, Pearson correlations were performed on the ve factors put forward by Bar-On and the six factors found by the current study. Correlations were also computed with general EI (gei), which are component scores derived from the rst un-rotated component of the PCA analysis performed on the ve factors of EI proposed by Bar-On. Table 3 presents the component loadings on this general factor. As shown in Table 3, all of the component loadings are positive. The rst component accounted for 72.0% of the total variance.1 Table 4 presents dierences in EI as a function of Age, Gender, and History of Mental Illness. A positive correlation between Age and EI was expected. Results showed that the correlations were positive, however, small in magnitude. To test the hypothesis that females would have a signicantly higher EI than males a series of independent t-tests were performed. As can be seen in Table 4, the eect sizes (d) were in the hypothesized direction. In contrast to gender dierences reported by Bar-On, females did tend to be higher on overall or general EI than males. Consistent with gender dierences reported by Bar-On however, females tended to be higher on Interpersonal EQ and Emotional Self-Awareness. Finally, dierences in EI as a function of Mental Illness were pervasive across all factors in both models with the exception of Impulse Control as shown in Table 4. To determine if the six factor model determined by the current study could classify Gender (male =1, female=2) and History of Mental Illness (no=1, yes=2) better than the ve-factor model determined by Bar-On (1997a), a series of discriminant function analyses were performed. The rst analysis included Interpersonal EQ from Bar-Ons ve-factor model, which was able to classify 68.6% of the participants sex accurately (Wilks Lambda=0.87, P < 0.001, Canonical r=0.36). Similarly, the second analysis included Interpersonal and Emotional Self-Awareness from the six-factor model, which was able to classify 67.6% of the participants sex accurately
1 The correlation between g component scores derived from a PCA on the ve facets and a PCA on all of the items was 0.99, P < 0.001.

1204

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

Fig. 1. Bar-Ons (1997a) second order ve-factor model of EI.

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

1205

Fig. 2. Exploratory six-factor model of the Bar-On EQ-i determined by the current study.

1206

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

Table 3 Component loadings derived from a PCA of the ve higher order facets proposed by Bar-On (1997a) Loading Intrapersonal Interpersonal Adaptability Stress management General mood 0.90 0.76 0.89 0.79 0.89

Table 4 Dierences in emotional intelligence as a function of age, sex, mental illness Five-factor model Intra Age Sex MI 0.09 0.22 0.42 Inter 0.11 0.86 0.35 Adapt 0.16 0.13 0.44 Stress 0.20 0.04 0.47 Mood 0.10 0.16 0.63 Six-factor model Emo Disp 0.13 0.08 0.68 Interb 0.12 0.87 0.34 Imp 0.22 0.04 0.04 Prob 0.15 0.09 0.46 Emo Self 0.02 0.50 0.28 Char 0.04 0.04 0.22 0.13 0.33 0.50 g

Eect sizes in bold are P < 0.05 [Age=r; Sex, Mental Illness (MI)=d]; Intra=Intrapersonal, Intera=Interpersonal; Adapt=Adaptability; Stress=Stress Management; Mood=General Mood; Emo Disp=Emotional Disposition; Interb=Interpersonal; Imp=Impulse Control; Prob=Problem Solving; Emo self=Emotional Self-Awareness; Char=Character; g=General Emotional Intelligence.

(Wilks Lambda=0.87, P < 0.001, Canonical r=0.37). Regarding Mental Illness (MI), the rst analysis included all ve of the components of Bar-Ons ve factor model, which was able to classify 67.7% of the participants mental history/status accurately (Wilks Lambda=0.94, P < 0.001, Canonical r=0.25). Similarly, the second analysis included ve of the six factors in the six-factor model (Impulse Control was excluded), which was able to classify 68.0% of the participants mental history/status accurately (Wilks Lambda=0.92, P < 0.001, Canonical r=0.29). In conclusion, these results suggest that neither of the two models were superior to the other with respect to predicting gender and history of mental illness.

4. Discussion The results of the current study failed to support previous claims by Bar-On (1997a) that the dimensional structure of the EQ-i comprises 13 factors that closely match the theoretical 1515 (total EQcomposite scalessubscales) model of emotional and social intelligence. In contrast, the current study found that the dimensional structure of the EQ-i comprised a general factor of EI and six primary factors. It could be argued that the ndings of the current study oer a more conclusive interpretation of the EQ-i dimensional structure. Of the 13 factors interpreted by Bar-On (1997a) only the rst 5 that emerged in his analyses accounted for meaningful variance in the data set (i.e. explained more than 2.25% of the variance). The current study determined the number of factors inherent

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

1207

in the EQ-i using joint scree test/parallel analysis criteria which have been shown to be the most accurate 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 an orthogonal (varimax) rotation procedure to interpret the 13-factor solution found in his analyses of the EQ-i. When correlations of r=0.3 or higher exist between variables it has been argued that oblique-rotated solutions oer a clearer interpretation than orthogonal rotated solutions from an empirical standpoint, providing superior simple structure, superior factor replicability, and correlations between the factors which provide insightful information about the construct being analysed (Reise, Waller, & Comrey, 2000). In the current study an oblique rotation procedure was used to interpret the dimensional structure of the EQ-i. Indeed three of the correlations between the six factors identied in the current study were greater than r=0.3 suggesting that the oblique-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 Disposition, had items loading primarily from the Self-Regard and Happiness sub-scales of the EQ-i with some items from the Optimism, Self-Actualisation and Stress Tolerance sub-scales. The second factor that emerged, Interpersonal EQ, had items loading from the Interpersonal Relationship, Social Responsibility and Empathy sub-scales of the EQ-i. The Impulse Control, Problem Solving and Emotion Self-Awareness sub-scales of the EQ-i emerged relatively clearly as separable dimensions (factors 3, 4 and 5), whilst the sixth factor that emerged in the current study loaded items from the Flexibility and Independence sub-scales of the EQ-i. This six-factor model is considerably dierent from Bar-Ons (1997a) second-order ve-factor model of EI that describes how the 15 sub-scales of the EQ-i cluster to provide broader denitive dimensions (Intrapersonal EQ; Interpersonal EQ; Adaptability EQ; Stress Management EQ; and General Mood EQ). The only subscales of the EQ-i that were found in the current study to cluster together according to Bar-Ons (1997a) ve-factor model were Interpersonal Relationship, Social Responsibility and Empathy that form the broader Interpersonal EQ dimension. None of the other sub-scales of the EQ-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 current study, and Bar-Ons (1997a) second order ve-factor model of EI. Both models were found to have adequate t, although a statistical comparison of the two models demonstrated the six-factor model determined by the current study was superior. It should be emphasized, however, that there is likely a large number of models that would have t the correlation matrix well, as has been 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 a large number of models with a higher-order general factor. The strength of the general factor can be appreciated by the PCA that found all ve facets to load positively on one factor that accounted for 72% of the variance. The problem of equivalent models (MacCallum et al., 1993) is likely not solvable using comparative t model t statistics. Rather, the dierential validity of any model 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 of gender or mental illness. However, there were dierences in the pattern of eects. For example, in the current study Bar-Ons (1997a) second order ve-factor model only had the Interpersonal EQ

1208

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

dimension as evidencing a signicant dierence between males and females. In contrast, the six-factor model identied by the current study had both the Interpersonal and Emotional Self-Awareness dimensions as evidencing signicant dierences between males and females. The items comprising Emotional Self-Awareness were in the Intrapersonal facet of the ve-factor model; however, the eect 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 validity, 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 description of the EQ-i dimensional structure. Indeed, there is a considerable portion of error variance with the six-factor solution identied by the current study. However, the ndings of the current study do suggest that researchers should factor analyse the scale and use total scores and factor scores given that the items of the EQ-i may not comprise either the 15 or 5 composite components of Bar-Ons (1997a) model of EI. Perhaps the most important implication of the current study concerns psychologists, psychiatrists, human resources professionals and organisational development consultants. Such practitioners have been informed (by both the Technical Manual of the EQ-i and in accreditation courses run by the test publisher MHS), that the EQ-i can clearly map out 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 that need to be explored and managed in therapy., Bar-On, 1997a, p. 152), when many of its component 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 wellbeing however, as outlined in the introduction of this paper, the EQ-i does appear to provide a general index of individual dierences in psychological health, and perhaps therefore, individuals capacity 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 dimensional 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 existing measures 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 at the 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 occupational 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.

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

1209

Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1987). Beck Depression Inventory manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Breckler, S. J. (1990). Applications of covariance structure modeling in psychology: cause for concern? Psychological Bulletin, 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 Inventory professional 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 University School of Medicine. Fava, J. L., Velicier, W. F., & Eaton, C. A. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: a review and evaluation of alternative procedures for determining the number of factors or components. In R. 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 in applications 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. In R. 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.), Emotional development 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 of intelligence (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: JosseyBass. Newsome, S., Day, A. L., & Catano, V. M. (2000). Assessing the predictive validity of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Dierences, 29, 10051016. OConnor, P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Veliciers 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 Attribution Style Questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy Research, 16, 287300. Petrides, K., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Dierences, 29, 313320.

1210

B.R. Palmer et al. / Personality and Individual Dierences 35 (2003) 11911210

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.