EQ-i 2.0 FAQ | The EQ-i 2.0 Portal
You are here > EQ-i 2.0 FAQ
profile     [  Login  ]

EQ-i 2.0 FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions


How did you come up with this new model?

The EQ-i 2.0 is a revision of the EQ-i (Bar-On, 1997, 2004). There are five broad stages to the development of the EQ-i 2.0:

  1. Define the goals of the revision (what needs to change and why).
  2. Conceptualize changes to subscales and create new subscales based on the latest EI research and practice using the EQ-i model.
  3. Define subscales.
  4. Build and pilot test the assessment.
  5. Conduct norming and subsequent data analyses to refine and confirm the assessment (e.g., factor analysis, examination of validity and reliability).

For more information please refer to the User’s Handbook – I: Getting Started with the EQ-I 2.0 – The EQ-i 2.0 Framework.

Why haven’t you called this revision the “Bar-On” EQ-i 2.0?

The EQ-i® 2.0 is a revision of the EQ-i® (Bar-On, 1997, 2004). Both assessments are the products of a rigorous development process, further refining not only the very definition of EI but also the process by which it is measured. While Dr. Bar-On was not involved in the revision, the EQ-i 2.0 is a product of the continued evolution of emotional intelligence and continues to reflect the essence of the EQ-i and the contributions of Dr. Bar-On.

How is Independence part of Self-Expression?

The Self-Expression Composite scale is an extension of Self-Perception and addresses the outward expression or the action component of one’s internal perception. This facet of emotional intelligence assesses one’s propensity to remain self-directed and openly expressive of thoughts and feelings, while communicating these feelings in constructive and socially acceptable ways.

Independence is the ability to be self-directed and free from emotional dependency on others. Decision making, planning, and daily tasks are completed autonomously. Independent people are self-reliant in planning and making important decisions; however, highly independent individuals may seek and consider the opinions of others before making the best decision. Seeking consultation or advice and gathering information are not signs of dependency. Independence is the ability to function autonomously without protection and support: independent people avoid clinging to others to satisfy their emotional needs.

Why does Decision Making include Impulse Control?

The Decision Making Composite scale addresses the ways in which one uses emotional information. This facet of emotional intelligence includes Problem Solving, Reality Testing, and Impulse Control. The application of emotional information (Problem Solving), while remaining objective (Reality Testing), paired with the ability to delay immediate gratification (Impulse Control) when necessary, provides the foundation for making effective decisions.

Why does Stress Management include Flexibility?

The Stress Management facet of emotional intelligence addresses how well one can cope with the emotions associated with change and unfamiliar or unpredictable circumstances, while remaining hopeful about the future and resilient in the face of setbacks and obstacles.

This composite includes mechanisms that can help an individual buffer stress or otherwise cope with arguably the greatest source of stress: change.  Because Flexibility addresses this need to address one’s capacity to cope with change, it is part of the Stress Management Composite.

How did you come up with the Decision Making scale?

The Decision Making composite scale addresses the way in which one uses emotional information in the decision making process. This facet of emotional intelligence includes Problem Solving, Reality Testing, and Impulse Control subscales. This composite scale reveals how well one understands the impact emotions have on decision making, including the ability to resist or delay impulses and remain objective so to avoid rash behavior and ineffective problem solving.  

The Decision Making composite is also a result of the realignment and restructuring of the original Adaptability and Stress Management composites. Decision Making is more intuitive, easier to coach to, and better addresses the needs of EQ-i 2.0 users.

Why did you remove Adaptability as a composite?

Because of the many changes that came about when the EQ-i was revised, there no longer was a need for a composite level scale called ‘Adaptability’. The items within that composite moved either to the new ‘Decision Making’ composite scale, or the ‘Stress Management’ composite scale. 

For more information please refer to the User’s Handbook – I: Getting Started with the EQ-i 2.0.  

Why is anger no longer a part of the EQ-i 2.0?

When updating the assessment, we wanted to make sure each scale measures only one thing, which in turn makes it easier to interpret. Impulse control is about the delay of temptation, impulsivity, and that is what we choose to focus on for that scale. The anger component was removed to better address impulsiveness.

Have you fixed the double-content scales?

Yes. Impulse Control now only measures impulsivity. Emotional Self-Awareness now measures how you understand your emotions, and Emotional Expression measures how you express your emotions. Self-Regard now only measures self-confidence, and no longer addresses body image.

Does Problem solving still measure linear problem solving?

No. Problem Solving is now less about using a linear pragmatic approach and more about the ability to find solutions to problems in situations where emotions are involved. It includes the ability to understand how emotions impact decision making and about using emotional information in a meaningful way to enhance the problem solving process: recognizing a problem, feeling confident in one’s ability to work through it, defining the problem, generating a solution, and implementing the plan.

How did you choose the four subscales you’ve linked to Happiness? Are the associated scales used for the Wellness Indicator derived by correlations?

Generally speaking, people who have reported higher EI scores on the EQ-i were more likely to also report higher happiness scores, and those with a lower EQ-i were more likely to report lower happiness scores. Given this trend, coupled with the fact that most coaches, consultants, and counselors find it difficult to directly coach to happiness, the decision was made to move happiness away from representing a component of EI to more appropriately represent a reflection of one’s well-being. As a result, the Well-Being Indicator was born. The exploration of the Well-Being Indicator included a detailed look into the relationship between one’s level of happiness and all the other facets of emotional intelligence. The result of a series of theoretical, practical, and empirical analyses identified Self-Regard, Optimism, Interpersonal Relationships, and Self-Actualization as key facets of emotional intelligence with direct connections to happiness and well-being that can be developed by effective coaching practices and positive change. The correlations between happiness and all other subscales can be found in the User’s Handbook – Appendix A: Table A.19.

Why is Happiness no longer a part of the model itself?

The EQ-i 2.0 has been modified to view happiness as a product of emotional intelligence rather than a contributing factor to emotional intelligence. That is, generally speaking, people who have reported higher EI scores on the EQ-i were more likely to also report higher happiness scores, and those with a lower EQ-i were more likely to report lower happiness scores.

This, coupled with the fact that most coaches, consultants, and counselors found it difficult to directly coach to Happiness, allows the introduction of the Well-Being indicator. It explores the relationship between one’s level of Happiness and Self-Regard, Optimism, Interpersonal Relationships, and Self-Actualization. Each report will consist of a Happiness score which is generated in the same manner as all other EQ-i 2.0 subscales, but it does not effect the Total EI score. As a result, the Well-Being Indicator presents a great place for addressing the correlates to happiness.


What criteria did you use to select the General Population norm group?

The EQ-i 2.0 normative sample was collected within ten age ranges (400 cases in each age range), equally proportioned by gender. The normative sample is very similar to the Censuses (within 3%) in terms of race/ethnicity, geographic region, and education level. 

Therefore, the reference group against which individual EQ-i 2.0 scores are compared is representative of the North American general population.

For more information please refer to the User’s Handbook – V: Creating the EQ-I 2.0 and EQ 360 – Standardization, Reliability and Validity.

Is it only normed for North America?  What other norm options are available?  When?

The EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 have been normed for the following populations:

- North America 
- U.K. and Ireland 
- South Africa 
- Australia 
- Swedish (Only EQ-i 2.0) 
- Danish

What are the EQ-i 2.0 Global Norms?

The Global Norms are comprised of data collected from 10,000 individuals, evenly proportioned from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. This new norm provides our international community with a robust, wide-reaching reference group when generating their EQ-i 2.0 reports.

Norms will be communicated through the EQ-i 2.0 portal as they are released.

Can I use the North American norms in other countries?

Yes, you can choose any norm option that is available when you generate the report.

What is the difference between the General Population, Professional and Age/Gender norm groups?  When should I use each?

The General Population norm group includes representative proportions of age, gender, ethnicity, education and employment groups. It is, in essence, the broadest comparison you can make between your client’s score on the EQ-i 2.0 and how the average person would score.  Use this option when you want to compare your client to others within the general population.

The Professional Norm allows you to compare your client’s score to professionals rather than to the average person. Use this norm option when you want to compare your client to other professionals, rather than the average person. The professional norm is comprised of professionals who:

1.      Are employed or self-employed

2.      Have at least some post secondary education

3.      Are in a “white collar” occupational category, or in a higher level position (i.e., management) in a blue collar occupational category

For both the General Population and the Professional Norms, there is also a norm that is broken down into Age and Gender Specific groups. The General Population Age/Gender norm allows for the comparison of your client to other individuals in the general population who are of the same gender and age group. The Professional Age/Gender norm allows you to compare your client to professionals of the same gender and age group.  Use one of these age/gender options when you want to be very specific with your comparisons, by only comparing your client to others of the same gender and age bracket as him or her. Keep in mind, you can only use the age/gender option if your client provides this information when completing the assessment.

What languages is the EQ-i 2.0 available in?
English (US/Canada)
English (UK)
Brazilian Portuguese
Spanish (European)
Simplified Chinese

Future translation releases will be communicated through the EQ-i 2.0 portal.

Did males and females score differently on the EQ-i 2.0?

Results of the gender analyses showed that males and females did not differ significantly on the EQ-i 2.0 Total EI score, indicating that overall emotional intelligence as measured by the EQ-i 2.0 is the same for males and females; however, small to medium gender effects were found for some subscales .The largest difference was on Empathy, with women scoring higher than men with a moderate effect size. Smaller differences were found with women scoring higher than men on the Interpersonal Composite, Emotional Expression, and Emotional Self-Awareness. 

Men scored higher than women with small effect sizes on Stress Tolerance, Problem Solving, and Independence. It is important to note that these effects were small and represent only a few absolute standard score points.

For more information please refer to the User’s Handbook – V: Creating the EQ-i 2.0 and EQ 360 – Standardization, Reliability and Validity.

the validity scales still there? How is validity addressed?

For both the EQ-i 2.0 and the EQ 360 2.0, all validity information is presented on the first page of the Coach’s Report called Response Style Explained. You must understand how to interpret the following five validity indices:

- Time to Completion

- Inconsistency Index (IncX)

- Positive and Negative Impression

- Item 133

- Omitted Items 

For more information please refer to the User’s Handbook – IV: Understanding the Results.

Why are my scores different in EQ-i 2.0?

Despite the updates made to the EQ-i 2.0 from the original EQ-i, correlations between the subscales on the two measures were high. That means that, for the most part, the results should not be radically different between the two assessments. There are some subscales that underwent more dramatic changes between versions.  The correlations were still high but lower, as expected, than those found for the unchanged subscales. 

Some other factors to consider when assessing the difference in scores between the two assessments are:

-          The time interval between taking the two assessments

-          Any development that may have taken place in the interim

-          The fact that self-awareness itself can have an impact on results between the two administrations

-          Scores are no longer adjusted for the PI and NI

What are correction factors? Why are the scores no longer “adjusted”? What did the original EQ-i adjust scores?  What does that mean?

The EQ-i used correction factors to adjust scores up or down based on how the client responded to the positive and negative impression items. This adjustment is sometimes used with assessments. Experience with the EQ-i suggests that such correction adds complexity to score interpretation that may offset any benefits, and therefore the EQ-i 2.0 no longer uses correction factors, adjusted or unadjusted scores.

How do the adjusted/unadjusted scores and the correction factors work now?

The EQ-i 2.0 no longer uses correction factors, adjusted or unadjusted scores. Experience with the EQ-i suggests that such correction adds complexity to score interpretation that may offset any benefits. For further discussion about such corrections, see Piedmont et al. (2000) and Ellingson et al. (1999). 

For the EQ-i 2.0, we adopt the simpler approach of directly interpreting the NI and PI indexes, rather than applying an upward or downward adjustment to compensate for response style.

Is the composite score an average of the subscale scores?  Why not?

No, it is not simply an average of the subscale scores. A composite score is calculated as the sum of all the items that go into that composite scale. For example, there are 24 items that make up the Self Perception Composite scale:  8 items under Self-Regard, 7 items under Emotional Self-Awareness, and 9 items under Self-Actualization.  

The Composite raw score is the result of adding up all of the responses that a client makes for each of those 24 items. This raw score is then compared to the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) for the Self-Perception composite scale.  While we do not publish the M and SD for each scale, the formula is: 

Standard Score = (raw score – M)/SD x 15 + 100

What does the Balancing EI Section do?  Why did you include that new feature in the reports?

Balance within subscales is important within the EQ profile because subscales that are higher can be tempered by other related subscales, and subscales that are lower can be bolstered by related subscales. 10 points between any two subscales indicates that the client is likely to exhibit one set of behaviors significantly more often than the other set.

Pages 5–9 of the Coach’s section display your client’s results on balancing subscales. Each subscale has three balancing subscales that are most critical to balance.

The Balancing EI section was included as a support tool to aid in and speed up the interpretation process for the coach. It is a conversation starter, consultants should feel free to interpret any areas of balance or imbalance that are relevant to the client with whom they are working.

How did you determine which scales to associate in the Balancing EI Section?

Each subscale has three balancing subscales that are most critical to balance. Balancing subscales were chosen based on the relationship with the subscale of interest and whether the relationship is coachable and practical for clients to grasp. In other words, a balancing subscale was not simply chosen because it had the highest correlation with the scale of interest, but it also had to make practical sense from a coaching perspective. For example, Assertiveness and Empathy are not strongly correlated, but this is a very logical and practical developmental area for someone who does not have balance between these subscales.

For more information please refer to the User’s Handbook – IV: Using the Results - Understanding the Results.

How long should I wait between administrations?

You should wait at least four months between administrations of the EQ-i 2.0. This time may be reduced if you have a specific EI related training/intervention/coaching that is expected to produce behavior change in a short period of time.

Does the Positive Impression (PI) and Negative Impression (NI) detect people who are faking good and faking bad?

The Positive and Negative Impression (PI/NI) indexes detect respondents who may be giving an exaggerated positive (PI) or negative (NI) impression of themselves when responding to the items on the EQ-i 2.0.

An elevated PI may suggest that the individual may have inflated his responses on purpose, or for other reasons which may include self deception, lack of personal insight, criticism avoidance, unwillingness to face one’s limitations, or misunderstanding the assessment’s purpose.

An elevated NI may suggest that the individual may have deflated his responses on purpose, or for other reasons which may include attempting to create a negative impression of oneself, seeking sympathy or help, low self-esteem, a self-critical response style, or misunderstanding the assessment’s purpose.  

The correct interpretation of an elevated PI or NI can only be gained through the feedback discussion of the results with the client.

Why did you keep Rarely with Never and Almost Always with Always?

Respondents are more inclined to use response options that are not absolute. Because of this we made the 1 and 5 response options Never/Rarely and Almost Always/Always.

What are confidence intervals?

All measurements contain some error. Confidence Intervals take this error into account by providing a range of scores, at a specific level of probability, within which an individual’s true score is expected to fall. 

For the EQ-i 2.0 a 90% Confidence Interval was calculated, which allows you to say that 9 times out of 10 the individual’s true score would fall within the range shown. For example, your client’s Total EI score is 100. The 90% Confidence Interval for this score is 96-104 which allows you to say that nine times out of ten your client’s true score would be between 96 and 104.

For more information please refer to the User’s Handbook – IV: Using the Results - Understanding the Results.

What happened to the critical items?

The EQ-i included 6 items that were designed to help identify depressive conditions, psychotic states, and the potential for losing control. Although in some cases these items were helpful, the inclusion of these items proved challenging in the corporate space. The revision of the EQ-i has resulted in the removal of the critical items. In an effort to move away from items addressing clinical topics and to facilitate the broader use of the instrument (particularly in non-clinical environments such as corporate applications) the critical items have been removed.

What are the cut-offs required in order for a flag to appear?

For the Inconsistency Index, Positive Impression, Negative Impression, a flag will appear when the score is 3 or more. For the Time to completion, anything below 7 minutes or above 90 minutes will activate a flag. A response to 133 of 3 or lower will generate a flag, and the following omission rates will be flagged:

EI Total Score

9 items are missing across the entire assessment

Composite Scales

3 items are missing on any given composite scale


1 item is missing on any given subscale


For more information please refer to the User’s Handbook – IV: Using the Results - Understanding the Results.

Does the system allow people to omit items? What is the cutoff?

The EQ-i 2.0 is designed in such a way that respondents should be able to answer every item on the assessment. However, because the items are not mandatory, it is possible for a respondent to choose to skip certain items. An overall omission rate is calculated by dividing the number of omitted items by 133 (the total number of items on the EQ-i 2.0) and multiplying by 100. 

If the Overall Omission Rate is 8% or higher the results are considered to be possibly invalid. A similar omission rate is calculated at the composite and subscale level, where an Omission Rate of 8% or higher renders the results for any particular scale possibly invalid. If this many items are omitted you may want to question your client on his/her process for responding to the assessment. Rushing through the items, not fully understanding English or the purpose of the assessment may be possible explanation for omitted items.

For more information please refer to the User’s Handbook – IV: Using the Results - Understanding the Results.

Can a client go back and respond to omitted items?

Clients can only go back and respond to omitted items during the administration of the assessment. Once they ‘submit’ their data, they can no longer complete the omitted items without taking the entire assessment again.


Why does the Client Report look different than my Coach Report?

The Coach Report provides you with interpretive information in order to allow you, the practitioner, to better understand and interpret the results. That, in turn, allows you to provide valuable feedback to your client. The Client report provides the results, while the Coach Report includes the details around how those results were derived. 

The Client Report also has much more interpretive text, so that after your debrief session, the client is left with enough information to continue their EI development on their own.

Does report customization impact the price?

No. You use the same amount of tokens regardless of how you customize the report.

Can I rescore a report for free?  What if I want to use a different norm option?

You can regenerate a report for free if you use the same norm option. If you choose to use a different norm option, you will be charged for a new report.

Does choosing a different language to generate the report impact the price?

No. You may generate your coach and client report using any language of your choosing and the report will be the same amount of tokens.

What is a token?

Tokens are a type of currency used by MHS to purchase reports. One token is equivalent to the purchasing power of one US dollar, one Canadian dollar or one UK pound.

What is the advantage of using tokens?

When you buy tokens in advance or real-time, you have the flexibility in selecting the report and generating the report at any given time.By doing so, there is clarity and simplicity in your client billing and project planning practices because an actual purchase including taxes took place rather than credit amount in your account.

You will take advantage of discounts when you purchase in bulk – please speak to your partner relations consultant to learn more about this at growyourbusiness@mhs.com.

How do I buy tokens?

Login to the EQ-i 2.0 Portal using your personal login name and password., and follow the steps below:- Use the Token Calculator to determine out how many tokens you need to purchase- Click on the Assessments Tab along the top bar of the home page.- Click on Purchase Tokens, and follow the prompts to purchase- Look out for your confirmation email- Generate your reports now or later!

How do I send a universal web-link to multiple participants?

You can create groups with an open invitation which features a universal link to send invites when you do not have participant email address.After you have generated a universal link, the link is displayed at the top of the Your Link page. Accessing this link allows the participants to complete the assessment online and nominate their own raters.

There are a number of ways to distribute this link:
  • You can copy the link and paste it into an email sent to your contact person or the participants taking the EQ-i 2.0. 
  • If you want to include instructions with the link, copy and paste the recommended text at the bottom of the page into an email and send it to the EQ-i 2.0 participants. This text contains a clickable link which allows the participants to complete the EQ-i 2.0 assessment online.
  • If you do not know the email addresses of the participants, the link can be posted online at a site that participants have access to.
  • Alternatively, the link can be printed out and manually distributed to participants.

How do I invite participants using my own email address?

You can email participants directly from your own email address instead of using the "no reply" email address as you may want a more personal approach to your invitation process.

Can I print the new User’s Handbook?

The User’s Handbook is available in the EQ-i 2.0 Portal free of charge and cannot be printed. Should you prefer a printed Handbook, printed copies are available for purchase. Please contact customerservice@mhs.com to purchase a Handbook.

What report options are available with 2.0?

The report options are:

- The EQ-i 2.0 Workplace Report

- The EQ-i 2.0 Leadership Report

- The EQ 360 Report

- The EQ-i 2.0 Higher Ed Report

- The EQ-i 2.0 Group Report

As these new reports are released, they will be communicated through a variety of media such as the EQ-i 2.0 portal, email communication, and social media.

Leadership Report

Does the Leadership report use the same model?

The Leadership Report assesses the same facets of emotional and social intelligence as the EQ-i 2.0 but looks at emotional intelligence from a leadership perspective. More details on the Leadership Report will be provided in the EQ-i 2.0 portal upon its release.

220 people seem like a small sample group to use for validation (as compared to the 4,000 that was used for the GP sample). Is this sample sufficient to derive meaningful conclusions?

Extremely large sample sizes are required when creating norms, and a sample size of 4,000 was collected for the General Population normative group and was chosen to be representative of the population in North America. For validation studies, there are different sample requirements. Sample sizes of 35 or more are generally sufficient, and samples of over 200 are considered large validation samples. A sample of 220 is more than sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions from a validation study.

Is it accurate to refer to the 220 leader sample as the leadership norm group?

It is not accurate to refer to the 220 sample of leaders as the leadership normative group. This sample of leaders is a comparison group (ranging from Managers to CEOs) and allows you to compare your client’s EI to leaders who demonstrate top EI scores.

Where did these 220 leaders come from?

These 220 leaders come from North America and consist of Managers (19.9%), Directors (19.9%), and CEOs (29.9%). 44.8% of the sample worked in large organizations (i.e., over 400 employees) with an annual revenue exceeding $10 million dollars (57.5%). 85.5% of the sample have at least a bachelor’s degree.

a. Were they part of the original GP norm Group?

They were not part of the original North American General Population normative group.

b. Were they part of the Professional Norm Group?

They were a part of the North American Professional normative group.

c. Is it accurate to refer to this group as representative of leaders today? Seems heavily weighted by white males.

It is not accurate to refer to this group as a representative sample of the general population. We ensured that we included demographic representation from various ethnicities, gender and age groups. Thus, this group is a much closer representation of leaders in North America in terms of demographic make-up. It is a sample of leaders derived from various organizations in North America.

I know that the overall scores for this group were higher than the GP. Are they also higher than the Professional Norm group or are they the same? What is the relationship/connection to the Professional Norms?

Since this group of 220 leaders is also included in the Professional normative group, there are no large differences between this sample and the Professional normative group.

What is the MLQ (I’ve not heard of it)?

MLQ is the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire by Bass and Avolio (1995) and has gained substantial support in the literature as the gold standard to measure leadership styles (please refer to the manual for more information).

a. What does it measure? (I saw reference to different leadership styles e.g. laissez- faire, transactional and transformational)

The MLQ measures different leadership styles:Laissez-faire leadership – refers to passive or avoidant leadership.Transactional leadership – refers to leaders who use reward and punishment (a set of transactions) to get the job done.Transformational leadership – refers to leaders who are engaged and harness employee potential to fuel the growth of the organization and its employees.

b. Why was this chosen?

The MLQ was used due to the substantial support it has gained in the literature. It is one of the most common leadership theories associated with EI. If you want to lead an organization in an engaging manner and motivate employees to reach their potential, it is beneficial to exemplify EI skills, such as empathy, impulse control, etc.

c. What is the connection to the 4 dimensions?

From scouring the literature and working with our many valued consultants, we determined that there are four dimensions of leadership that are usually associated with EI: coaching, authenticity, insight and innovation. We wanted to know which subscales on the EQ-i 2.0 were related to stronger leadership performance in these 4 areas. In order to validate the relationship, we chose the gold standard of leadership, referred to as transformational leadership in the MLQ, which closely measures these 4 dimensions (authenticity, coaching, insight and innovation) used in the EQ-i 2.0 Leadership Report. For additional literature on transformational leadership, please refer to the MLQ manual.

d. How was the correlation made between the 4 dimensions and the EQ-i subscales/derailers?

The EQ-i 2.0 subscales that are included in each of the 4 dimensions correlated with the corresponding transformational leadership scale on the MLQ empirically (based on statistics). Also, there were a couple of instances where the subscales mapped onto the dimension from a theoretical and pragmatic standpoint (e.g., emotional self-awareness is essential for Coaching, and optimism is important for Innovation). The subscales that are included in the derailer section correlate with laissez-faire or an avoidant leadership style.

Where did the four dimensions come from? I think I read that you identified these as key themes from your literature review research and just want to confirm.

There are many leadership models in the literature. Through our literature review, we were able to identify these leadership styles and the commonalities amongst most of them; particularly inherent to many of the leadership models used by consultants/practitioners today. By mapping those commonalities onto the EQ-i 2.0 subscales, we were able to organize the 4 dimensions or key themes.

How is the leadership bar determined?

The leadership bar was created by including scores of the top 50% of leaders in our sample. This means that the EI scores of this select group of high-scoring leaders is used to determine the leadership bar. The leadership bar indicates the range of scores of these top leaders.

What is the leadership bar based on?

The leadership bar highlights how the client’s scores fare in comparison to top leaders. See response to question 7.

Which norm is the leadership bar based on?

The leadership bar is scored on the same norm you select when generating your report, either North American professional (recommended) or North American General Population.

If I use UK/Ireland norms, will the leadership bar reflect UK/Ireland leaders?

No, the leadership bar only reflects leaders in North America, and not leaders in the UK/Ireland.

What is the point of the Current Topics?

a. Where did they come from/how were they selected?

Industrial/Organizational Psychology literature was scoured to uncover topics that are of pressing concern and particularly relevant in the workforce today. These leadership topics help ensure that the report delivers a thorough overview of current and relevant leadership issues and can help you apply EI as a solution to the challenges and business issues that your client may encounter.

b. How do you anticipate that they will be used?

The coach can work in concert with the client to explore ways to manage conflict, achieve work-life balance and lead a multigenerational team. Strategies are provided to help the client leverage his/her skills in these domains.

c. Are these pages static?

These pages are static, which means that the text is consistent in each report and does not change.

d. Please confirm that they can be turned off.

Yes, these pages can be turned off should the coach decide they are not necessary.

How do you anticipate/recommend that consultants use this report?

The Leadership Report is a useful tool for all those who assess leadership effectiveness and/or aptitude within organizations, including human resources personnel who are responsible for the selection, development, and promotion of adept leaders.The report has many uses, including leadership development, succession planning, one on one coaching, career development and talent management. By focusing on lower scoring subscales, you can implement a strategy to bolster those particular areas in order for the client to reach his/her true leadership potential. You should take note of any Strategies for Action that seems particularly relevant to your client’s role and organization. Your client should try to implement them in his/her daily responsibilities at work.

What feedback have you received so far from consultants who have used it?

Feedback has been very positive, and consultants are commenting on the clarity and conciseness of the report, and the provision of actionable strategies for development. Consultants appreciate the leadership bar, which is a benchmark of top leaders. The leadership potential page has been generating a lot of buzz and excitement, as it’s a new way of examining how EI skills are associated with four key leadership dimensions. The leadership derailers section is also a nice summary of how low scores on specific EI skills may hamper leadership success. Consultants also love how the leadership potential page, leadership bar, and current leadership topics are optional features (can be turned on and off at will). Hence, the report is customizable to cater to the consultant’s individual needs.

How does the response distribution pie look in black and white?

The distribution pie wedges are shaded in order to distinguish one from the other when printed in black and white.

Is there an electronic version of the action plan?

We are working on an electronic version of the action plan and development commitment and will add these to the Resource Centre when they are ready. 

How do I avoid my email invitations going into junk mail folders?

Go to email settings to approve and/or pre-approve sender address from MHS. Email settings vary by platform.

How many logos can I add to the report?

You can add one logo to a report cover.

In the original EQ-i, a generated report will last for 5 days (and then needs to be re-generated) – will this be the same with EQ-i 2.0?

Yes, this process is the same with the EQ-i 2.0.

Does the system go to your outlook contacts to get emails?

No, unfortunately it does not. You must enter the email addresses yourself either in an excel spreadsheet or within the invitation itself, within the EQ-i 2.0 Portal. 

For more information on how to invite participants to take the EQ-i 2.0, please refer to the Getting Started Tutorial: Inviting Participants in the EQ-i 2.0, located in the Resource Centre.

Will I still get the email letting me know someone has finished the assessment?

Yes, you can set up a notification that allows you to receive an email when your participants complete the assessment.

For more information on how to invite participants to take the EQ-i 2.0, please refer to the Getting Started Tutorial: Inviting Participants in the EQ-i 2.0, located in the Resource Centre.

Can I assign someone else to monitor the completion of the assessment?

Yes, you can set up a notification that allows you to assign a contact person (other than yourself) to monitor the completion of the assessments.

For more information on how to invite participants to take the EQ-i 2.0, please refer to the Getting Started Tutorial: Inviting Participants in the EQ-i 2.0, located in the Resource Centre.

Who does it show as ‘from’ in the email address? What happens if someone replies to that email? Where does it go?

By default, email invitations are sent to participants from NoReply@mhs.com. However, this address does not support email "bounce back". If a participant's email address is incorrect, you will not be notified if the email was not received.

To receive notifications about undelivered mail, you can send email invitations from another email address. This option also allows the participant to email you back with questions or concerns.

To change your email settings, please see the instructions under the Help section of the Portal. Click on the EQ-i 2 Portal, then click on Changing your email settings.

How do I upload a group?

When you are the ‘invite’ stage of the process, you have the option of uploading a group using the excel template provided.

For more information on how to invite participants to take the EQ-i 2.0, please refer to the Getting Started Tutorial: Inviting Participants in the EQ-i 2.0, located in the Resource Centre.

Can I change my community display name?

Yes. Click on the ‘Change Display Name’ option located under your name in the upper right hand side of the screen.

Will the community be moderated?

Yes it will be moderated in a similar way to how we moderate the LinkedIn site, by MHS.

Will examples of workshops, presentations, newsletters, etc be available in the portal?

There are currently different support materials located in the Resource Library Section of the Resource Centre of the portal. We will continue to add to those materials. If there is something you don’t see, but would find helpful, please contact us at growyourbusiness@mhs.com and let us know.

Can I put my own logo on the marketing material?

Yes. The native files of the materials are available on the portal. In order to add your logo to any of those files, you will require access to design software or simply provide the file to your own designer for modification.

Do I have to customize every report or is there a way to save my “preferences”?

You can save different reports as templates when you customize them for the first time. 

For more information on how to generate reports for the EQ-i 2.0, please refer to the Getting Started Tutorial: Generating Reports in the EQ-i 2.0, located in the Resource Centre.

Can I rescore a new EQ-i 2.0 report using the old EQ-i scores/data?

While the two assessments are highly correlated, there are aspects of the assessment that have changed; you will not be able to use the EQ-i 2.0 reports to score an assessment that was completed using the EQ-i.

Are the action plan and development commitment in the client report?

The action plan and development commitment are options that are defaulted ‘on’ during report generation. If you choose not to include them in your Client report, you must click on the ‘Off’ button and they will not appear in the report.

For more information on how to generate reports for the EQ-i 2.0, please refer to the Getting Started Tutorial: Generating Reports in the EQ-i 2.0, located in the Resource Centre.

Are there limitations to the number of report templates I can have?

No, there are no limits to the number of report templates you have.

Can I batch score large groups of reports?

Yes, you can batch score large groups of reports. 

For more information on how to generate reports for the EQ-i 2.0, please refer to the Getting Started Tutorial: Generating Reports in the EQ-i 2.0, located in the Resource Centre.

Can I zip scores?

The “zip reports” feature of the portal allows users to combine EQ-i 2.0 reports (e.g., Workplace, Leadership, and/or Group) into zipped file folders so that multiple reports may be downloaded at the same time. This zip feature may be used to download all of the files associated with a single respondent (e.g. the Graphs, Client Report, and Coach Report for an EQ-i 2.0 Group Report) or it may be used to download files associated with multiple respondents (e.g., batches of 200 respondents). Please refer to the EQ-i 2.0 help files for more information.

EQ 360

Why does the EQ 360 now include 133 items (instead of 88)?

The EQ 360 is a multirater version of the EQ-i 2.0 that assesses the same emotional and social skills as the self report but from an observer’s perspective. Therefore it contains the same 133 items as the EQ-i 2.0, but worded from the rater’s perspective. This perfect alignment allows participants to see that raters responded to the same statements, which makes feedback more credible, and facilitates comparisons.

For more information please refer to the User’s Handbook – I: Getting Started with the EQ-i 2.0 - Introduction.

How long does it take someone to complete the EQ 360?

Most raters will need approximately 20 minutes to complete the EQ 360. It should be noted, however, that completion of the EQ 360 assessment might take longer for individuals who have a first language other than English or have difficulty reading and/or comprehending the items.

Why do I need 3 raters per group?

Inclusion of a sufficient number of raters in each group not only helps to increase the quality of feedback obtained from the particular groups that participate in the assessment, but also helps ensure the confidentiality of the responses provided by each rater within the group.

Keep in mind that the Manager Rater Group is the only rater group that does not require more than 1 rater.

Is there a maximum number of raters?  What’s ideal?

There is no maximum amount of raters, but the more raters you have, the more ‘average’ or washed out the results will appear. The recommendation is usually not more than 15 raters per group where appropriate. 

Why are there only 5 rater groups?

The rater groups included in the EQ 360 will give your client a well-rounded view of his or her emotional intelligence as seen by others he or she interacts with. These different raters naturally grouped into:

- Manager

- Direct Reports

- Peers

- Family/Friends

- Other

We used Other to enable the coach to include any group that does not appear already, such as Clients.

Where would I find an overview of best practices for implementing a 360 multi-rater program?

Refer to the User’s Handbook – Part III: Administering a Multi-Rater EQ 360 2.0 for information on best practices when implementing a 360 program.

Is there a ‘select-all’ button for scoring reports?

Yes. Please click the box in the upper left hand corner of the rater/ratee table to “select all.”

If you are using the EQ 360, how does Happiness apply?

Raters respond to the same items for Happiness as are found in the EQ-i 2.0, except from the rater perspective. The results are compared to the self-results and interpretive text is provided, based on those results.

Can I link EQ-i 2.0 results to an EQ 360?  How?

You can import an existing EQ-i 2.0 report into an EQ 360, if the EQ-i 2.0 was completed within 90 days of the EQ360 invitation set up. 

For more information on how to invite participants to take the EQ 360, please refer to the Getting Started Tutorial: Inviting Participants and raters in the EQ 360, located in the Resource Centre.

Why can’t I import EQ-i 2.0 results into my EQ 360 if it’s been more than 90 days since the EQ-i 2.0 was completed?

If more than 90 days have lapsed between taking the EQ-i 2.0 and generating an EQ 360, one can assume that there is ample opportunity and time for a change to have occurred in an individual’s EI over this time period. Therefore, you would be comparing results/feedback from two very different periods in time making the report difficult to interpret. Because of this, the individual is required to re-take the EQ-i 2.0 if the 90 days have passed.

What does the profile gap analysis do?

The information on this page provides you with a general overview of the level of agreement between your client’s self report and how others see him or her.

-          The vertical axis shows your client’s self-rating. Higher scoring subscales will appear towards the top of the graph and lower scoring subscales at the bottom.

-          The horizontal axis shows you how much agreement there is between your client’s self score and the scores received from each rater, across the various subscales. Subscales appearing to the far right indicate consensus—raters agree with your client’s own assessment of each behavior.

-          Subscales that overlap with one another indicate a consistent experience of those particular EI behaviors.

How do I add/change/delete raters?  Is there an additional cost to do this?

Go to the EQ-i 2.0 Portal. Click on EQ 360 – Manage. Click on the magnifying glass next to the appropriate participant name. Click on the ‘Raters’ tab. From here you can add, delete, or edit rater information. There is no cost to doing this, up to 6 weeks from first generating the EQ 360 report.

Is the PI/NI in the EQ 360? How does it work?

The PI/NI information for the raters is included on the Rater Response Summary page, listed by rater group. It is calculated in the same way as the EQ-i 2.0 PI/NI but no flags will appear on this page since we do not assess the validity of an assessment based on rater information.

What languages/norms will be available for the EQ 360? 

English (US/Canada)
English (UK)
Brazilian Portuguese

Future translation releases will be communicated through the EQ-i 2.0 portal.

The current norms are:
- US/Canada
- UK/Ireland
- Australia
- South Africa

Future norm options will be communicated through the EQ-i 2.0 portal.

Group Report
What is the minimum and maximum number of participants that can be included into a Group Report?

Due to concerns about maintaining participant anonymity, the Group Report will not include averages for subscales with less than two valid participant scores; consequently, the minimum number of participants that can be used for generating a Group Report is two. While there is no limit to the maximum number of participants that can be added into a Group Report, we would recommend that the group not exceed a reasonably large number (e.g., 20 participants), unless there is an interpretation need for such a large group (i.e., you are working with a leadership team comprised of more than 20 leaders).

What is the ideal group size to use for conducting group feedback sessions?

Optimal group size is dependent on many factors such as the purpose of the group session and the preferences of the group facilitator. We recommend that group feedback sessions be conducted with groups of four to twelve members. When providing group feedback, the best results are obtained when the group is not too small or too large. Using appropriate group sizes can increase group members’ willingness to express their thoughts and simplify the process of reaching group consensus about developmental strategies.

How much time should pass before I can recommend for clients to complete a reassessment?

Generally speaking, it is recommended that assessments should only be re-taken after respondents have had sufficient time to incorporate the knowledge that they learned through the training/feedback session into their daily work lives. Most researchers and practitioners agree that there should be a minimum of three months between the time a feedback session is conducted and a reassessment is given. In practice, training programs tend to conduct post-training reassessments around 6-9 months after the initial feedback session.

Are individual scores displayed in the Group Report?

No, individual-level information is not available in the Group Report. Scores are presented in the Group Report as averages or group percentages. If you would like to know the scores of specific individuals, you may consult the individual’s Workplace or Leadership report.

Are the organizational impact text and strategies for action text static or tailored to the group?

The organizational impact and strategies for action text for each subscale are tailored based on the average scores achieved by the group.

When there is a tie for the three highest- or three lowest-scoring subscales, how do you determine which subscales to display?

The report generation process is programmed to use the sequence of the EQ-i 2.0 Model to deal with ties, displaying the subscale(s) that comes first in the model framework.

Why are findings related to Happiness included in the Coach’s Report but not in the Client’s Report?

Because Happiness is more accurately conceptualized as a product of EI rather than being an actual emotional intelligence subscale, it has been excluded from the summary pages that make up the Client Report. Furthermore, people’s perceptions of happiness and the influence that it has on other aspects of their lives are often personal and unique to each individual; consequently, discussion around Happiness is more appropriately held during one-on-one feedback sessions, which is why there is a full page dedicated to Happiness in people’s individual Workplace/Leadership Reports.  For example, in the Workplace Report, the Happiness page explains the relationship between an individual’s Happiness score and the scores that they obtained for Self-Regard, Optimism, Interpersonal Relationships, and Self-Actualization. However, the relationship that Happiness has with each of these four subscales may differ amongst group members, and so it makes more sense that detailed discussions around Happiness be conducted at the individual-level rather than attempting to understand or create a sense of “group happiness.” However, just in case this is a task that you are interested in, then the information on the Happiness Subscale page in the coach version of the EQ-i 2.0 Group Report may provide you with the background information you need to get the conversation started.

What is the thinking behind not sharing the distribution graphs with the client (i.e., excluding them from the client report)?

The distribution graphs are not included in the Client Report due to privacy and confidentiality concerns. According to the ethical guidelines set out by psychological associations and research agencies (e.g., Canadian Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, Tri-Council TCPS 2), steps should be taken to ensure the privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity of people who complete psychological assessments or surveys. With regards to the EQ-i 2.0 Group Report, because the distribution graphs display the exact scores or score ranges that each group member obtained, there is a concern that group members will be able to link specific subscale scores to individual members, and the likelihood of this occurring will increase in smaller groups. For example, imagine you are working with a group of three people. If these group members had worked together previously, then they will most likely be generally aware of each other’s EI strengths and weaknesses. However, knowing in a general sense produces a different group dynamic than if they knew each other’s exact scores. If group members are aware of each other’s exact scores, there will be a greater tendency to make comparisons within the group (leading to the creation of an unhealthy sense of superiority or inferiority), to single out members with weaker EI scores or engage in finger-pointing, and for those who are being singled-out to feel a sense of shame or even betrayal. Rather than opening the group up to this potential breakdown in group harmony, we feel that it is best to only include the distribution graphs in the Coach Report, since you are more likely to possess the facilitation skills needed to navigate potentially tricky group dynamics and discussions.

How meaningful is the “average” for the client, given that the rich data is in the distribution scores?

The provision of average scores benefits clients at both the group- and individual-levels of report interpretation. At the group-level, averages provide group members with a quick and easy way of identifying and agreeing on where they need to focus their developmental efforts. At the individual-level, group members may compare their individual EI scores to the group averages. Although we don’t want group members to know each other’s specific scores, they do still need a standard against which they can make comparisons. For example, imagine that you had scored 82% on an exam or assessment. It is difficult for you to determine what this 82% actually means unless you are able to compare it to a standard such as the group average (e.g., you scored fairly well if the average was 80%; however, 82% is not all that great of a score if the average was 86%). In other words, the inclusion of average scores in the reports increases the interpretative value of the EQ-i 2.0 assessment by providing clients with a reference point against which they can make comparisons.

How do we identify significant score differences (e.g. when making comparisons within or between groups)?

All scores found in the EQ-i 2.0 suite of products are reported as standard scores and can therefore be used to make direct comparisons between subscales or to an average score. During the validity and norming process for the EQ-i 2.0, it was established that a 10 point difference in scores was reflective of “practical significance.” Therefore if you are making comparisons at the individual-level between subscales (e.g., trying to determine whether an individual’s self-regard score is significantly different from his/her emotional self-awareness score), then you can use this loose range as a guide for identifying noteworthy differences.

While there are no statistical analyses that can be used to assess the differences between a single individual to a group, you can use the spread of scores value (also known as the standard deviation) as a practical guide for interpreting individual-to-group differences. For example, if you are working with a group that achieved an average self-regard score of 105 and a spread of scores value of 15, then you may want to take note of the group members who scored below 90 or above 120 because these individuals obtained self-regard scores that are one standard deviation below/above the group average.

Similarly, because the assessment of between-group statistical significance is dependent on a variety of factors that are unique to each context (e.g. the number of people in each group or the number of groups being compared), we are unable to provide you with a general range that can be applied for any situation. If you are interested in conducting statistical analyses yourself, we recommend that you conduct a t-test to assess for statistical significance between two groups or an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test if you are comparing the scores of three or more groups.

Is it possible to create a Group Report for a group if the individuals in that group have not completed an individual workplace assessment?

No, all individuals must have completed the EQ-i 2.0 assessment and had either a workplace or leadership report generated for them prior to being added into a Group Report. We believe that clients will gain the maximum interpretative and developmental benefits from the EQ-i 2.0 if they first gained an understanding of their individual behaviours before learning about how their behaviours may influence a group dynamic. It is our hope that all clients will have received feedback regarding their individual workplace or leadership reports before they participate in a group feedback session. Consequently, if individuals do not have a previously-generated workplace or leadership report, then they will not appear in the “Add participant(s)” pop-up window that is used for creating a group.

Do you need to generate a person’s Workplace Report and Leadership Report before you can add that person to a Group Report?

No, prior to adding someone to a Group Report, you will only need to generate one individual assessment report (either a workplace report or a leadership report will suffice).

Can I use individual scored reports from the EQ-i 1.0 to generate an EQ-i 2.0 Group Report?

No, you will not be able to use EQ-i 1.0 Reports to generate EQ-i 2.0 Group Reports. The model and survey items used for the EQ-i 1.0 Reports are slightly different than what we are currently using for the new EQ-i 2.0 products (which are based on the new EQ-i 2.0 Model framework), and consequently, we are unable to transfer data from 1.0 scored reports over into 2.0 products.

Is it possible to include an EQ 360 self-assessment into a Group Report?

No, at the moment you are only able to include individuals who have taken the EQ-i 2.0 and have a Workplace or Leadership Report into the Group Report.

Does the norm used for each person have to be the same as the one used for the Group Report?

No, regardless of the norm options used to score a person’s individual assessment, all group members will be re-scored to reflect the norm option that you choose for the Group Report. This means that you will be able to generate Group Reports using individual assessments that were previously scored with different norm regions and norm types. However, if you do choose to use different norm options when generating individual versus group reports, please be aware that there may be slight (even negligible) discrepancies between individual- and group-level scores because standards scores vary depending on the norms selected.

What norm options are available for generating a Group Report?

When generating the Group Report, you may select from the same list of norm regions and norm types that you used for the Workplace and Leadership reports. However, please note that if at a later point in time you decide that you need to re-score a group using a different norm region or norm type, you will be charged the full purchase price for the report, even if no participants were added or deleted.

Can you produce a Group Report in multiple languages?

The Group Report is currently only offered in English.

Will there be an image library based on the report which consultants can use for their workshop?

Yes, we are currently working with new technology to extract the graphs from the Group Report so that you can use these images in your presentations, workshops, etc. We are planning to release this additional feature in the spring of 2014. Once released, you will be able to use this feature to generate image files from previously generated and all future group reports.

Do you need to pay every time you generate the same report?

No, there is no additional cost associated with regenerating reports. The only time that you will have to pay to generate a report for an existing group is if you deleted participants from the group, changed the norm options prior to generating another report, or added individuals outside of the 6-week grace period.

What does the “scored date” mean?

The scored date marks the date on which you first generated a Group Report for a newly created group. This date is used to calculate the grace period, which is 6 weeks from that date.

What is the grace period and what am I allowed to do during this period of time?

Because some of the participants you want to include in a Group Report might be late completing their EQ-i 2.0 assessment, the EQ-i 2.0 portal allows you a six-week "grace period." During this grace period you can add additional participants to the group and generate new reports at no extra charge (assuming you have paid the full price for the generation of the original Group Report).

This grace period begins when you generate your first Group Report and ends six weeks later. For example, if you generated your first Group Report for a newly created group on January 20, 2014, then the grace period will end six weeks later on March 3, 2014.

Although participants can be added for free during this period, the same does not apply to the deletion of participants. If you delete participants from a group report that has previously been generated, you will be charged the full purchase price even if this happens during the grace period. However, the EQ-i 2.0 Portal will always let you know if any charges are incurred.

After the six-week grace period ends, you will be charged the full purchase price for both the addition and deletion of participants from a generated Group Report.

Why is there a cost associated with deleting participants?

From a business perspective, we cannot allow both additions and deletions of group members without charge as this could lead to the creation of a brand new group report without incurring any cost. We heard from our market survey results that adding members to an existing group is something that occurs much more often than deleting members. To ensure you are not charged each time a new person is added, we allow a 6-week grace period in which to add individuals without incurring an additional cost.

Back to the top