Adapting and Validating the BarOn EQ–i:YV in the Lebanese Context

Abstract

a measure of emotional intelligence, in the Lebanese context. The scale was translated and adapted into Arabic using a 3-step process involving judgmental, logical, and empirical methods. It was then administered to a representative sample of 433 students in the 10-to 18-year-old age group. Psychometric properties of the Arabic version in terms of internal consistency, test-retest reliabilities, factor structure, and scale intercorrelations was investigated. Gender and age differences were also studied. The reliability of the adapted test, both internal and over time, was satisfactory. Exploring scale factorial validity identified 2 major factors, whereas exploring it by items revealed findings particular to the Lebanese situation. Reported age and gender differences were similar to those on the original test except for gender differences on Intrapersonal and Adaptability scales. Explanations and propose recommendations for future research are provided.

Validity Evidence based on Internal Structure of Scores of the Emotional Quotient-Inventory: Youth Version Short (EQ-i: YV-S) in a Spanish Sample

“…In addition, Bar-On and Parker (2000) developed the Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version (EQ-i: YV), consisting of 60 items, for children and adolescents between the ages of 6 and 17 years old. Studies that have looked at this version of the instrument for children and adolescents have demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, replicating the factor structure proposed by the authors in samples of different nationalities including the US (Parker et al, 2005), Lebanon (Hassam & Sader, 2005), Peru (Ugarriza & Pajares, 2005), and Spain (Ferrándiz, Hernández, Bermejo, Ferrando, & Sainz, 2012). Parker et al (2005) tested the factor structure of the EQ-i: YV in two samples (aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), finding that in both samples the data had adequate fit to the model.…”

“…The instrument also has a fifth subscale, positive impression, created to measure how much the subjects respond randomly or distort their responses in terms of social desirability. However, as in several previous studies (Hassam & Sader, 2005; Parker et al, 2005; Ugarriza & Pajares, 2005), this fifth subscale (items 3, 7, 11, 15, 20, and 25) is not further analyzed in the present study. The questionnaire is answered on a Likert scale with four response options going from “not true in my case” to “very true in my case.”…”

“…Parker et al (2005) tested the factor structure of the EQ-i: YV in two samples (aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), finding that in both samples the data had adequate fit to the model. Meanwhile, Hassam and Sader (2005) found that the reliability, both internal and over time, were moderate to high across all age groups except for the stress management scale, ranging from .51 to .80. Although exploring scale factorial validity using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) by performing a principal components analysis with Varimax rotation identified two major factors, the results of the item factor analysis generally supported the factors that the Bar-On EQ-i:YV was designed to measure, factors representing the subcomponents of the scales’ four dimensions.…”

Assessment of emotional intelligence in adults with down syndrome: Psychometric properties of the Emotional Quotient Inventory

“…The scale's short version has also been validated for use among Hungarian people with the results confirming a 5-factor structure [63]; this scale was also studied in male athletes from Australia aged between 16 and 40 years [64]. Other studies analyzed the youth version and show appropriate psychometric characteristics as it replicates the original factorial structure for different samples consisting of a general population from the United States [65], Lebanon, Peru, and Spain [66]; the latter cohort consisted of gifted and talented students. We also find some preliminary studies involving samples with DS that do not show their psychometric properties [67].…”

Effectiveness of a Prevention Program for Gender-Based Intimate Partner Violence at a Colombian Primary School

“…Age was considered as a covariate due to the significant differences in cognitive development and knowledge acquisition among the different primary education courses (Fischer and Bullock, 1984). Gender was also taken into consideration given the existence of previous evidence pointing to gender differences in the flexibilization of gender stereotypes (Smetana, 1986;Henshaw et al, 1992;Signorella et al, 1993;Fernández-Rouco et al, 2019), the acceptance of aggression and the type of aggression used (Askew and Ross, 1991;Crick et al, 1997;Subirats and Tomé, 2007), empathy (Tobari, 2003;Mestre et al, 2009), self-esteem (Watkins et al, 1997;Israel and Ivanova, 2002;Frisén et al, 2014), and emotional intelligence (Bar-On and Parker, 2000; Karma and Maliha, 2005;Ferrando, 2006). As a result, consideration was given to the role of gender in the effectiveness of the program.…”