There were two measures for DIF effect size, including Crane, van Belle and Larson criterion 2 (CvBL) and McFadden pseudo R-square 3 (Δ R 2 ) (P. In these formulas, m, θ, and g were assumed to be the number of domains, ability score, and grouping variable, respectively. One of the best techniques for detecting DIF was the ordinal logistic regression (OLR), which compared following regression models to examine ordinal polytomous items for DIF (Paul K Crane, Gibbons, Jolley, & van Belle, 2006).
So, DIF items of the Bar- On Emotional Quotient Inventory were detected by the hybrid OLR/IRT model. Therefore, the aim of the present article was to evaluate whether is observed differences between age and gender groups real or not depend on DIF items in the measurement process. Because the presence of DIF items can explain conflicting results in studies and reveal necessity of further research to replace or remove these items. But there is currently a lack of studies surrounding DIF analysis of the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory. Item response theory (IRT) analyses were used to detecting DIF items in Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (WLEIS), Schutte Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SEIT), and Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue) ( Cho, Drasgow, & Cao, 2015 Karim, 2010). DIF is present when an item has a different probability or likelihood to be endorsed for different groups of examinees, after controlling for EQ-i ability ( Teresi, 2006). The differential item functioning (DIF) will be a threat to construct-related validity as will threaten a valid interpretation of group differences ( Clauser & Hambleton, 1994). In these fields, the validity of obtained scores from a questionnaire inferred within content-related validity, criterion-related validity, and constructrelated validity ( Onwuegbuzie, Daniel, & Collins, 2009). But, the concept of validity is not especially clear in social and behavioral science. So that, there is more than 30 translation of this questionnaire now (Bar-On, 2006).Įnsuring acceptable validity and reliability is important before making comparisons among individuals or groups by any psychological test. Instrument validation was continued across different cultures. The Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) included the five key components of emotional intelligence from 1965 to the present (Bar-On, 2006).īar-On selected 133 of 1000 items by factor analysis and evaluated this self-report questionnaire in 1996. For this purpose, they combine the emotional (intrapersonal intelligence) and social (interpersonal intelligence) components and introduce the Bar-On model which is one of the three major conceptual models in the Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology ( Spielberger, 2004). And researchers gradually began to shift their attention to general intelligence: “The capacity of the individual to act purposefully” ( Wechsler, 1958). Then non-intellective factors were mentioned on intelligent behavior. In 1935, the first instrument was designed to measure socially intelligent behavior in two subscales included Comprehension and Picture Arrangement ( Doll, 1935). To measure EI construct, various instruments are designed. So measuring EI and improving weakness gives people more chance to use their hereditary talents or intelligence quotient (IQ) for success in life and work.
But EI has learned capability-based competence and affected by life experience ( Weisinger, 1998). For the greater part of the 20th century, studying emotional quotient has extensively increased in scientific circles as well as in the lay public because of the role it plays in person’s effectiveness and success ( Goleman, 1995).
These skills enable people to behave at appropriate times and ways ( Milhoan, 2007). The emotional quotient (EQ) or emotional intelligence (EI) was included all skills such as selfcontrol, zeal, persistence, and the ability to motivate oneself.