CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
4.3 Research procedure
The HR manager or coordinator in the various mining cites in the chroming, platinum and gold mining industry in the North West and Gauteng was contacted. After explaining the research to the HR coordinator permission was asked in order to complete the study. It was important for the coordinator to have a very good relationship with his employees in order to help with the implementation of the study. He had to be able to communicate effectively with the employees in the training centre and be able to group them together according to the various languages used in the study. After this had been done, the reasons for the study were explained. In the centre the GEIS was administered and after completion dropped in an anonymous box. Participation to the study had been voluntary, and the confidentiality and anonymity of participants was emphasised.
The different organisations of the various mines that will participate in the study had received complete feedback, one by one, regarding the results.
Statistical analysis
The IBM SPSS- program version 20.0 (SPSS, 2011), was used to carry out the analysis of the data that is collected. Descriptive statistics was used in this study and it involved the testing of assumptions (Pallant, 2005) and it provided the researcher with a summary of the data he/ she has collected. The purpose of this kind of statistic was to provide the researcher with an overall, logical and simple picture of the data that was collected (Struwig & Stead, 2007). Descriptive statistics that was used included the mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis and the
alpha coefficient (Pallant, 2005). The mean is the sum of the observations that are going to be made which will be divided by the number of observations that will constitute to group (Marascuilo & Serlin, 1988), in other words it can be seen as the average. The standard deviation
“measures the deviation of each score from the mean and the averages the deviations” (Struwig
& Stead, 2007, p. 158). Skewness and kurtosis refers to the distribution of the scores (Struwig &
Stead, 2007). “Skewness refers to the degree of deviation from symmetry, while kurtosis refers to how flat or peaked the distribution is (Struwig & Stead, 2007 p. 159). The degree of reliability was articulated by the Cronbach Alpha Coefficient; it ranges from 0.00 to 1.00 and the closer the alpha coefficient is to 1.00 the closer it will be to the true score (Struwig & Stead, 2007). The Cronbach Alpha Coefficient is acceptable when α > 0.70.
SPSS was utilised to determine item bias by means of ordinal logistic regression. According to Kim (2001) there are various ways to detect Differential item functioning. DIF can be defined as the interference of some demographic characteristic or grouping of the tight relationship between trait level and item responses (Crane, Gibbons, Jolley & Belle, 2006). One of these methods is Zumbo‟s (2009) ordinal logistic regression approach. A variation of ordinal logistic regression to detect DIF between cultural groups was carried out by using several comparisons for different response categories on each item. When applying the regression procedure, outliers beyond the 95% confidence interval was used as DIF items. Crane, Gibbons, Jolley and van Belle (2006) mention that the ordinal logistic regression approaches for testing DIF is not a complicated statistical analysis to accomplish. They further state that because of the ordinal LR framework, many demographic characteristics can be evaluated to determine whether items display DIF.
In order to determine if the items of the GEIS are unbiased a pre-test was conducted by means of various analyses of variance on the four factors of the GEIS. ANOVA showed the expression of the tests of interests in terms of variance estimates (Muller & Fetterman, 2002). In order to determine if there were group differences with regards to the way the participants answered each item, ANOVAS on each item was conducted.
In the AMOS program (Arbuckle, 1997), confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling methods were used to construct and test a four-factor model of emotional intelligence
across language groups. Hypothesised relationships were tested empirically for goodness-of-fit with the sample data. The X and several other goodness-of-fit indices summarise the degree of 2
correspondence between the implied and observed covariance matrices. However, the X test is 2
commonly recognised to be problematic (Joreskog, 1969). It is sensitive to sample size, and could also be invalid when distributional assumptions are violated, leading to the rejection of good models or the retention of bad ones. Due to the drawbacks of X 2
statistics have been developed.
test, many alternative fit
The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) is commonly used to indicate the relative amount of variance and co-variance in the sample predicted by the estimates of the population. It usually varies between 0 and 1, and a result of 0.90 or above indicates a good model.
The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) also compares the hypothesised and independent models, but considers sample size when doing so. The Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) is a relative measure of co variation explained by the hypothesised model which has been specifically designed for the assessment of factor models (Tucker & Lewis, 1973). In order to acquire good model fit it is recommended for the NFI, CFI and TLI to be acceptable above the 0.90 level (Bentler, 1992), although Hu and Bentler (1999) recommended a cut-off value of 0.95. The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) estimates the overall amount of error; it is a fu nction of the fitting function value relative to the degrees off freedom (Brown & Cudeck, 1993). Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested a value of 0.06 to indicate acceptable whereas MacCullum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996) suggested that values between 0.08 and 1.00 indicate mediocre fit and values above 1.00 poor fit.
In accordance with Hu and Bentler (1999), a combination approach was used to evaluate the model fit. Following Hu and Bentler (1999), several fit indices (GFI, IFI, TLI, CFI and RMSEA) were used to evaluate the fit of each CFA model. Specifically an absolute close-fit index (RMSEA) and two incremental close-fit indices were chosen (TLI and CFI) because it has been argued that they would provide more stable and accurate estimates than several other indices (Hu
& Bentler, 1999; Maruyama, 1998) and the mentioned three indices have been used in other confirmatory factor analysis studies of emotional intelligence (Gignac et al., 2005). Other fit
indices was included to support the TLI, GFI and RMSEA as they were used in other studies for evaluation of psychological tests (Parker, Taylor, & Bagby, 2003) and provided easy comparisons to the other data sets.
RESULTS
The results will comprise of the descriptive statistics, ANOVAs of each of the items of the GEIS, uniform and non-uniform item bias of the items of the GEIS and finally Goodness-of-fit statistics for the total population, Sotho and West-Germanic groups.
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics describe the core features of the data in a study, by taking into account the mean, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and Cronbach alpha coefficients (William, 2006).
Table 2 presents the mean, standard deviations, skewness, kurtosis, and Cronbach alpha coefficients of the 52 items in the GEIS.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of the 52 Items for the Greek Emotional Intelligence Scale (N=357)
Model Factor Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis α
Combined Expression 26.29 4.83 0.57 0.69 0.70
sample and
Recognition
Caring and 52.05 7.96 0.75 2.17 0.72
Empathy
Control of 35.33 6.67 0.43 -0.52 0.82
Emotion Use of Emotion
51.50 7.03 1.23 4.77 0.79
West- Expression 25.18 3.32 0.83 1.87 0.66
Germanic and group Recognition
Caring and 47.65 4.96 0.24 -0.11 0.63
Empathy
Control of 31.65 4.23 0.53 1.00 0.80
Emotion
Use of 47.67 3.48 -0.50 1.72 0.62
Emotion
Model Factor Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis α
Sotho group Expression 27.11 5.62 0.22 -0.60 0.64
and Recognition
Caring and 55.56 8.15 0.43 2.80 0.70
Empathy
Control of 38.24 6.80 -0.12 -0.65 0.79
Emotion
West- Use of 22.65 4.01 -1.13 1.19 0.83
Germanic Emotion Group
Caring and 29.70 5.40 -0.74 0.95 0.83
Empathy
Control of 25.71 4.97 -0.53 -0.15 0.77
Emotion
Table 2 indicates the descriptive statistics for the items of the GEIS. The table shows that Cronbach alpha coefficients varying from 0.62 to 0.82 were obtained for all the GEIS factors of each model. The combined sample as well as the Sotho language group showed acceptable internal consistency. The factors “Use of Emotion to Facilitate Thinking‟ and “Caring and Empathy‟ (0.63) in the confirmatory four factor model of the West-Germanic group (0.62) showed the lowest alpha values. This indicated that the four factor model for the West-Germanic group was not the best fit. It was therefore decided to test a three-factor model for the West- Germanic group. When investigating the three-factor West-Germanic language group, the alphas showed excellent values of 0.83 and 0.77 respectively. It is evident from the table that the scores from the various scales for each model are relatively normally distributed, with low skewness and kurtosis being noted, apart from the following exceptions: “Caring and Empathy‟ and “Use of Emotion to Facilitate Thinking‟ in the combined model, “Use of Emotion to Facilitate Thinking‟ in the West-Germanic group, and “Caring and Empathy‟ in the Sotho group. In conclusion, it can be said that all the factors from the GEIS for the combined sample as well as Sotho language group showed sufficient reliability and validity to be utilised for subsequent analysis. The four-factor model for the West-Germanic group was however under the guideline of 0.70 provided by Nunnaly (1994) and the three-factor model was therefore tested and proved sufficient reliability. .
Next, ANOVAS on each of the items of the GEIS were executed to serve as a pre-analysis for DIF. The following four Tables show the results of the ANOVAs conducted for the items on the
four emotional intelligence factors, namely “Caring and Empathy‟, “Control of Emotion‟,
“Expression and Recognition of Emotions‟, and “Use of Emotions to Facilitate Thinking‟.
Statistical significance, practical statistical significance was presented, as well as the mean differences of the two language groups on each item respectively. According to Cohen (1992), the practical significance of the results were determined by using the cut offs of 0.2, 0.5, and 0. 8 as small, medium, and large.
Table 3
Summary of ANOVAs between cultural groups per item on the Caring and Empathy Factor
Item descriptions
Sum of squares
df Mean
square
f Sig. Eta
squared
Mean WG
Mean Sotho Caring
Empathy EQ33: I cannot stand
Between Groups
18.30 1.00 18.30 15.17 0.00 0.04 2.62 2.17
injustice
Within 428.10 355.00 1.21
Groups
Total 446.39 356.00
EQ37: I am not interested
Between Groups
128.85 1.00 128.85 108.09 0.00 0.23 2.20 3.41
in the problems of others
Within 423.19 355.00 1.19
Groups
Total 552.04 356.00
EQ41: I am open to listen
Between Groups
30.86 1.00 30.86 38.76 0.00 0.10 3.71 4.30
to others
Within 282.59 355.00 0.80
Groups
Total 313.45 356.00
Item descriptions
Sum of squares
df Mean
square
f Sig. Eta
squared
Mean WG
Mean Sotho
EQ24: I am always willing
Between Groups
25.61 1.00 25.61 21.60 0.00 0.06 3.44 3.98
to help
someone who
is confronted
with personal
problems
Within 420.96 355.00 1.19
Groups
Total 446.57 356.00
EQ34: I respond to the
Between Groups
2.49 1.00 2.49 2.60 0.11 0.01 3.55 3.72
emotions of others
Within Groups
339.34 355.00 0.96
Total 341.82 356.00
EQ21: I sympathize
Between Groups
81.30 1.00 81.30 67.91 0.00 0.16 2.87 3.83
with others’
personal problems
Within Groups
425.00 355.00 1.20
Total 506.29 356.00
EQ46: I show my concern to
Between Groups
17.60 1.00 17.60 21.64 0.00 0.06 3.56 4.01
others
Within 288.76 355.00 0.81
Groups
Total 306.36 356.00
Item Sum of df Mean f Sig. Eta Mean Mean
descriptions squares square squared WG Sotho
EQ10: I believe that I am a person who helps and is considerate of others.
Between Groups
6.54 1.00 6.54 5.64 0.02 0.02 3.68 3.95
Within Groups
412.04 355.00 1.16
Total 418.58 356.00 EQ19: I
respect others’
emotions
Between
Groups 48.98 1.00 48.98 49.86 0.00 0.12 3.20 3.95
Within Groups
348.69 355.00 0.98
Total 397.66 356.00 EQ5: I like to
talk with others about their problems.
Between Groups
26.73 1.00 26.73 18.90 0.00 0.05 3.08 3.63
Within Groups
502.15 355.00 1.42
Total 528.88 356.00 EQ28: When I
am conversing with someone, I am
concentrated to what he/she is telling me.
Between Groups
8.14 1.00 8.14 8.91 0.00 0.02 3.65 3.95
Within Groups
324.35 355.00 0.91 Total 332.49 356.00
Item
descriptions Sum of
squares df Mean
square f Sig. Eta
squared Mean
WG Mean
Sotho
EQ50: I can Between 19.83 1.00 19.83 14.82 0.00 0.04 3.21 3.68
easily Groups
understand what someone
else feels by putting myself
in their position
Within 475.16 355.00 1.34
Groups
Total 495.00 356.00
EQ51: When Between 3.46 1.00 3.46 4.12 0.04 0.01 3.70 3.89
someone is Groups
talking to me
about their problems, I almost feel like
I have experienced these problems
myself.
Within 298.20 355.00 0.84
Groups
Total 301.66 356.00
EQ14: I am Between 23.33 1.00 23.33 3.85 0.05 0.01 2.89 3.41
interested in Groups
others’
psychological
motives.
Within 2153.20 355.00 6.07
Groups
Total 2176.53 356.00
EQ36: I make others feel
Between Groups
168.50 1.00 168.50 126.63 0.00 0.26 2.89 3.41
comfortable with me.
Within Groups
472.38 355.00 1.33 Total 640.88 356.00
Table 3 provides the ANOVA results for the mean item scores between and within groups for the factor „Caring and Empathy‟.
Table 3 indicates that there are significant mean differences (p≤0.01) between the language groups on all the items except for item 34, 10, 51 and 14 on the “Caring and Empathy‟ factor.
The effect sizes (Eta squared) varied between small, medium and a large effect. According to Steyn (2010), 0.20 would be considered to be a small effect size, a medium effect size would be 0.50, while 0.80 would be a large effect size. The majority of the effect sizes had no practical significance, apart from item 37, which had small practical significance of 0.23.
These differences on an item level provide a sound basis for further DIF investigation.
Table 4
Summary of ANOVAs between cultural groups per item on the Control of Emotions Factor
Item descriptions
Sum of squares
df Mean
square
f Sig. Eta
squared
Mean WG
Mean Sotho Control of
emotions
EQ15: I often get angry and afterwards I find my anger inexcusable.
Between Groups
78.19 1.00 78.19 7.99 0.01 0.02 3.79 2.85
Within Groups
3473.39 355.00 9.78
Total 3551.58 356.00
EQ35: I get carried away by emotions of anger.
Between
Groups 91.39 1.00 91.39 77.28 0.00 0.18 3.78 2.76
Within Groups
419.82 355.00 1.18
Total 511.20 356.00
EQ7: When I Between 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.70 0.41 0.00 2.15 2.05 am upset Groups
everything bothers me.
Within 465.83 355.00 1.31
Groups
Total 466.74 356.00
EQ17: I often Between 3.60 1.00 3.60 2.64 0.11 0.01 3.66 3.46
regret things I Groups
say when I get
angry.
Within 484.69 355.00 1.37
Groups
Total 488.29 356.00
EQ6: When I Between 81.94 1.00 81.94 55.01 0.00 0.13 3.63 2.67
am under Groups
pressure I snap.
Within 528.82 355.00 1.49
Groups
Total 610.76 356.00
EQ47: When I Between 11.59 1.00 11.59 11.61 0.00 0.03 3.79 3.43
am Groups
experiencing a
sad event I react intensely.
Within 354.35 355.00 1.00
Groups
Total 365.94 356.00
EQ2: I often Between 12.20 1.00 12.20 8.04 0.01 0.02 2.88 2.51
have Groups
conflicting emotions for
the same persons.
Within 538.45 355.00 1.52
Groups
Total 550.66 356.00
51
Item Sum of df Mean f Sig. Eta Mean Mean
Item descriptions
Sum of squares
df Mean
square
f Sig. Eta
squared
Mean WG
Mean Sotho EQ38: I have
the tendency to
Between Groups
16.13 1.00 16.13 10.13 0.00 0.03 2.01 2.44
show my impatience to
others.
Within 565.12 355.00 1.59
Groups
Total 581.25 356.00
EQ52: When I try to help
Between Groups
80.24 1.00 80.24 58.73 0.00 0.14 3.46 2.51
someone, I unintentionally
give directions
by strongly criticizing them.
Within 485.01 355.00 1.37 Groups
Total 565.25 356.00
EQ49: Prior Between 32.70 1.00 32.70 28.45 0.00 0.07 3.76 3.15
to important Groups
events, I feel
tense.
Within 407.92 355.00 1.15
Groups
Total 440.62 356.00
EQ31: I Between 68.74 1.00 68.74 55.31 0.00 0.14 2.87 3.75
usually control Groups
my anger.
Within 441.24 355.00 1.24
Groups
Total 509.98 356.00
EQ1: I get Between 139.77 1.00 139.77 121.85 0.00 0.26 1.37 2.63
angry easily, Groups
but my anger
does not last
for too long.
Within 407.19 355.00 1.15
Groups
Total 546.96 356.00
Table 4 gives the ANOVA results for the mean item scores between and within groups for the factor „Control of Emotion‟.
Table 4 indicates that there are significant mean differences (p≤0.01) between the language groups on all the items except for items 7 and 17 on the “Control of emotion‟ factor. The effect sizes (Eta squared) varied between small, medium, and a large effect. The majority of the effect sizes (Eta squared) appeared to be of no practical significance, except for item 1, with a 0.26 practical significance.
These differences on an item level provide a sound basis for further DIF investigation.
Table 5
Summary of ANOVAs between cultural groups per item on the Expression and Recognition of Emotions Factor
Item Sum of df Mean f Sig. Eta Mean Mean
descriptions squares square squared WG Sotho
Expression and Recognition of
Emotions
EQ20: I find it difficult to express my emotions to others.
Between Groups
47.55 1.00 47.55 43.77 0.00 0.11 1.88 2.62
Within Groups
385.65 355.00 1.09 Total 433.20 356.00
Item Sum of df Mean f Sig. Eta Mean Mean
descriptions squares square squared WG Sotho
EQ13: I am Between 36.41 1.00 36.41 27.75 0.00 0.17 2.20 2.84
unable to Groups
explain my
emotional
state to others.
Within 465.77 355.00 1.31
Groups
Total 502.19 356.00
EQ11: I am careful not
Between Groups
3.72 1.00 3.72 4.80 0.03 0.01 1.91 2.11
to reveal my
emotions to
others.
Within Groups
275.14 355.00 0.78
Total 278.86 356.00
EQ23: I am Between 8.33 1.00 8.33 7.80 0.01 0.02 2.24 2.55
reserved in Groups
expressing
emotions.
Within Groups
378.94 355.00 1.07 Total 387.27 356.00
EQ18: I believe that few people understand my emotions.
Between Groups
14.31 1.00 14.31 9.78 0.00 0.03 3.13 2.73
Within Groups
519.62 355.00 1.46 Total 533.93 356.00
Item Sum of df Mean f Sig. Eta Mean Mean
descriptions squares square squared WG Sotho
EQ43: I find it difficult to describe exactly what I feel in words.
Between Groups
6.14 1.00 6.14 4.14 0.04 0.01 3.59 3.32
Within Groups
526.99 355.00 1.48
Total 533.13 356.00
EQ4: Most Between 29.33 1.00 29.33 19.24 0.00 0.05 3.60 3.02
people cannot
Groups
understand
exactly what
I feel.
Within 541.16 355.00 1.52
Groups
Total 570.50 356.00
EQ26: I Between 37.91 1.00 37.91 34.16 0.00 0.09 2.12 2.78
rarely Groups
analyse my
emotions.
Within 394.02 355.00 1.11
Groups
Total 431.93 356.00
EQ9: I Between 0.98 1.00 0.98 0.79 0.37 0.00 2.34 2.44
usually keep Groups
to myself when I am
sad.
Within 439.81 355.00 1.24
Groups
Total 440.79 356.00
EQ30: I overlook my
Between Groups
24.59 1.00 24.59 22.18 0.00 0.06 2.19 2.72
emotions.
Within Groups
393.57 355.00 1.11 Total 418.16 356.00
Table 5 gives the ANOVA results for the mean item scores between and within groups for the factor “Expression and Recognition of Emotions‟.
Table 5 indicates that there are significant mean differences (p≤0.01) between the language groups on all the items, except for items 11, 23, 43, and 9 on the “Expression and Recognition of Emotions‟ factor. The effect sizes (Eta squared) varied between small and medium effect. The majority of the effect sizes (Eta squared) appeared to be of no significance.
These differences on an item level provide a sound basis for further DIF investigation.
Table 6
Summary of ANOVAs between cultural groups per item on the Use of Emotion to Facilitate Thinking
Item descriptions Sum of df Mean f Sig. Eta Mean Mean
squares square squared WG Sotho
Use of Emotion to Facilitate Thinking EQ42: I am usually
pessimistic about future
accomplishments.
Between Groups
1.91 1.00 1.91 1.85 0.18 0.01 2.10 2.24
Within Groups
365.94 355.00 1.03
Total 367.85 356.00 EQ3: I have the
tendency to focus on the negative side of things.
Between Groups
28.87 1.00 28.87 22.78 0.00 0.06 3.26 3.83
Within Groups
449.93 355.00 1.27 Total 478.80 356.00
EQ44: It’s Between 8.78 1.00 8.78 6.63 0.01 0.02 3.10 3.41 difficult for me to Groups
be optimistic.
Within Groups
469.76 355.00 1.32
Total 478.54 356.00
EQ22: I think of Between 24.16 1.00 24.16 4.62 0.03 0.01 3.85 4.37
the positive side Groups
of things.
Within 1854.84 355.00 5.23
Groups
Total 1879.00 356.00
EQ39: I always Between 65.85 1.00 65.85 48.07 0.00 0.12 2.84 3.71
try to see the Groups
good side of things.
Within 486.35 355.00 1.37
Groups
Total 552.20 356.00
EQ8: I deal with Between 75.12 1.00 75.12 48.21 0.00 0.12 2.81 3.73
my problems in a Groups
positive way by
trusting myself.
Within 553.19 355.00 1.56 Groups
Total 628.31 356.00
EQ40: I function Between 9.25 1.00 9.25 11.62 0.00 0.03 3.84 4.17
more based on the hope for
Groups
success and less
with the fear of
failure.
Within 282.57 355.00 0.80
Groups
Total 291.82 356.00
57
Item descriptions Sum of df Mean f Sig. Eta Mean Mean
Item descriptions Sum of df Mean f Sig. Eta Mean Mean
squares square squared WG Sotho
EQ12: Most of Between 13.98 1.00 13.98 11.61 0.00 0.03 3.65 4.05
the time I believe Groups
things will go well for me.
Within Groups
427.35 355.00 1.20 Total 441.33 356.00
EQ32: I feel Between 10.14 1.00 10.14 10.37 0.00 0.03 3.65 3.98
confident before Groups
important events
in my life.
Within 347.11 355.00 0.98
Groups
Total 357.25 356.00
EQ48: I trust my Between 52.28 1.00 52.28 49.81 0.00 0.12 3.00 3.77
abilities and I Groups
undertake the resolution of difficult situations.
Within 372.59 355.00 1.05
Groups
Total 424.87 356.00
EQ45: When faced with
Between Groups
89.10 1.00 89.10 58.26 0.00 0. 141 2.31 3.32
failure, I tend to
behave
energetically by
designing a new
plan of action.
Within 542.96 355.00 1.53
Groups
Total 632.06 356.00
EQ27: I adapt Between 39.78 1.00 39.78 31.09 0.00 0.08 2.83 3.50
easily by reacting Groups
creatively to any obstacles.
Within Groups
454.25 355.00 1.28 Total 494.03 356.00
Item descriptions Sum of df Mean f Sig. Eta Mean Mean
squares square squared WG Sotho
EQ29: I find Between 1.52 1.00 1.52 2.25 0.14 0.01 3.92 3.46
various Groups
alternative solutions to a problem.
Within 239.48 355.00 0.68
Groups
Total 241.00 356.00
EQ16: My worry Between 67.43 1.00 67.43 45.01 0.00 0.11 2.58 3.46
and stress do not Groups
decrease my ability to complete any task.
Within 531.82 355.00 1.50
Groups
Total 599.25 356.00
EQ25: Usually Between 87.97 1.00 87.97 53.57 0.00 0.13 3.92 2.92
my personal Groups
problems do not
affect my performance at work.
Within 582.96 355.00 1.64
Groups
Total 670.93 356.00
Table 6 shows the ANOVA results for the mean item scores between and within groups for the factor „Use of Emotions to Facilitate Thinking‟.
Table 6 indicates that there are significant mean differences (p≤0.01) between the language groups on all the items except for item 42, 22 and 29 on the “Use of Emotions to Facilitate Thinking‟ factor. The effect sizes (Eta squared) varied between small, medium and a large effect.
The majority of the effect sizes (Eta squared) appeared to be of no significance.
These differences on an item level provide a sound basis for further DIF investigation.
Table 7 indicates the uniform and non-uniform biasness of the 52 items of the GEIS. Zumbo (1999) suggested that for an item to be classified as DIF (i.e., a collective of uniform and non- uniform DIF), the 2-degree of freedom Chi-squares test conducted between steps 1 and 3 have to have p-values of less than or equal to 0.01. When referring to R² effect sizes, Jodoin and Gierl (2001) classify R² < 0.035 as negligible, 0.035 <R²<0.070 as moderate, and R² >0.07 as large effects sizes.
Table 7
Uniform and Non-uniform Item Bias of the items of the GEIS
Item Chi-
Square
DF Sig. Nagelkerke R² Δ
Chi- Square
DF Sig Nagelkerke R² Δ Caring and
Empathy
51 24.81 1 0.00 0.06 24.82 2 0.00 0.00
50 115.17 1 0.00 0.24 116.27 2 0.00 0.00
46 36.93 1 0.00 0.04 42.56 2 0.00 0.02
41 55.80 1 0.00 0.04 67.37 2 0.00 0.03
37 179.75 1 0.00 0.20 200.27 2 0.00 0.04
36 196.99 1 0.00 0.18 224.19 2 0.00 0.05
34 36.36 1 0.00 0.10 39.14 2 0.00 0.01
33 3.35 1 0.07 0.00 15.05 2 0.00 0.03
28 30.11 1 0.00 0.06 30.51 2 0.00 0.00
24 117.84 1 0.00 0.24 118.03 2 0.00 0.00
21 230.09 1 0.00 0.34 230.34 2 0.00 0.00
19 183.13 1 0.00 0.29 184.52 2 0.00 0.00
14 122.89 1 0.00 0.29 136.81 2 0.00 0.03
10 102.66 1 0.00 0.25 110.57 2 0.00 0.02
5 131.22 1 0.00 0.26 133.00 2 0.00 0.00
Control of Emotions
52 296.38 1 0.00 0.45 296.38 2 0.00 0.00
49 114.96 1 0.00 0.23 114.96 2 0.00 0.00
47 105.66 1 0.00 0.25 115.05 2 0.00 0.02
38 1.71 1 0.19 0.00 3.40 2 0.18 0.01
35 271.23 1 0.00 0.39 273.02 2 0.00 0.00
31 168.38 1 0.00 0.25 171.21 2 0.00 0.01
17 40.60 1 0.00 0.11 44.67 2 0.00 0.01
15 184.08 1 0.00 0.37 191.21 2 0.00 0.01
7 7.11 1 0.01 0.02 9.44 2 0.01 0.01
6 219.62 1 0.00 0.36 219.90 2 0.00 0.00
2 74.32 1 0.00 0.18 77.02 2 0.00 0.01
1 48.48 1 0.00 0.00 123.87 2 0.00 0.18