Understanding EQ Scores
An EQTiger score is a descriptive 0 to 100 number built from your answers to scenario and habit questions in six dimensions. The bands (Emerging below 40, Developing 40 to 59, Established 60 to 79, Strong 80 and above) are design cut points, not norms, so a 70 does not mean you did better than 70 percent of people. Read the score as a summary of one sitting that points you to a skill worth practicing.
Editorially checked
Explore your emotions and relationships with the free EQTiger assessment.
By EQTiger Editorial. Published .
Reviewed by: pending qualified review
Numbers feel precise, and that is the main risk with any EQ score. This guide explains exactly how EQTiger produces its numbers, what the four band labels mean, and the questions worth asking before you let a score change how you see yourself.
From answers to a number
EQTiger has 36 items across six dimensions: self-awareness, regulation, empathy, social awareness, relationship communication and conflict navigation. Each dimension has three scenario questions, where you pick one of four responses, and three habit questions, where you report how often something is true on a five-point scale from “Rarely” to “Almost always.”
- Scenario choices carry effectiveness weights written by the item authors. Habit answers carry frequency weights, with some items reverse-worded.
- Each kind of answer becomes a 0 to 100 component: a judgment component and a habits component.
- When both are available, they count equally toward the dimension score.
- The overall score is the average of the scored dimensions.
A dimension needs at least three answered items to be scored, and an overall score needs at least four scored dimensions. A skipped item counts as missing, not as zero. The full rules are on the methodology page.
What the four bands mean
| Band | Score range | Reasonable reading | Not a valid reading |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emerging | 0 to 39 | Your answers in this area rarely matched the authored effective responses or reported the habits only occasionally | You lack this skill |
| Developing | 40 to 59 | A mix: some situations handled in the keyed way, others not | You are below average |
| Established | 60 to 79 | Most answers matched the keyed responses or frequent habits | You have proven competence |
| Strong | 80 to 100 | Answers consistently matched keyed responses and frequent habits | You are in the top group of adults |
The cut points at 40, 60 and 80 are design choices. They make feedback readable, and they are not norms, clinical categories or demonstrated thresholds of skill. Because a boundary is a line on a scale, a 59 and a 60 get different labels for what may be a single different answer. Each band has its own page if you want detail: Emerging, Developing, Established and Strong.
Why a 70 is not “better than 70 percent”
To say where a score stands among other people, a test needs a reference sample: a large, described group who took the same items under the same rules. The MSCEIT’s developers, for instance, built their scoring from a general sample of 2,112 adults and compared it with a panel of 21 emotion experts (Mayer and colleagues, 2003). Even with that groundwork, reviewers still debate how well ability tests measure what they claim (O’Connor and colleagues, 2019).
EQTiger has no such reference sample. It cannot tell you that you are above average, how you compare with people your age, or where you would fall in any population. A 70 is 70 on this scale. If you have seen EQ scores like 110 or 140 elsewhere, those come from tests that use standardized scales, and what a score of 140 means explains why they cannot be converted into EQTiger numbers.
Reading a judgment-habits gap
Alex scores 74 in conflict navigation. Underneath, the judgment component is 89 and the habits component is 58, a 31-point gap, so the report flags it (gaps of 25 points or more are flagged). The scenario answers picked the authored de-escalating response almost every time. The habit answers said Alex “sometimes” asks questions before defending a position.
One reading: Alex knows the move but does not reach for it under pressure. Another: the scenarios were about colleagues, while Alex answered the habit questions thinking about a sibling. A third: with three items per component, one answer moves the number a lot. Alex’s best next step is to recall one recent argument and check which reading fits, not to accept the first story the gap suggests. For more, see the judgment vs. habits gap.
When the score surprises you
Two findings pull in opposite directions here, and both are worth holding. First, people’s sense of their own EI is a weak guide: self-estimates of performance on an ability test were essentially unrelated to actual scores, and people in the bottom half overestimated how they had done (Brackett and colleagues, 2006). Second, the lowest scorers in another set of studies tended to dismiss concrete feedback as inaccurate or irrelevant (Sheldon, Dunning, and Ames, 2014). So “that can’t be right” is not, by itself, a good reason to discard a result.
At the same time, EQTiger is an unvalidated reflection tool, and it can simply be wrong about you. A fair test of a surprising result is behavioral: can you find two recent, specific moments that fit it, and two that do not? If you cannot find any that fit, trust the moments over the number.
Free summary, full report, and missing answers
The free summary shows bands and a profile without numeric dimension scores; the full report adds the numbers and more detailed interpretation. Paying for more detail does not make the result more accurate. If you answered fewer than 27 of the 36 items, the report shows a low-completion caution, and two attempts with different skipped items summarize different information. Strengths and growth areas compare dimensions within your own attempt, never with other people.
Try it: a ten-minute score review
- Write your two highest and two lowest dimensions without looking at the numbers again.
- For each, write one specific recent moment that fits and one that does not.
- Check any flagged judgment-habits gap against a real situation, using the three readings in the example above.
- Choose one lower dimension and one exact behavior to practice for two weeks, such as asking one question before answering in disagreements.
- If you retake, wait until you have practiced, and compare your notes as well as the scores.
Keep the number in proportion
A score is a summary of one sitting, shaped by the items, your mood and the situations you pictured. Use it to choose practice, not to rank yourself or anyone else. EQTiger should never be used for hiring or to judge another person. For the bigger picture on testing methods, read how emotional intelligence is measured; for what to do next, read how to improve emotional intelligence.
Use the free EQTiger assessment to choose a starting point for reflection. Read what the assessment includes and the limitations before interpreting your result.
Research notes
O’Connor and colleagues, 2019: This critical review separates ability, trait and mixed EI, notes that more than 30 widely used EI measures exist, and recommends matching the measure to the purpose after checking its factor structure, reliability and validity evidence.
Peter J. O’Connor, Andrew Hill, Maria Kaya, Brett Martin (2019). The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Researchers and Practitioners. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1116. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01116
Mayer and colleagues, 2003: In the test developers’ study of 2,112 adults and 21 emotion experts, the general sample and the experts largely agreed on which MSCEIT answers were correct, the test showed reasonable reliability, and factor analysis supported the theorized structure.
John D. Mayer, Peter Salovey, David R. Caruso, Gill Sitarenios (2003). Measuring emotional intelligence with the MSCEIT V2.0. Emotion, 3(1), 97-105. doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.3.1.97
Brackett and colleagues, 2006: Across three studies, self-rated emotional abilities and MSCEIT performance scores were not strongly correlated, and only the performance test predicted observed social competence, and only for men.
Marc A. Brackett, Susan E. Rivers, Sara Shiffman, Nicole Lerner, Peter Salovey (2006). Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 780-795. doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780
Sheldon, Dunning, and Ames, 2014: Across three studies of professional students, the lowest scorers on an EI test overestimated their performance, dismissed the accuracy or relevance of concrete feedback, and were less interested than top scorers in ways to improve.
Oliver J. Sheldon, David Dunning, Daniel R. Ames (2014). Emotionally unskilled, unaware, and uninterested in learning more: Reactions to feedback about deficits in emotional intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 125-137. doi.org/10.1037/a0034138
3 questions
Questions
What is a good EQ score?
It depends on the test. On EQTiger’s descriptive 0 to 100 scale, 60 and above falls in the Established and Strong bands, but those cut points are design choices, not evidence of how you compare with other adults.
Is an EQTiger score of 70 above average?
EQTiger cannot say. It has no representative reference sample, so a score of 70 means 70 on this product’s scale, not a rank among other people.
Can I compare my EQTiger score with a score from another EQ test?
No. Different instruments measure different things on different scales. A 70 here and a 110 elsewhere are not comparable numbers.
Related
- No. 01How Emotional Intelligence Is MeasuredEmotional intelligence is measured in three main ways: ability tests that score answers against a key (such as the MSCEIT), self-report questionnaires about your emotional tendencies (such as the TEIQue), and mixed or multi-rater instruments (such as the EQ-i 2.0 and ESCI). These methods do not agree closely: in one study, self-rated EI correlated only r = .19 with ability test scores. Pick a measure by what you want to know, and never treat one method’s evidence as proof for another.
- No. 02How to Improve Emotional IntelligenceYou can improve emotional intelligence, and meta-analyses of training programs find a moderate improvement on average. The most practical levers are getting outside feedback (because self-assessment of EI is unreliable), naming emotions precisely, planning responses in advance with if-then plans, and reinterpreting situations rather than suppressing feelings. Expect steady change in specific habits over weeks, not a transformation from one course.
- No. 03Components of Emotional Intelligence, Model by ModelThe components of emotional intelligence depend on which model you use. The ability model has four branches: perceiving, using, understanding and managing emotions. Bar-On’s model has five composite scales, the Goleman-Boyatzis competency model has twelve competencies in four clusters, and trait EI has fifteen facets. The lists overlap on self-awareness, regulation and reading others, and differ on whether optimism, motivation and assertiveness count.
- No. 04Emotional Intelligence Myths, Checked Against the EvidenceThe most common emotional intelligence myths are that EQ matters more than IQ, that emotionally intelligent people are always kind or calm, that you can read emotions from a face, and that your own sense of your EQ is accurate. None holds up well: popular success claims were rejected even by EI’s originators, emotional skill can serve manipulative goals, facial movements vary widely across people and situations, and self-ratings barely track tested ability.
Your next 9 minutes
Understand your emotions.
36 questions about everyday moments. A fresh starting point for reflection.
Free to take. Full report $6.95. One-time payment. No subscription.