INTERNAL CONSISTENCY (Cronbach’s alpha) for 25 items of the EPS across the EPS data samples: .945

MEAN INTER-ITEM CORRELATION: .41

SPLIT HALF : .90

TEST-RETEST

Based on Baker et al (2010), 53-item version of the EPS with data extracted on the 25 items of the final EPS version

4-6 week interval after original test

coefficient for the entire scale was .74 (p<.001)

coefficients for the different subscales ranged from .55 – .84

Difference in total scores between psychological, pain and healthy groups, F-values and significance levels for total EPS score:

When comparing individuals on the EPS; (healthy controls, those with mental health problems and those suffering from chronic pain), highly significant differences emerged between the healthy controls and unhealthy groups.  In particular, people with mental health problems presented with significantly high elevated scores on nearly every sub-scale.

Differences in total scores between English, Polish, Hindi and Portuguese samples; F-values and significance levels

Analyses such as these suggest that the EPS has strong potential for detecting differences between groups.

Concurrent validity

Comparison with other scales

The table below presents data from two studies in which the EPS was compared with other theoretically related assessment scales.

Note that the Baker, Thomas, Thomas, and Owens (2007) study used version 2 of the scale, so items were not identical to the final EPS version. However, only those similar to the subscales have been included in analysis.

Baker et al (2007) compared the EPS with the Courtauld Emotional Control Scale (CECS; Watson & Greer, 1983), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994) and the anxiety and depression severity scale (SAD) from the Foulds & Bedford Delusions-Symptoms-State Inventory (DSSI; Bedford, Foulds, & Sheffield, 1976) on a varied sample of healthy individuals and people with physical or psychological health problems (n = 248).

Baker & Abbey (2008) compared the EPS with the anxiety and depression severity scale (SAD) from the Foulds & Bedford DSSI in a group of patients referred by medical practitioners who attended an emotional intelligence group (n = 35).

The EPS was reasonably strongly correlated with both anxiety and depression. In another paper (Baker et al., 2012) we explored the co-correlation of psychological symptoms, alexithymia and emotional processing, showing that no one element was dominant, but rather they were closely interrelated.

As expected the EPS was most strongly correlated with Factors 1 and 2 of the TAS-20, but less so with Factor 3.

The CECS was, as predicted, more strongly correlated (r=.53) with the Suppression factor than with other factors of the EPS.

Sensitivity to change

To evaluate the validity of the EPS as a measure of change, the Baker et al. (2012) study compared EPS scores before and after a course of CBT in patients referred for psychological difficulties.

For details please refer to the article:

Baker R, Owens M, Thomas S, Whittlesea A, Abbey G, Gower P, Tosunlar L, Corrigan E, Thomas PW: Does CBT facilitate emotional processing? Behav Cogn Psychother; 2012 Jan;40(1):19-37

If you are interest in more detailed analysis please refer to the Norms Booklet:

Baker, R., Thomas, P., Thomas, S., Santonastaso, M., & Corrigan, E. (2015). Emotional Processing Scale Norms Booklet – Version 1. Oxford, UK: Hogrefe.