4.7 Review

Empathy: Assessment Instruments and Psychometric Quality - A Systematic Literature Review With a Meta-Analysis of the Past Ten Years

Journal

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.781346

Keywords

empathy; psychometrics; validity; reliability; instruments

Funding

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Capes)
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [302601/2019-8]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to verify the psychometric qualities of empathy assessment instruments from 2009 to 2019. The Empathy Quotient, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy were the most frequently addressed instruments, showing good internal consistency but weak evidence of validity. While there were diverse instruments available, limitations in terms of validity remain, and a gold-standard instrument has not yet been identified.
Objective: To verify the psychometric qualities and adequacy of the instruments available in the literature from 2009 to 2019 to assess empathy in the general population.Methods: The following databases were searched: PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scielo, and LILACS using the keywords empathy AND valid* OR reliability OR psychometr*. A qualitative synthesis was performed with the findings, and meta-analytic measures were used for reliability and convergent validity.Results: Fifty studies were assessed, which comprised 23 assessment instruments. Of these, 13 proposed new instruments, 18 investigated the psychometric properties of instruments previously developed, and 19 reported cross-cultural adaptations. The Empathy Quotient, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy were the instruments most frequently addressed. They presented good meta-analytic indicators of internal consistency [reliability, generalization meta-analyses (Cronbach's alpha): 0.61 to 0.86], but weak evidence of validity [weak structural validity; low to moderate convergent validity (0.27 to 0.45)]. Few studies analyzed standardization, prediction, or responsiveness for the new and old instruments. The new instruments proposed few innovations, and their psychometric properties did not improve. In general, cross-cultural studies reported adequate adaptation processes and equivalent psychometric indicators, though there was a lack of studies addressing cultural invariance.Conclusion: Despite the diversity of instruments assessing empathy and the many associated psychometric studies, there remain limitations, especially in terms of validity. Thus far, we cannot yet nominate a gold-standard instrument.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available