An Investigation of the Validity of Empathy Measures

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among several instruments that purport to measure empathy in the counseling process. The results from a correlational and factor analysis indicated a positive and significant relationship between certain measures used in this study. One of the Cline Opinion and Attitude tests, the Dymond‐Smith Model, the Accurate Empathy Scale, the Relationship Questionnaire, and the Discrimination Index appear to measure a construct called interpersonal communication. Other Cline Tests and the Discrimination Index appear to measure other constructs not related to the Rogerian definition of empathy.

Construct validity of an empathy instrument

“…It follows that if empathy cannot be defined dialectically, there will be continued confusion over how it is measured and whether it has positive effects on the patients/clients outcome. These points were asserted previously by Conklin and Hunt (1975) and Gladstein (1977).…”

“…There was no evidence that data from different sources, gathered in different ways, provide the same or similar meanings of the construct. This underscores the confusion in the literature concerning attempts to define empathy (Aspy, 1975;Bachrach, 1976; Becker & Meyers, 1974; Beres & Arlow, 1974; Conklin & Hunt, 1975;Gladstein, 1977;Hackney, 1978;Hogan, 1975;Iannotti, 1975; Keefe, 1976Keefe, , 1977 Rogers, 1975;Rotenberg, 1974;Shapiro, 1974;Stark, 1977;Stetler, 1977;Szalita, 1976;Wasmuth, 1978). It follows that if empathy cannot be defined dialectically, there will be continued confusion over how it is measured and whether it has positive effects on the patients/clients outcome.…”

The Relationship of Facilitative Functioning to Effective Peer Supervision

“…The relationship questionnaire (Truax & Carkhuff 1967) was administered to all counselor trainees. Split-half reliability coefficients of .86 and .96 have been reported for this instrument (Conklin & Hunt 1975). The instrument was designed to rate supervisors' level of func-tioning on the dimensions of accurate empathy, nonpossessive warmth, genuineness, intensity and intimacy of interpersonal contact, and concreteness and on their overall therapeutic relationship with their trainees.…”

“Evidence” on characteristic empathy: A reply to cross and slee

“…When each of the measures studied is construed as tapping various points in the communication process, observed relationships between the measures conform to predictions made from the model (Watson,Note 1,. The finding from the Conklin and Hunt (1975) study that the Index of Discrimination loaded on a factor characterized as stereotypic behaviour gives additional point to the Gormally and Hill (1974) conjecture about the need for differentiation between the ability to write a stylistically correct response and to respond empathically in a real situation. It is precisely this kind of thinking which is the rationale for differentiating characteristic empathy from other empathy variables.…”

“…This input is, of course, only part of the input which will determine the actual state of empathy achieved in the interaction. Conklin and Hunt (1975) studied the degree of relationship between scoresregistered on various types of empathy measures. Their findings offer some support for the model.…”