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

Abstract

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.

Empathy and Schizotypy: A Network Comparison of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index in High and Low Schizotypy Groups

“…Second, our study was limited by only including one measure of empathy. While the IRI is one of the most widely-used measures of empathy [ 9 ], our work informs only studies using the IRI and not the broader body of empathy research. There are many other measures of empathy [ 76 , 77 ], including those built from alternate empathy conceptualizations [ 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 ], which our results cannot inform.…”

“…The IRI includes the empathic concern subscale (IRI-EC), which measures one’s ability to feel sympathetic emotions towards others; the personal distress subscale (IRI-PD), which measures feelings of distress when exposed to other’s emotionally heightened states; the perspective-taking subscale (IRI-PT), which measures one’s ability to take the perspective of others; and the fantasy subscale (IRI-FS), which measures one’s ability to imagine themselves in the scenarios of characters in fictional stories, such as television or books [ 1 , 8 ]. The IRI has been used in numerous studies [ 9 ] that cross numerous countries and populations [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. There have also been many examinations of the IRI’s psychometric properties that have questioned the optimal structure of this measure [ 9 , 15 , 16 ].…”

“…The IRI has been used in numerous studies [ 9 ] that cross numerous countries and populations [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]. There have also been many examinations of the IRI’s psychometric properties that have questioned the optimal structure of this measure [ 9 , 15 , 16 ]. Appropriate assessment of empathy is vital, as it is closely linked to important outcomes, including social functioning [ 2 ].…”

Exploring the impact of awe on the multifaceted construct of empathy.

“…We included multiple empathy scales to rigorously assess empathy since there is no gold standard regarding how it should be assessed (Lima & Osório, 2021). We included the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983), which is the most commonly used empathy measure (Lima & Osório, 2021), but lacks items assessing emotion contagion.…”

Virtual reality stimulation and organizational neuroscience for the assessment of empathy

“…The assessments of organizational empathy have mainly relied on self-reports and questionnaires, which present limitations and biases (e.g., Nederhof, 1985 ; Furnham, 1986 ; Grimm, 2010 ). For example, response biases in terms of social desirability or variability among different empathy instruments have been indicated because they do not address the same dimensions of empathy or present poor construct validity (see de Lima and de Lima Osório, 2021 ). Against this limitation, empathy assessments based on physiological and behavioral data are emerging to complement standard empathy psychometrics (e.g., eye-tracking; Cowan et al, 2014 ).…”