Measuring response empathy: The development of a multicomponent rating scale.

Abstract

This article describes the development of and psychometric data on a new approach to the measurement of the empathic quality of counselor behavior. The features of this approach are, first, the division of the empathy construct into a set of components tapping different aspects of empathic behavior; second, greater specification of the construct; and third, focus on the empathic qualities of individual counselor responses. An existing measure, the Lister Empathy Scale, provided the basis for the Response Empathy Rating Scale, which consists of eight components: frame, inference, accuracy, here and now, centrality, words, voice, manner, and impact. Good interrater reliability was found for the whole scale, as well as for all but two of the components. Centrality was the "core" component, and factor analysis suggested two underlying factors, Depth Expressiveness and Empathic Exploration. Evidence for validity was found in correlations with client ratings of feeling understood; however, these correlations were strongest when ratings were averaged to form larger units, such as episodes or sessions. Empathy is probably the most widely cited and studied process variable in the counseling and psychotherapy literature. However, the history of empathy research is plagued with definitional and methodological controversy (e.g.

La empatía psicoterapéutica y su evaluación : una revisión

“…Actualmente se reconoce que la empatía terapéutica es ante todo un proceso complejo que incluye diferentes dimensiones, fases, componentes, tareas y momentos (Elliott et al, 1982). Focalizar la empatía en uno solo de estos aspectos, en lugar de entenderla como un proceso que abarca un complejo conjunto de operaciones, ha llevado a cierta clase de sobresimplifi cación que ha impedido su comprensión y aplicación.…”

“…Al tratar de apresar la complejidad y versatilidad del proceso empático, han surgido instrumentos que miden la empatía como una habilidad humana estable o rasgo de personalidad (Hogan, 1969;Mehrabian y Epstein, 1972), como un estado (Barrett-Lennard, 1962;Dymond, 1949), como un concepto multifásico formado por multicomponentes (Hargrove, 1974;Elliott et al, 1982), o como un proceso momento-a-momento (Hill y O´Grady, 1985;Hill, Helms, Spiegel y Tichenor, 1988;Hill, Thompson y Corbertt, 1992). Esas mismas medidas se diferencian también según evalúan la empatía desde un punto de vista cognitivo (Hogan, 1969;Truax y Carkhuff, 1967), afectivo (Eisenberg y Miller, 1987;Mehrabian y Epstein, 1972), o con ambos elementos (Davis, 1983).…”

A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the therapeutic alliance, empathy, and genuineness in individual adult psychotherapy.

“…Similar to client-rated empathy, early observer-rated scales view empathy from a Rogerian perspective (Carkhuff, 1969;Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). Newer measures base observer ratings on broad understandings of empathic responses (e.g., Response Empathy Rating Scale; Elliott et al, 1982).…”

“…Response Empathy Rating Scale; Elliott et al, 1982). Along with measuring empathy, the BLRI contains scales measuring genuineness in each of its revisions (Barrett-Lennard, 1962;1978;1986).…”

“…Similar to client-rated empathy, early observer-rated scales view empathy from a Rogerian perspective (Carkhuff, 1969;Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). Newer measures base observer ratings on broad understandings of empathic responses (e.g.,Response Empathy Rating Scale; Elliott et al, 1982). Along with measuring empathy, the BLRI contains scales measuring genuineness in each of its revisions (Barrett-Lennard, 1962;1978;1986).…”