8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Investigation on the Rationality of the Extant Ways of Scoring the Interpersonal Reactivity Index Based on Confirmatory Factor Analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          As the most frequently used tool for measuring empathy, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is often scored by researchers arbitrarily and casually. Many commonly used IRI scoring approaches and their corresponding measurement models are unverified, which may make the conclusions of subsequent variable relation studies controversial and even misleading. We make the first effort to summarize these measurement models and to evaluate rationality of the common scoring methods of the IRI by confirmatory factor analysis, focusing on model fitting, factor loading, and model-based reliability simultaneously. The results show that most of these models do not fit well, indicating that the scoring approaches of the IRI corresponding to these models may be problematic. Relatively speaking, better scoring approaches of the IRI include summing empathic concern (EC) and perspective taking (PT) as the total score of the IRI and reporting the score of PT as cognitive empathy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The (non)relation between empathy and aggression: surprising results from a meta-analysis.

              Assumptions regarding the importance of empathy are pervasive. Given the impact these assumptions have on research, assessment, and treatment, it is imperative to know whether they are valid. Of particular interest is a basic question: Are deficits in empathy associated with aggressive behavior? Previous attempts to review the relation between empathy and aggression yielded inconsistent results and generally included a small number of studies. To clarify these divergent findings, we comprehensively reviewed the relation of empathy to aggression in adults, including community, student, and criminal samples. A mixed effects meta-analysis of published and unpublished studies involving 106 effect sizes revealed that the relation between empathy and aggression was surprisingly weak (r = -.11). This finding was fairly consistent across specific types of aggression, including verbal aggression (r = -.20), physical aggression (r = -.12), and sexual aggression (r = -.09). Several potentially important moderators were examined, although they had little impact on the total effect size. The results of this study are particularly surprising given that empathy is a core component of many treatments for aggressive offenders and that most psychological disorders of aggression include diagnostic criteria specific to deficient empathic responding. We discuss broad conclusions, consider implications for theory, and address current limitations in the field, such as reliance on a small number of self-report measures of empathy. We highlight the need for diversity in measurement and suggest a new operationalization of empathy that may allow it to synchronize with contemporary thinking regarding its role in aggressive behavior.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                03 June 2020
                2020
                : 11
                : 1086
                Affiliations
                [1] 1School of Public Administration, Guangdong University of Finance , Guangzhou, China
                [2] 2School of Psychology, South China Normal University , Guangzhou, China
                [3] 3Guangzhou Rehabilitation and Research Center for Children with Autism, Guangzhou Cana School , Guangzhou, China
                [4] 4School of Education, Zhaoqing University , Zhaoqing, China
                [5] 5Center for Mental Health Education, Hainan University , Haikou, China
                Author notes

                Edited by: Cesar Merino-Soto, University of San Martín de Porres, Peru

                Reviewed by: Morten Moshagen, University of Ulm, Germany; Chester Chun Seng Kam, University of Macau, China

                *Correspondence: Yang Wang, ywang316@ 123456163.com

                This article was submitted to Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01086
                7284003
                32581942
                7e1012df-081c-41f8-afe7-83ab017cbb1f
                Copyright © 2020 Wang, Li, Xiao, Fu and Jie.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 18 December 2019
                : 28 April 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 6, Equations: 4, References: 42, Pages: 9, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of China 10.13039/501100013139
                Categories
                Psychology
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                empathy,interpersonal reactivity index,scoring approaches,confirmatory factor analysis,model-based reliability

                Comments

                Comment on this article