Abstract
Empathy is an important social construct that has been defined in many ways by different authors, resulting in development of several questionnaires. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is one of the most used self-report scales to measure empathy in children, adolescents, and adults. However, studies have reported contradictory results about its factor structure. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to assess the dimensionality of the IRI through a meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach (MASEM). Eleven studies (total n = 9470) were included in the MASEM. The meta-analytic confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) provided support for four of the tested models. A comparison of these models showed that the four-factor model proposed by Lucas-Molina et al. (2017) had the best fit. Overall, this MASEM suggests that the IRI provides a multidimensional, rather than a unidimensional, measurement of the empathy construct.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The information needed to reproduce all of the reported results are not openly accessible. The data is available on request from the author(s). The information needed to reproduce all of the reported methodology is not openly accessible. The material is available on request from the author(s).
References
Akaike, H. (1974). A New look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705
Albiero, P., Ingoglia, S., & Lo Coco, A. (2006). Contributo all’adattamento italiano dell’interpersonal reactivity index. Testing Psicometria Metodologia, 13(2), 107–125.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothsiein, H. R. (2009). Fixed-effect Versus Random-effects models. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
Cheung, M. W. L. (2008). A model for integrating Fixed-, Random-, and mixed-effects Meta-analyses into structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 182–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013163
Cheung, M. W. L. (2014). Fixed- and random-effects meta-analytic structural equation modeling: Examples and analyses in R. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0361-y
Cheung, M. W. L. (2021). Package “metaSEM.”https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521%3E.License
Cheung, M. W. L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10(1), 40–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40
Chrysikou, E. G., & Thompson, W. J. (2016). Assessing Cognitive and Affective Empathy through the interpersonal reactivity index: An argument against a two-factor model. Assessment, 23(6), 769–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115599055
Clark, A. J. (2010). Empathy and Sympathy: Therapeutic distinctions in Counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32(2), 95–101.
Clark, U. S., Oscar-Berman, M., Shagrin, B., & Pencina, M. (2007). Alcoholism and judgments of affective stimuli. Neuropsychology, 21(3), 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.21.3.346.Alcoholism
Cliffordson, C. (2001). Parent’s judgements and students’ self-judgements of empathy: The structure of empathy and agreement of judgements based on the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 36–47.
Cliffordson, C. (2002). The hierarchical structure of empathy: Dimensional organization and relations to social functioning. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00268
Coaley, K. (2010). Chapter 5: The Importance of Reliability. In An Introduction to Psychological Assessment and Psychometrics.
Cohen, D., & Strayer, J. (1996). Empathy in conduct-disordered and comparison youth. Developmental Psychology, 32, 988–998.
Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8(2), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914558466
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(January), 85. http://www.uv.es/~friasnav/Davis_1980.pdf
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1145/234611.234613
Davis, M. H. (1996). In Boulder (Ed.), Empathy. A social psychological approach. Westview Press.
De Corte, K., Buysse, A., Verhofstadt, L. L., Roeyers, H., Ponnet, K., & Davis, M. H. (2007). Measuring empathic tendencies: Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the interpersonal reactivity index. Psychologica Belgica, 47(4), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-47-4-235
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/.
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2006). Human empathy through the lens of social neuroscience. TheScientificWorldJournal, 6, 1146–1163. https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2006.221
DiStefano, C., & Morgan, G. B. (2014). A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for Ordinal Data. Structural Equation Modeling, 21(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915373
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Elliott, R., Bohart, A. C., Watson, J. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (2011). Empathy. In J. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work (2nd ed.)., pp. 132–152). Oxford University Press.
Gaggero, G., Luminet, O., Vermeulen, N., De Timary, P., Nandrino, J. L., Goffinet, S., Dereau, J., Shankland, R., Dassonneville, C., & Grynberg, D. (2023). A multidimensional examination of affective and cognitive empathy in Anorexia Nervosa. European Eating Disorders Review, November 2022, 505–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2980
Gilet, A. L., Mella, N., Studer, J., Griihn, D., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2013). Assessing dispositional empathy in adults: A French validation of the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 45(1), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030425
Gnambs, T., & Staufenbiel, T. (2016). Parameter accuracy in the meta-analyses of factor structures. Research Synthesis Methods, 7, 168–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1190
Hawk, S. T., Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J. T., Van Der Graaff, J., De Wied, M., & Meeus, W. (2013). Examining the interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) among early and late adolescents and their mothers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(1), 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.696080
Heene, M., Hilbert, S., Draxler, C., Ziegler, M., & Bühner, M. (2011). Masking Misfit in Confirmatory Factor Analysis by increasing unique variances: A cautionary note on the usefulness of cutoff values of fit indices. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024917
Hillis, A. E. (2014). Inability to empathize: Brain lesions that disrupt sharing and understanding another’s emotions. Brain, 137(4), 981–997. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awt317
Himichi, T., Osanai, H., Goto, T., Fujita, H., Kawamura, Y., Davis, M. H., & Nomura, M. (2017). Development of a Japanese version of the interpersonal reactivity index. Methodological Advancement, 88(１), 61–71.
Hirschfeld, G., von Brachel, R., & Thielsch, M. (2014). Selecting items for big five questionnaires: At what sample size do factor loadings stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 53, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.003
Holgado Tello, F. P., Egido, D., Carrasco Ortiz, B., M. A., & Del Gandara, B., M. V (2013). Interpersonal reactivity index: Analysis of invariance and gender differences in Spanish youths. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 44(2), 320–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-012-0327-9
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Huang, X., Li, W., Sun, B., Chen, H., & Davis, M. H. (2012). The validation of the interpersonal reactivity index for Chinese teachers from primary and middle schools. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(2), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911410588
Jak, S. (2015). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27174-3
Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7
Lucas-Molina, B., Pérez-Albénizz, A., Ortuño-Sierra, J., & Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2017). Dimensionalidad E invarianza de la medida del interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) en función del género. Psicothema, 29(4), 590–595. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2017.19
Manarte, L., & Andrade, A. R. (2020). Comparative Analysis and Validation of the Portuguese Version of the interpersonal reactivity index. Psilogos, 16(1), 45–59.
Mann, R. E., & Barnett, G. D. (2013). Victim Empathy intervention with sexual offenders: Rehabilitation, punishment, or Correctional Quackery? Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 25(3), 282–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212455669
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Erlbaum.
Molenberghs, P., Johnson, H., Henry, J. D., & Mattingley, J. B. (2016). Understanding the minds of others: A neuroimaging meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 65, 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.03.020
Muchotrigo, M. G., Correa-Rojas, J., Medina, E. M., & Milera, K. M. (2022). Validity and factorial invariance of the interpersonal reactivity index in Peruvian university students. Ciencias Psicologicas, 16(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v16i2.2810
Neale, M. C., Hunter, M. D., Pritkin, J., Zahery, M., Brick, T. R., Kirkpatrick, R. M., Estabrook, R., Bates, T. C., Maes, H. H., & Boker, S. M. (2016). OpenMx 2.0: Extended structural equation and statistical modeling. Psychometrika, 81(2), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-014-9435-8.OpenMx
Nomura, K., & Akai, S. (2012). Empathy with fictional stories: Reconsideration of the Fantasy scale of the interpersonal reactivity index. Psychological Reports, 110(1), 304–314. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.07.09.11.PR0.110.1.304-314
Oliveira-Silva, P., & Gonçalves, Ó. F. (2011). Responding empathically: A question of heart, not a question of skin. Applied Psychophysiology Biofeedback, 36(3), 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-011-9161-2
Ortiz, M. Á. C., Egido, B. D., García, M. I. B., Tello, F. P. H., & del Barrio Gándara, M. V. (2011). Propiedades psicométricas del interpersonal reactivity index (IRI) en población infantil y adolescente española. Psicothema, 23(4), 824–831.
Preston, S. D., & De Waal, F. B. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1–20.
Pulos, S., Elison, J., & Lennon, R. (2004). The hierarchical structure of the interpersonal reactivity index. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(4), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.355
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and enviroment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
Schroeders, U., Kubera, F., & Gnambs, T. (2021). The structure of the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20): A meta-analytic confirmatory factor analysis. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211033894
Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2012). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn. In Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) (Vol. 175, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985x.2012.01045_12.x
Schurz, M., Radua, J., Aichhorn, M., Richlan, F., & Perner, J. (2014). Fractionating theory of mind: A meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 42, 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.009
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.
Shamay-Tsoory, S., Harari, H., Szepsenwol, O., & Levkovitz, Y. (2009). Neuropsychological evidence for impaired cognitive emphaty in eutyhmic BD. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 21, 59–67.
Siu, A. M. H., & Shek, D. T. L. (2005). Validation of the interpersonal reactivity index in a Chinese context. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(2), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731504270384
Smith, A. (2009). The empathy imbalance hypothesis of autism: A theoretical approach to cognitive and emotional empathy in autistic development. The Psychological Record, 59(3), 489–510.
Suh, Y. (2015). The performance of maximum likelihood and weighted least Square Mean and Variance Adjusted estimators in Testing Differential Item Functioning with Nonnormal Trait distributions. Structural Equation Modeling, 22(4), 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.937669
Titchener, E. B. (1909). Lectures on the experimental psychology of the thought-process. The MacMillan Company.
Yu, C. Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. University of California.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization, G.R.; Data curation, G.R. and M.I.; Formal Analysis, G.R.; Methodology, G.R. and M.I.; Results interpretation: G.R., M.B., S.E., D.L., and M.I.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, G.R., M.B., S.E., M.C., D.L., A.S., and MI.; All authors contributed to the Writing, Reviewing, Editing and Approval of the final version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Open Science
We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all data inclusion/exclusion criteria, whether inclusion/exclusion criteria were established prior to data analysis, all measures in the study, and all analyses including all tested models.
Preregistration of Studies and Analysis Plans
This study was not preregistered.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Raimondi, G., Balsamo, M., Ebisch, S.J. et al. Measuring Empathy: A Meta-analytic Factor Analysis with Structural Equation Models (MASEM) of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). J Psychopathol Behav Assess 45, 952–963 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-023-10098-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-023-10098-w