Development and validation of the Vicarious Distress Questionnaire.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to empathize with other people’s feelings of distress has been widely studied in psychology.\nHowever, no questionnaire to date has been developed in order to measure such distress responses and their behavioural correlates. Three studies describe the development and the validation of the Vicarious Distress Questionnaire (VDQ), which is a self-report measure that assesses participants’ distress responses\nas well as their consequences (support or avoidance) in response to another’s distress. In Study 1, we developed items and assessed the factor structure of the VDQ. Study 2 presented a confirmatory factor analysis that supported the three-factor model (Distress, Support, and Avoidance factors) and showed good scale score reliability. Study 3 showed significant correlations among the factors of the VDQ and measures of affective empathy, anxiety disorders, alexithymia, and mood disorders. The Distress factor of the VDQ also showed satisfactory discriminant validity with the cognitive factors of empathy (i.e., Perspective Taking and Fantasy). Taken together, these results provide comprehensive support for the validity and reliability of the VDQ.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".