Evaluación de la empatía diádica: Análisis de las propiedades psicométricas del Índice de Reactividad Interpersonal en Parejas (IRIC-C) en contexto chileno
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En los últimos años, la empatía se ha incorporado como una variable que permite comprender diversos aspectos del funcionamiento en las relaciones de pareja, lo cual hace necesario contar con instrumentos validados que permitan evaluar este constructo. El presente estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar las propiedades psicométricas de la versión chilena del Indice de Reactividad Interpersonal para Parejas (IRIC-C) en dos muestras independientes: una de estudiantes universitarios (N = 612) y otra de población general (N = 766) de la ciudad de Antofagasta, Chile. Los índices de consistencia interna fueron adecuados para la escala de toma de perspectiva, sin embargo, no alcanzaron los niveles óptimos para la preocupación empática. El análisis factorial confirmatorio corroboró la estructura bidimensional del instrumento y la invarianza métrica entre hombres y mujeres. Asimismo, se presenta evidencia acerca de la validez discriminante del instrumento. Los resultados son discutidos en términos de sus implicancias, aportes y limitaciones.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".