MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342674460

The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Evaluation of Psychometric Properties among Turkish University Students

2012· article· en· W2342674460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tarık Totan, Tayfun Doğan, Fatma Sapmaz

Bibliographic record

VenueEurasian Journal of Educational Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpathyPsychologyTurkishLikert scaleConfirmatory factor analysisExploratory factor analysisScale (ratio)PsychometricsClinical psychologySocial psychologyApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modelingStatisticsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem statement: Today, it is widely accepted that empathy is a multidimensional factor that facilitates human relations. The common idea that empathy comprises more than one component has created diversity in the assessment of the said factor; many researchers have developed empathy scales that include different dimensions. However, unidimensional assessments minimize differences between assessments and develop an accepted core assessment tool. Purpose of Study: The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) is a selfreport style, uni-dimensional, 16-item, five-point Likert type scale developed to assess the empathy levels of individuals. The objective of this study is to adapt the TEQ into Turkish and to analyze its psychometric properties in a sample of Turkish university students. Methods: Study participants included 698 university students from Ege and Sakarya University. In the research, the Emphatic Tendency Scale and the Basic Empathy Scale were used as data collection tools along with the TEQ. In the adaptation of the questionnaire, a linguistic equivalence study was performed first. The psychometric properties of the TEQ were analyzed through item analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurasian Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207