Metric Goodness and Measurement Invariance of the Italian Brief Version of Interpersonal Reactivity Index: A Study With Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is a widely used multidimensional measure to assess empathy across four main dimensions: perspective taking (PT) empathic concern (EC) personal distress (PD) fantasy (F). This study aimed to replicate the Italian validation process of the shortened IRI (Interpersonal Reactivity Index) scale in order to confirm its psychometric properties with a sample of young adults. The Gender Measurement Invariance of empathy in this age group was also an objective of the work in order to increase the data on this aspect. A total of 683 Italian university students participated in a non-probabilistic sampling. The 16-item version was confirmed in its four-factor structure but with changes to some items. The model showed good fits with both the CFA and the gender Measurement Invariance. The internal consistency measures were found to be fully satisfactory. Convergent validity was tested by the correlations with the Prosocialness Scale for Adults and The Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 . As hypothesized the measure proved good convergent validity with Prosocialness, i.e., the willingness to assist, help, share, care and empathy with others, and a relevant inverse association with the External Oriented Thinking, characterizing individuals with emotionally poor thinking. This research provided additional evidence for a link between alexithymia and poor empathic abilities in young adults.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".