Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Empathy is a prosocial ability and communication skill to feel, understand, and respond to emotions of others; it includes affective and cognitive behavioral aspects of therapeutic communication. For instance, physicians should communicate empathically with their patients. Thus, empathy levels of medical students should be improved during their education. It is important to comparatively evaluate the dimensions of empathy to have a clearer picture of this ability. The aim of this study is to determine the validity and reliability of the Empathy Assessment Scale (EAS) and its subscales. METHODS: Data were collected between October and December in 2021 from 651 students studying medicine in Istanbul Medeniyet University. Item pool of the scale was developed by the researcher based on the literature review. Two counseling psychologists, two clinical psychologist, and two psychiatrists evaluated the items to detect the face and content validity in the final application form. Both explanatory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) were carried out. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire was also applied for concurrent validity. IBM SPSS 25 and AMOS 24 were utilized to analyze the construct and concurrent validities, internal consistency, and test-retest reliabilities. RESULTS: KMO and Bartlett's sphericity tests showed that the dataset was suitable for factor analyses (KMO=0.812, Chi-square=5535.718, df=78). A three-factor structure with 13 items was confirmed by EFA, 67.1% of the variance was explained by these three factors. According to CFA, the factor loads of the items varied between 0.39 and 0.98 and data model fit was suitable according to the fit indices (CFI=0.95, TLI=0.91, RMSEA=0.049, SRMR=0.055, and Chi-square/df=1.316). Concurrent validity of the scale was also confirmed by the Pearson correlation (r=0.467, p<0.001). The test-retest reliability values (r) within four weeks interval were all above 0.60 at 0.01 significance level. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.845 (EAS total scale score, 13 items), 0.696 (social interaction subscale score, 4 items), 0.802 (cognitive behavior subscale score, 5 items), and 0.964 (emotional identification subscale score, 4 items). CONCLUSION: EAS is a valid and reliable measurement tool to assess the empathy levels of individuals in three dimensions: Social interaction, cognitive behavior, and emotional identification. EAS can be used to evaluate the empathy levels for research, educational, and other interventional purposes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".