Exploring the psychometric properties of the empathy quotient for farsi speakers
Although researchers have studied empathy among many populations, there are few studies in which researchers have focused on empathy among Farsi speakers. We explore the psychometric properties of a Farsi translation of the Empathy Quotient (EQ), and compare the degree to which the items function in a comparable way to the English version of the items. We used Rasch measurement theory to examine the psychometric properties of the EQ in terms of item ordering, item fit, and differences between Farsi-speakers and English speakers related to the overall locations of participants within the two language subgroups and the consistency of item ordering between the two subgroups. Overall, the results suggested that the Farsi translation of the EQ demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties for measuring empathy among Farsi speakers. However, several items appeared to function differently across the two translations. We discuss our findings in terms of their implications for research and practice.
KeywordsEmpathy Farsi Survey translation Rasch measurement theory Personality assessment
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bora, E., & Baysan, L. (2009). Psychometric features of Turkish version of empathy quotient in university students. Bulletin of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 19(1), 39–47.Google Scholar
- Chopik, W. J., O’Brien, E., & Konrath, S. H. (2016). Differences in empathic concern and perspective taking across 63 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
- De Bruijn, (2015). Encyclopedia Britannica: Persian literature [blog post], retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/art/Persian-literature#toc452843main.
- DeAyala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Engelhard, G. (2013). Invariant measurement: Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Groen, Y., Fuermaier, A. B. M., Den Heijer, A. E., Tucha, O., & Althaus, M. (2015). The empathy and systemizing quotient: The psychometric properties of the Dutch version and a review of the cross-cultural stability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(9), 2848–2864.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Joreskog, K. G. (2007). Factor analysis and its extensions. In Factor analysis at 100: Historical developments and future directions (pp. 47–77). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Kosonogov, V. (2014). The psychometric properties of the Russian version of the empathy quotient. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 7(1), 96–104.Google Scholar
- Linacre, J. M. (1989). Many-facet Rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.Google Scholar
- Linacre, J. M. (1998). Structure in Rasch residuals: Why principal components analysis (PCA)? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 12(2), 636.Google Scholar
- Linacre, J. M. (2015). Facets Rasch Measurement (Version 3.71.4). Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com.Google Scholar
- Mehrabian, A. (1996). Manual for the balanced emotional empathy scale (BEES), Available from Albert Mehrabian, 1130 Alta Mesa road, Monterey, CA 93940.Google Scholar
- Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and achievement tests (expanded edition, 1980). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34(2, no. 17).Google Scholar
- Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 139–152). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Schumacker, R. E. (2015). Using R with multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
- Smith, R. M. (2004). Fit analysis in latent trait models. In E. V. Smith & R. M. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to Rasch measurement (pp. 73–92). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.Google Scholar
- Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Goldenfeld, N., Delaney, J., Fine, D., et al. (2006). Development of short forms of the Empathy Quotient (EQ-Short) and the Systemizing Quotient (SQShort). Personality and Individual Differences, 41(5), 929–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.03.017.
- Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., Uchiyama, T., Yoshida, Y., Kuroda, M., & Wheelwright, S. (2007). Empathizing and systemizing in adults with and without autism spectrum conditions: Cross-cultural stability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(10), 1823–1832.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.Google Scholar
- Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best Test Design. Chicago, IL: MESA Press.Google Scholar
- Zhao, Q., Neumann, D. L., Cao, X., Baron-Cohen, S., Sun, X., Cao, Y., et al. (2018). Validation of the Empathy Quotient in Mainland China. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1324458.
- Zhou, Q., Valiente, C., & Eisenberg, N. (2003). Empathy and its measurement. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 269–284). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10612-017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar