Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the psychometric properties of the empathy quotient for farsi speakers

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 25 August 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 25 August 2018

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake in the author group section. The correct name of the second author is Parvaneh Yaghoubi Jami. The original article has been corrected.

References

  • Allison, C., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S. J., Stone, M. H., & Muncer, S. J. (2011). Psychometric analysis of the empathy quotient (EQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 51(7), 829–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrich, D. A. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berthoz, S., Wessa, M., Kedia, G., Wicker, B., & Grèzes, J. (2008). Cross-cultural validation of the empathy quotient in a French-speaking sample. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 53(7), 469–477.

    PubMed  Google 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 

  • Chlopan, B. E., McCain, M. L., Carbonell, J. L., & Hagen, R. L. (1985). Empathy: Review of available measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(3), 635–653.

    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.

  • Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bruijn, (2015). Encyclopedia Britannica: Persian literature [blog post], retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/art/Persian-literature#toc452843main.

  • De Wied, M., Maas, C., Van Goozen, S., Vermande, M., Engels, R., Meeus, W., et al. (2007). Bryant's empathy index. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeAyala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrijević, A., Hanak, N., Vukosavljević-Gvozden, T., & Opačić, G. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Serbian version of the empathy quotient (S-EQ). Psihologija, 45(3), 257–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhard, G. (2013). Invariant measurement: Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feshbach, N. D. (1975). Empathy in children: Some theoretical and empirical considerations. The Counseling Psychologist, 5(2), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/001100007500500207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gouveia, V. V., Milfont, T. L., Gouveia, R. S., Neto, J. R., & Galvão, L. (2012). Brazilian-Portuguese empathy quotient: Evidences of its construct validity and reliability. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(02), 777–782.

    PubMed  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, R., Jin, L., & Qian, M. (2012). Validation of the empathy quotient–short form among Chinese healthcare professionals. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(1), 75–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K. (2001). The next generation of the ITC test translation and adaptation guidelines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 164–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., & de Jong, J. H. (2003). Advances in translating and adapting educational and psychological tests. Language Testing, 20, 127–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambleton, R. K., & Kanjee, A. (1995). Increasing the validity of cross-cultural assessments: Use of improved methods for test adaptations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 147–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 307–316.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hojat, M., Mangione, S., Nasca, T. J., Cohen, M. J., Gonnella, J. S., Erdmann, J. B., & Magee, M. (2001). The Jefferson scale of physician empathy: Development and preliminary psychometric data. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 349–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 653–670.

    PubMed  Google 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 

  • Kim, J., & Lee, S. J. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the empathy quotient scale. Psychiatry Investigation, 7(1), 24–30.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  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 

  • Lawrence, E. J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David, A. S. (2004). Measuring empathy: Reliability and validity of the empathy quotient. Psychological Medicine, 34(5), 911–919. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291703001624.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  • Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525–543.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabian, A., Young, A. L., & Sato, S. (1988). Emotional empathy and associated individual differences. Current Psychology, 7(3), 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muncer, S. J., & Ling, J. (2006). Psychometric analysis of the empathy quotient (EQ) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1111–1119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preti, A., Vellante, M., Baron-Cohen, S., Zucca, G., Petretto, D. R., & Masala, C. (2011). The empathy quotient: A cross-cultural comparison of the Italian version. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 16(1), 50–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and achievement tests (expanded edition, 1980). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 4(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986004003207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rueda, P., Fernández-Berrocal, P., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2015). Dissociation between cognitive and affective empathy in youth with Asperger syndrome. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12(1), 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34(2, no. 17).

  • 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 

  • Sireci, S. G., Yang, Y., Harter, J., & Ehrlich, E. J. (2006). Evaluating guidelines for test adaptations: A methodological analysis of translation quality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(5), 557–567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. M. (1994). Detecting item bias in the Rasch rating scale model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(4), 886–896. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164494054004004.

    Article  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 

  • Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto empathy questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1), 62–71.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thoits, P. A. (1989). The sociology of emotions. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 317–342.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, E. W. (2013). A bootstrap approach to evaluating person and item fit to the Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 14(1), 1–9.

    PubMed  Google 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 

  • Wu, M., & Adams, R. J. (2013). Properties of Rasch residual fit statistics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 14(4), 339–355.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S., & Keysar, B. (2007). The effect of culture on perspective taking. Psychological Science, 18(7), 600–606.

    PubMed  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA

    Stefanie A. Wind, Parvaneh Yaghoubi Jami & Behzad Mansouri

  2. Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, & Counseling, The University of Alabama, Box 870231, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487, USA

    Stefanie A. Wind

Authors
  1. Stefanie A. Wind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Parvaneh Yaghoubi Jami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Behzad Mansouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie A. Wind.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

The original version of this article was revised: The correct name of the second author is Parvaneh Yaghoubi Jami.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wind, S.A., Jami, P.Y. & Mansouri, B. Exploring the psychometric properties of the empathy quotient for farsi speakers. Curr Psychol 40, 306–320 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9938-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9938-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation