Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T16:17:59.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bryant’s Empathy Index: Structure and Measurement Invariance across Gender in a Sample of Primary School-Aged Children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Beatriz Lucas-Molina ,
Alicia Pérez-Albéniz ,
Marta Giménez-Dasí  and
Gema Martín-Seoane
Beatriz Lucas-Molina*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Alicia Pérez-Albéniz
Affiliation:
Universidad de la Rioja (Spain)
Marta Giménez-Dasí
Affiliation:
Universidad de Valencia (Spain)
Gema Martín-Seoane
Affiliation:
Universidad Complutense (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Beatriz Lucas-Molina. Universidad de Valencia. Developmental and Educational Psychology. Avda. Blasco Ibáñez, 21. Valencia (Spain). 46010. Phone: +34–629842770. E-mail: beatriz.lucas@uv.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the dimensional structure and measurement invariance of Bryant’s Index of Empathy for Children and Adolescents (IECA) (Bryant, 1982) across gender in a representative sample of primary school-aged children in Spain. The sample consisted of 2,050 children (50.80% girls), with a mean age of 9.80 years (SD = 1.24), recruited from 27 primary schools. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. The model that presented the best fit indices was Lasa, Holgado, Carrasco, and del Barrio’s (2008) three-factor model: Understanding Feelings, Feelings of Sadness, and Tearful Reaction. The levels of internal consistency for the subscales ranged from .76 to .83. In addition, the results partially support the measurement invariance of the IECA across gender. When the latent means of the empathy dimensions were compared across gender, statistically significant differences were found. These results coincide with those found in the literature showing the multidimensionality of the IECA. Specifically, the findings support its three-factor structure and its invariance across gender, making it a very useful instrument for exploring the expression of empathy in primary school children.

Keywords

childrenempathy indexgender differencesmeasurement invariancemultidimensional structure
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 19 , 2016 , E44
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allemand, M., Steiger, A. E., & Helmut, A. F. (2015). Empathy development in adolescence predicts social competencies in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 83, 229–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12098 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 163–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social psychological answer. Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bryant, B. K. (1982). An index of empathy for children and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1128984 Google Scholar
Byrne, B. M. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872–882.Google ScholarPubMed
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dadds, M. R., Hunter, K., Hawes, D. J., Frost, A. D. J., Vassallo, S., Bunn, P., … El Masry, Y. (2008). Measure of cognitive and affective empathy in children using parent ratings. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 39, 111–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-007-0075-4 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy. A social psychological approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
De Wied, M., Maas, C., van Goozen, S., Vermande, M., Engels, R., Meeus, W., … Goudena, P. (2007). Bryant’s empathy index: A closer examination of its internal structure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 99–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.99 Google Scholar
Del Barrio, V., Aluja, A., & Garcia, L. F. (2004). Bryant’s empathy index for children and adolescents: Psychometric properties in the Spanish language. Psychological Reports, 95, 257–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665 Google Scholar
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 131–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00991640 Google Scholar
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Morris, A. S. (2013). Prosocial development. In Zelazo, P. D. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 300–325). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development. Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: University Press.Google Scholar
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0027580 Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Google Scholar
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441–476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001 Google Scholar
Lasa, A., Holgado, F. P., Carrasco, M. A., & del Barrio, M. V. (2008). The structure of Bryant’s empathy index for children: A cross-validation study. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 670–677.Google Scholar
Leibetseder, M., Laireiter, A. R., & Köller, T. (2007). Structural analysis of the E-scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 547–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mestre, V., Nácher, M. J., Samper, P., & Turcar, A. M. (2002). Evaluación del desarrollo moral [Assessment of moral development]. In Del Barrio, V. (Coord.), Evaluación psicológica en la infancia y la adolescencia [Child and adolescent psychological assessment] (pp. 317–352). Madrid, Spain: UNED.Google Scholar
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. A. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525–543.Google Scholar
Muthén, L. B. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). MPlus: Stastical analysis with latent variables. User’s guide. (7th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Strayer, J. (1987). Affective and cognitive perspectives on empathy. In Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 218–245). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tran, U. S., Laireiter, A. K., Schmitt, D. P., Neuner, C., Leibetseder, M., Szente-Voracek, S. L., & Voracek, M. (2013). Factorial structure and convergent and discriminant validity of the E (Empathy) Scale. Psychological Reports, 113, 441–463.Google Scholar
Zhou, Q., Valiente, C., & Eisenberg, N. (2003). Empathy and its measurement. In Lopez, S. J. & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 269–284). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar