Suppr超能文献

同理心:评估工具与心理测量质量——一项对过去十年的系统文献综述及荟萃分析

Empathy: Assessment Instruments and Psychometric Quality - A Systematic Literature Review With a Meta-Analysis of the Past Ten Years.

作者信息

de Lima Felipe Fernandes, Osório Flávia de Lima

机构信息

Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.

National Institute for Science and Technology (INCT-TM, CNPq), Brasília, Brazil.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2021 Nov 24;12:781346. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.781346. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

To verify the psychometric qualities and adequacy of the instruments available in the literature from 2009 to 2019 to assess empathy in the general population. The following databases were searched: PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scielo, and LILACS using the keywords "empathy" AND "valid" OR "reliability" OR "psychometr." A qualitative synthesis was performed with the findings, and meta-analytic measures were used for reliability and convergent validity. Fifty studies were assessed, which comprised 23 assessment instruments. Of these, 13 proposed new instruments, 18 investigated the psychometric properties of instruments previously developed, and 19 reported cross-cultural adaptations. The Empathy Quotient, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, and Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy were the instruments most frequently addressed. They presented good meta-analytic indicators of internal consistency [reliability, generalization meta-analyses (Cronbach's alpha): 0.61 to 0.86], but weak evidence of validity [weak structural validity; low to moderate convergent validity (0.27 to 0.45)]. Few studies analyzed standardization, prediction, or responsiveness for the new and old instruments. The new instruments proposed few innovations, and their psychometric properties did not improve. In general, cross-cultural studies reported adequate adaptation processes and equivalent psychometric indicators, though there was a lack of studies addressing cultural invariance. Despite the diversity of instruments assessing empathy and the many associated psychometric studies, there remain limitations, especially in terms of validity. Thus far, we cannot yet nominate a gold-standard instrument.

摘要

为验证2009年至2019年文献中可用于评估普通人群同理心的工具的心理测量质量和适用性。检索了以下数据库:PubMed、PsycInfo、科学网、Scielo和LILACS,使用关键词“同理心”以及“效度”或“信度”或“心理测量”。对研究结果进行了定性综合,并采用元分析方法评估信度和收敛效度。评估了50项研究,其中包括23种评估工具。其中,13种提出了新工具,18种研究了先前开发工具的心理测量特性,19种报告了跨文化适应性。《同理心商数》《人际反应指数》以及《认知与情感同理心问卷》是被提及最多的工具。它们呈现出良好的内部一致性元分析指标[信度,概括性元分析(克朗巴哈系数):0.61至0.86],但效度证据薄弱[结构效度较弱;收敛效度低至中等(0.27至0.45)]。很少有研究分析新工具和旧工具的标准化、预测或反应性。新提出的工具几乎没有创新,其心理测量特性也没有改善。总体而言,跨文化研究报告了适当的适应过程和等效的心理测量指标,尽管缺乏关于文化不变性的研究。尽管评估同理心的工具多种多样,且有许多相关的心理测量研究,但仍存在局限性,尤其是在效度方面。到目前为止,我们还无法提名一种金标准工具。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ab22/8653810/ee1bac84720b/fpsyg-12-781346-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验