Farsi Translation of the Empathy Quotient 1 Exploring the Psychometric Properties of the Empathy Quotient for Farsi Speakers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Farsi Translation of the Empathy Quotient 1 Exploring the Psychometric Properties of the Empathy Quotient for Farsi Speakers Stefanie Wind, Parvaneh Yaghoubi Jami, Behzad Mansouri University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa July 2018 (Manuscript accepted to be published in Current Psychology) Farsi Translation of the Empathy Quotient 2 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. Keywords: empathy; Farsi; survey translation; Rasch measurement theory; personality assessment Farsi Translation of the Empathy Quotient 3 Exploring the Psychometric Properties of the Empathy Quotient for Farsi Speakers The ability to empathize with others is of utmost important for face-to-face interaction in society. Empathy is broadly defined as the ability to understand others’ feelings and thoughts and adaptively respond to others’ emotions, which will result in promoting prosocial behavior (Iacoboni, 2009; Spreng, McKinnon, Mar, & Levine, 2009). The psychological literature on empathy attests two aspects of empathy: affective and cognitive empathy (Davis, 1983). Affective empathy is a “shared emotional response between observer and stimulus person” (Feshbach, 1975, p. 26), and cognitive empathy is defined as "empathic role-taking emotions or vicarious emotions, resulted from mentally placing oneself in another's position and feeling what the other might feel in that situation" (Thoits, 1989, p. 328). Researchers and practitioners have used the terms affective empathy and cognitive empathy interchangeably with emotional empathy and perspective taking, respectively (Lawrence, Shaw, Baker, Baron- Cohen, & David, 2004). Measuring Empathy There are several ways to measure a psychological construct like empathy including, but not limited to, observation, manipulated experimental laboratory experiments, other- reported questionnaires, and self-reported questionnaires (Zhou, Valiente, & Eisenberg, 2003). Among these methods, several researchers have developed self-reported questionnaires to measure affective and cognitive empathy (de Wied et al., 2007). The most frequently used questionnaires include the following: Empathy Scale (Hogan, 1969; cognitive empathy), Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972; affective empathy), Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (Mehrabian, 1996; emotional empathy), Interpersonal reactivity Index (Davis, 1983; affective and cognitive empathy), Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (Hojat, et al., 2001; empathy in medical students), and Empathy Quotient (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). In previous studies researchers have evaluated the psychometric properties of these questionnaires, including indicators of their reliability and validity (See Chlopan, McCain, Carbonell, & Hagen, 1985; Spreng et al., 2009). For instance, Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) originally designed the Questionnaire Measure of Emotional Empathy to measure affective empathy. However, Mehrabian, Young, and Sato (1988) claimed that this questionnaire actually measures emotional arousability—thus opening criticisms to the validity of its interpretation and use as a measure of empathy. One empathy questionnaire that has caught many researchers’ attention is the Empathy Quotient (EQ; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). Specifically, many researchers have recognized the EQ as a useful measure of empathy as a result of the following characteristics: (1) acceptable evidence of validity and reliability found in studies with English- and non-English-speaking populations (discussed further below), (2) simple scoring system and interpretation, (3) self- administration format, and (4) the proposed cut-off score for identifying people with different levels of empathy (Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). Farsi Translation of the Empathy Quotient 4 Although the EQ was originally designed for clinical purposes, such as investigating empathy in populations who may exhibit a lack of empathy as a sign of psychological disorders such as autism and depersonalization (Lawrence, et al., 2004), many researchers have used this questionnaire to explore empathy within typical-developing populations (e.g., Dimitrijević, Hanak, Vukosavljević-Gvozden, & Opačić, 2012; Kosonogov, 2014). Moreover, several researchers have challenged the assumption of a lack of empathy in such populations, especially among individuals with autism (e.g., Rueda, Fernández-Berrocal, & Baron-Cohen, 2015). Previous Psychometric Evaluations of the Empathy Quotient In previous studies in which researchers have evaluated the psychometric properties of the EQ, researchers have focused primarily on the dimensionality of this instrument. Accordingly, several researchers have applied techniques related to factor analysis, including principal components analysis (PCA; Lawrence, et al., 2004; Preti, et al., 2011), exploratory factor analysis (EFA; Kosonogov, 2014), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Berthoz, Wessa, Kedia, Wicker, & Grèzes, 2008; Groen, Fuermaier, Den Heijer, Tucha, & Althaus, 2015; Muncer, & Ling, 2006). Across these studies, researchers reported that responses to the EQ could be explained using three factors: (1) cognitive empathy, (2) emotional reactivity, and (3) social skills. We provided a summary of these studies in Table 1. However, the number of items included in the three-factor model, along with the specific items associated with each factor structure, varied across studies. For example, Lawrence et al. (2004) reported a three-factor model based on 28 items with strong correlations between all of the factors. Groen et al. (2015) and Berthoz et al. (2008) confirmed this 28-item model using Dutch and French translations of the EQ. One the other hand, Kosonogov (2014) tested Lawrence et al.’s (2004) model using a Russian version of the EQ and found only 21 items that fit the three-factor model. Likewise, Muncer and Ling (2006) used the English version of the EQ and found a 15-item version to be the best-fitting model. Later, Kim and Lee (2010) confirmed the 15-item version with Korean population. Similarly, Gouveia, Milfont, Gouveia, Neto, and Galvão (2012) also reported that the 15-item EQ fit best among a Portuguese sample. More recently, Allison and her colleagues (2011) questioned the effectiveness of using factor analysis for evaluating the dimensionality of the EQ. Specifically, these researchers noted that half of the EQ items are designed to produce “agreement” and the other half “disagreement” responses. Thus, applying factor analysis, which is sensitive to direction of response options, may lead to unreliable results. Collecting responses from 5,377 participants, these authors explored the psychometric properties of the EQ using the Rasch Rating Scale model (Andrich, 1978), along with point-biserial correlations and CFA. They found the EQ has an exceptional Rasch item reliability (.99) as well as a high person reliability of separation index (.92), which provided additional evidence for the validity and reliability of the EQ. Furthermore, both Rasch analysis and PCA supported the unidimensional structure of the EQ (Allison, Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Stone, & Muncer, 2011). Farsi Translation of the Empathy Quotient 5 Translations of the Empathy Quotient According to Hambleton and Kanjee (1995), translating psychological assessments across languages has three major benefits. First, it can enhance the fairness of an assessment; by translating instruments, the chance of introducing construct-irrelevant variance related to language, including comprehension issues, can be reduced. Second, researchers can use translated versions of an instrument in comparative and cross-cultural studies in order to measure the same construct across populations with different language and cultural backgrounds. Third, using translations of an existing instrument is often more efficient than developing a new instrument. However, efforts are needed to empirically verify that the translated version is comparable in interpretation. The EQ was originally developed in English. However, previous research includes numerous examples of translations of the EQ. Researchers have translated the EQ for two main reasons: (1) to test the psychometric properties of the EQ in populations other than English-speakers, and (2) to explore empathy among various populations. To the best of our knowledge, researchers have translated the EQ into Chinese (Guan, Jin, & Qian, 2012), Dutch (Groen, et al., 2015), French (Berthoz, et al., 2008), Italian (Preti, et al., 2011), Japanese (Wakabayashi, et al., 2007), Korean (Kim & Lee, 2010), Portuguese (Gouveia, et al.,