Dimensional structure and measurement invariance of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) across gender

  1. Beatriz Lucas-Molina 2
  2. Alicia Pérez-Albéniz 1
  3. Javier Ortuño-Sierra 1
  4. Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

  2. 2 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

Journal:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915

Year of publication: 2017

Volume: 29

Issue: 4

Pages: 590-595

Type: Article

DOI: 10.7334/PSICOTHEMA2017.19 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Psicothema

Institutional repository: lock_openOpen access Editor

Abstract

Background: The main goal of the present study was to examine the dimensional structure and measurement invariance of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980) across gender. Method: Two Spanish samples comprising 2,499 college students (71.2% women; M = 21.06 years) and 1,438 adults (57.8% women; M = 40.01 years) completed the IRI. Results: The study of the internal structure, using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM), revealed that the four-factor structure (Perspective Taking, Fantasy, Empathic Concern, and Personal Distress) fi tted well to the college students’ data; however, in the sample of adults all factorial models showed modest goodness-of-fi t indexes. In addition, the results also supported the measurement invariance of the ESEM four-factor model across gender in college students. Women scored higher than men in all four subscales of the IRI, although differences were not signifi cant for the PT scale. The reliability of the scores in this sample ranged from .72 to.79. Conclusions: The fi ndings support the factorial validity of the IRI scores and suggest it is a useful instrument to measure self-reported empathy. Future studies should continue to examine the structure and measurement invariance of the IRI in adult populations and across cultures

€ View funding

Funding information

This work was partially supported by a grant of the Instituto de Estudios Riojanos (Resolución nº 56/2017).

Funders

    • 56/2017

Bibliographic References

  • Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Press.
  • Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
  • Chrysikou, E. G., & Thompson, W. J. (2015). Assessing cognitive and affective empathy through the Interpersonal Reactivity Index: An argument against a two-factor model. Assessment, 23(6), 769-777. doi: 10.1177/1073191115599055
  • Cliffordson, C. (2002). The hierarchical structure of empathy: Dimensional organization and relations to social functioning. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 49-59. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00268
  • Cliffordson, C. (2001). Parents’ judgments and students’ self-judgments of empathy: The structure of empathy and agreement of judgments based on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 36-47. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.17.1.36
  • Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85, 1-17.
  • Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
  • Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy. A social psychological approach. Boulder: Westview Press.
  • De Corte, K., Buysse, A., Verhofstadt, L. L., Roeyers, H., Ponnet, K., & Davis, M. H. (2007). Measuring empathic tendencies: Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psychologica Belgica, 47, 235-260. doi: 10.5334/pb-47-4-235
  • Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R.A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 131-149. doi: 10.1007/BF00991640
  • Escrivá, V., Frías, M. D., & Samper, P. (2004). La medida de la empatía: análisis del Interpersonal Reactivity Index [Measuring empathy: The Interpersonal Reactivity Index]. Psicothema, 16, 255-260.
  • Fernández, A. M., Dufey, M., & Kramp, U. (2011). Testing the psychometric properties of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) in Chile. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 179-185. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000065
  • Gilet, A., Studer, J., Mella, N., Grühn, D., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2013). Assessing dispositional empathy in adults: A French validation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 45, 42-48. doi: 10.1037/a0030425
  • Hawk, S. T., Keijsers, L., Branje, S. J. T., Van der Graaf, J., De Wied, M., & Meeus, W. (2013). Examining the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) among early and late adolescents and their mothers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 96-106. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2012.696080
  • Heene, M., Hilbert, S., Freudenthaler, H. H., & Bühner, M. (2012). Sensitivity of SEM fit indexes with respect to violations of uncorrelated errors. Structural Equation Modeling, 19, 36-50. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2012.634710
  • Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development. Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge: University Press.
  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 76-99). London: Sage.
  • Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441-476. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001
  • Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
  • Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling 11, 320-341. doi: 10.1207vs15328007sem1103_2
  • Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2012). MPlus: Statistical analysis with latent variables. User’s guide. Seven Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  • Pérez-Albéniz, A., De Paúl, J., Etxebarría, J., Montes, M. P., & Torres, E. (2003). Adaptación de Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) al español [Spanish adaptation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index]. Psicothema, 15, 267-272.
  • SPSS (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Data source: Dialnet