CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,014Empathy and Medical EducationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesAutism Spectrum Disorder Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the Empathy Quotient

LAWRENCE, E. J., SHAW, P., BAKER, D., BARON-COHEN, S., DAVID, A. S.·2004·Psychological Medicine
DOI 10.1017/s0033291703001624
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background. Empathy plays a key role in social understanding, but its empirical measurement has proved difficult. The Empathy Quotient (EQ) is a self-report scale designed to do just that. This series of four studies examined the reliability and validity of the EQ and determined its factor structure. Method. In Study 1, 53 people completed the EQ, Social Desirability Scale (SDS) and a non-verbal mental state inference test, the Eyes Task. In Study 2, a principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted on data from 110 healthy individuals and 62 people reporting depersonalisation (DPD). Approximately 1 year later, Study 3, involved the re-administration of the EQ ( n =24) along with the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; n =28). In the last study, the EQ scores of those with DPD, a condition that includes a subjective lack of empathy, were examined in depth. Results. An association was found between the Eyes task and EQ, and only three EQ items correlated with the SDS. PCA revealed three factors: (1) ‘cognitive empathy’; (2) ‘emotional reactivity’, and (3) ‘social skills’. Test–retest reliability was good and moderate associations were found between the EQ and IRI subscales, suggesting concurrent validity. People with DPD did not show a global empathy deficit, but reported less social competence. Conclusions. The EQ is a valid, reliable scale and the different subscales may have clinical applications.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291703001624

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
LAWRENCE, E. J., SHAW, P., BAKER, D., BARON-COHEN, S., & DAVID, A. S.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2004-07
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
911-920
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
DOI
10.1017/s0033291703001624
OpenAlex
W1976994271
Cited by
1,014
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 66 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 37
FWCI
5.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 6 d)
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
Keywords
Empathy Quotient, empathy measurement, self-report scale, reliability statistics, validity, factor structure, cognitive empathy, emotional reactivity, social skills, depersonalization, social desirability, mental state inference, Interpersonal Reactivity Index, social competence
MeSH terms
Adult, Empathy, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Desirability, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review