The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The efficacy of empathy training: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract
[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 63(1) of Journal of Counseling Psychology (see record 2015-58774-003). In the article, the last name of author Emily Teding van Berkhout was incorrectly set in the running head as van Berkhout. It should be Teding van Berkhout. All versions of this article have been corrected.] High levels of empathy are associated with healthy relationships and prosocial behavior; in health professionals, high levels of empathy are associated with better therapeutic outcomes. To determine whether empathy can be taught, researchers have evaluated empathy training programs. After excluding 1 outlier study that showed a very large effect with few participants, the meta-analysis included 18 randomized controlled trials of empathy training with a total of 1,018 participants. The findings suggest that empathy training programs are effective overall, with a medium effect (g = 0.63), adjusted to 0.51 after trim-and-fill evaluation for estimated publication bias. Moderator analyses indicated that 4 factors were statistically significantly associated with higher effect sizes: (a) training health professionals and university students rather than other types of individuals, (b) compensating trainees for their participation, (c) using empathy measures that focus exclusively on assessing understanding the emotions of others, feeling those emotions, or commenting accurately on the emotions, and (d) using objective measures rather than self-report measures. Number of hours of training and time between preintervention assessment and postintervention assessment were not statistically significantly associated with effect size, with 6 months the longest time period for assessment. The findings indicate that (a) empathy training tends to be effective and (b) experimental research is warranted on the impact of different types of trainees, training conditions, and types of assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis
Wasserman, S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,326
Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.
Davis, M. H. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113 · Cited by 10,272
The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.
Rogers, C. R. (1957) · Journal of Consulting Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0045357 · Cited by 5,599
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/b:jadd.0000022607.19833.00 · Cited by 4,093
Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice
Raboteg-Saric, Z., & Hoffman, M. L. (2001) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/3089337 · Cited by 2,410
A measure of emotional empathy1
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1972.tb00078.x · Cited by 2,360
Patient adherence to treatment: three decades of research. A comprehensive review
Vermeire, E., Hearnshaw, H., Van Royen, P., & Denekens, J. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2710.2001.00363.x · Cited by 1,833
Development of an empathy scale.
Hogan, R. (1969) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0027580 · Cited by 1,493
Physiciansʼ Empathy and Clinical Outcomes for Diabetic Patients
Hojat, M., Louis, D. Z., Markham, F. W., Wender, R., Rabinowitz, C., & Gonnella, J. S. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182086fe1 · Cited by 1,203
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2011) · The Neuroscientist · doi:10.1177/1073858410379268 · Cited by 1,059
Cited by
Facilitating empathy through virtual reality
Schutte, N. S., & Stilinović, E. J. (2017) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-017-9641-7 · Cited by 358
Strategic regulation of empathy
Weisz, E., & Cikara, M. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2020.12.002 · Cited by 217
Mascaro, J. S., Florian, M. P., Ash, M. J., Palmer, P. K., Frazier, T., Condon, P., & Raison, C. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.547241 · Cited by 118
Mar, R. A. (2018) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2018.1448209 · Cited by 108
Horn, R., O'May, F., Esliker, R., Gwaikolo, W., Woensdregt, L., Ruttenberg, L., & Ager, A. (2019) · Global Mental Health · doi:10.1017/gmh.2019.2 · Cited by 61
“Studies of empathy training indicate that its effectiveness depends on it being truly experiential and involving all four components of behavioural skills training (instruction, modelling, practice, and feedback) (Teding van Berkhout & Malouff, 2016).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Teding van Berkhout, E., & Malouff, J. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Counseling Psychology
- Published
- 2016-01
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 32-41
- ISSN
- 0022-0167 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2407208610
- Cited by
- 389
- References
- 54
- FWCI
- 2.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2016-01-11)
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The efficacy of empathy training: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/cou0000093
- The paper
- Teding van Berkhout, E., & Malouff, J. M. (2016). The efficacy of empathy training: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Counseling Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000093
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.