Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 235

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reports of the Decline of Empathy During Medical Education Are Greatly Exaggerated: A Reexamination of the Research

Colliver, Jerry A., Conlee, Melinda J., Verhulst, Steven J., Dorsey, J. Kevin·2010·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Research is said to show that empathy declines during medical school and residency training. These studies and their results were examined to determine the extent of the decline and the plausibility of any alternative explanations. METHOD: Eleven studies published from 2000 to 2008 which reported empathy at various stages of physician training were reexamined. Their results were transformed back to the original units of the rating scales to make results more interpretable by reporting them in the metric of the original anchors. Next, the relationship between empathy ratings and response rates were examined to see whether response bias was a plausible threat to the validity of the empathy decline conclusion. RESULTS: The changes in mean empathy ranged across the 11 studies from a 0.1-point increase in empathy to a 0.5-point decrease, with an average of a 0.2-point decline for the 11 studies (ratings were on 5-point, 7-point, and 9-point scales). Mean ratings were similar in medical school and residency. Response rates were low and-where reported-declined on average about 26 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: Reexamination revealed that the evidence does not warrant the strong, disturbing conclusion that empathy declines during medical education. Results show a very weak decline in mean ratings, and even the weak decline is questionable because of the low and varying response rates. Moreover, the empathy instruments are self-reports, and it isn't clear what they measure-or whether what they measure is indicative of patients' perceptions and the effectiveness of patient care.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0b013e3181d281dc

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 235

Metadata

Authors
Colliver, J. A., Conlee, M. J., Verhulst, S. J., & Dorsey, J. K.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2010-04
Volume
85
Issue
4
Pages
588-593
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1999829358
Cited by
235
References
5
FWCI
8.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
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: Reports of the Decline of Empathy During Medical Education Are Greatly Exaggerated: A Reexamination of the Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181d281dc
The paper
Colliver, J. A., Conlee, M. J., Verhulst, S. J., & Dorsey, J. K. (2010). Reports of the Decline of Empathy During Medical Education Are Greatly Exaggerated: A Reexamination of the Research. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181d281dc

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.