CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Empathy and Medical EducationPsychometric Methodologies and TestingChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Adaptação e validação interna de duas escalas de empatia para uso no Brasil

Open access
Koller, Sílvia Helena, Camino, Cleonice, Ribeiro, J'aims·2001·Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas)
DOI 10.1590/s0103-166x2001000300004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

O objetivo deste estudo foi adaptar e validar duas escalas de empatia para uso no Brasil. A Escala Multidimensional de Reatividade Interpessoal de Davis (EMRI) é uma medida de empatia (reatividade interpessoal) composta por três subescalas com sete itens cada, que avaliam componentes afetivo (CE), cognitivo (CG) e comportamental (CC). A Escala de Empatia para Crianças e Adolescentes de Bryant (EECA) é uma medida com 22 itens. Foram testados 320 adolescentes de 14 a 16 anos, de nível sócio-econômico alto e baixo, estudantes da segunda etapa do Ensino Fundamental (sétima série) e do Ensino Médio (primeira e segunda séries), de ambos os sexos, em escolas públicas e privadas de João Pessoa/PB e Porto Alegre/RS. Os escores de consistência interna de ambas as escalas (EMRI, alpha= 0,75; EECA, alpha= 0,74) e das três subescalas da EMRI (CA, alpha= 0,67; CG, alpha= 0,63; CP, alpha= 0,54) foram considerados satisfatórios e permitem recomendar a utilização das versões traduzidas para o Português por pesquisadores no Brasil. Foi calculada a validade convergente entre as escalas, obtendo correlação da EECA com os componentes afetivo, cognitivo e comportamental da EMRI.

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 · 10.1590/s0103-166x2001000300004

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The IRI was validated for Brazilian Portuguese (Cronbach's alpha = 0.75).

    “This scale consists of 21 items and has been validated (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75) for Brazilian Portuguese.48”

    From Improved quality of life and reduced depressive symptoms in medical students after a single-session intervention (2020) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Abstract describes a Brazilian Portuguese adaptation of the 21-item EMRI and reports an alpha of 0.75. The reliability analysis (section labelled Referências Bibliográficas; page unavailable) clarifies that the full 21-item scale had an alpha of 0.72; it reached 0.75 only after low-performing items were removed. Thus, 0.75 is not the reported alpha for the 21-item scale. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Rev. Estudos de Psicologia, PUC-Campinas, v. 18, n. 3, pp. 43-53, setembro/ dezembro 2001
  2. Camino, C., Camino L., & Leyens, J. (1996). Julga- mento moral, emoção e empatia. In: Z. Trindade & C. Camino (Orgs.), Cognição social e juízo moral (pp. 109-135). São Paulo: ANPEPP.
  3. Hoffman, M. L. (1977) Sex differences in empathy and relates behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84 (4), 712-722.
  4. Kohlberg, L. (1976).Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach. In: T. Lickona (Org.), Moral development and beha- vior: Theory, research and social issues (pp. 31-53). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Koller, S. H., Camino, C., & Ribeiro, J.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (BR)
  • Universidade Federal da Paraíba (BR)
  • Universidade Federal de Pemambuco
ORCID
Venue
Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas)
Publisher
FapUNIFESP (SciELO)
Published
2001-12
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
43-53
ISSN
0103-166X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1590/s0103-166x2001000300004
OpenAlex
W2037709382
Cited by
82
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
pt
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
empathy, interpersonal reactivity, scale adaptation, psychometric validation, internal consistency, convergent validity, affective empathy, cognitive empathy, behavioral empathy, adolescents, Brazilian Portuguese translation

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