Examination of Known-Groups Validity for the Empathy Assessment Index (EAI): Differences in EAI Scores Between Social Service Providers and Service Recipients

This article reports the findings of a known-groups validity study of the Empathy Assessment Index (EAI), which is a 20-item self-report instrument based on an emerging social cognitive neuroscience definition of empathy. A convenience sample formed 2 groups of study participants: social service pro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. - University of Chicago Press. - 3(2012), 2, Seite 94-112
1. Verfasser: Gerdes, Karen E. (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Geiger, Jennifer Mullins, Lietz, Cynthia A., Wagaman, M. Alex, Segal, Elizabeth A.
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Veröffentlicht: 2012
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research
Schlagworte:empathy instrument validation. known groups emotion regulation self-other awareness Behavioral sciences Political science Applied sciences Law Philosophy
LEADER 01000caa a22002652 4500
001 JST098785087
003 DE-627
005 20240624072818.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 160118s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||en c
024 7 |a 10.5243/jsswr.2012.7  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)JST098785087 
035 |a (JST)jsswr.2012.7 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a en 
100 1 |a Gerdes, Karen E.  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Examination of Known-Groups Validity for the Empathy Assessment Index (EAI): Differences in EAI Scores Between Social Service Providers and Service Recipients 
264 1 |c 2012 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This article reports the findings of a known-groups validity study of the Empathy Assessment Index (EAI), which is a 20-item self-report instrument based on an emerging social cognitive neuroscience definition of empathy. A convenience sample formed 2 groups of study participants: social service providers (n = 197), and a group (n =453) of offender service recipients from community treatment agencies, receiving services for (a) sexual offenses (n = 251), (b) anger management or misdemeanor domestic violence (n = 155), and (c), domestic violence (n = 47). The literature suggests providers and offenders should have significantly different levels of empathy. To test this hypothesis, we compare the group scores on the overall EAI and 4 component scores (affective response, perspective taking, self–other awareness, emotion regulation). Differential item functioning analysis is used to determine whether the EAI items measure the same construct within each group, and highlights 5 items. Results include findings from a multilevel regression analysis, using the 20- and 15-item versions of the EAI. For both versions, controlling for gender, age, education, income, class, and race variables, we find treatment groups have lower average empathy scores than service providers; this difference is statistically significant for 2 of the 3 treatment groups. The emotion regulation and self–other awareness EAI components demonstrate known-groups validity in 1 of the 3 treatment groups. Researchers can likely increase both known-groups and content validity of the EAI by using perception-action items of greater specificity in the affective response component and by adding an affective mentalizing component. 
540 |a © 2012 by the Society for Social Work and Research. All rights reserved. 
650 4 |a empathy 
650 4 |a instrument validation. known groups 
650 4 |a emotion regulation 
650 4 |a self-other awareness 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Cognitive psychology  |x Emotion  |x Emotional states  |x Empathy 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Sociology  |x Human societies  |x Social welfare  |x Social work 
650 4 |a Political science  |x Government  |x Government services  |x Social services 
650 4 |a Applied sciences  |x Research methods  |x Survey research  |x Survey methods  |x Self reports 
650 4 |a Law  |x Criminal law  |x Criminal offenses  |x Domestic violence 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Sociology  |x Human societies  |x Social groups  |x Communities 
650 4 |a Philosophy  |x Epistemology  |x Empiricism  |x Empirical evidence 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Sociology  |x Human societies  |x Social institutions  |x Families  |x Family members  |x Parents 
650 4 |a Law  |x Criminal law  |x Criminal offenses  |x Sexual offenses  |x Sexual misconduct  |x Sexual assault  |x Child molestation 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Cognitive psychology  |x Emotion 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Cognitive psychology  |x Emotion  |x Emotional states  |x Empathy 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Sociology  |x Human societies  |x Social welfare  |x Social work 
650 4 |a Political science  |x Government  |x Government services  |x Social services 
650 4 |a Applied sciences  |x Research methods  |x Survey research  |x Survey methods  |x Self reports 
650 4 |a Law  |x Criminal law  |x Criminal offenses  |x Domestic violence 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Sociology  |x Human societies  |x Social groups  |x Communities 
650 4 |a Philosophy  |x Epistemology  |x Empiricism  |x Empirical evidence 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Sociology  |x Human societies  |x Social institutions  |x Families  |x Family members  |x Parents 
650 4 |a Law  |x Criminal law  |x Criminal offenses  |x Sexual offenses  |x Sexual misconduct  |x Sexual assault  |x Child molestation 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Psychology  |x Cognitive psychology  |x Emotion 
655 4 |a research-article 
700 1 |a Geiger, Jennifer Mullins  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Lietz, Cynthia A.  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Wagaman, M. Alex  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
700 1 |a Segal, Elizabeth A.  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research  |d University of Chicago Press  |g 3(2012), 2, Seite 94-112  |w (DE-627)654270724  |w (DE-600)2598656-9  |x 1948822X  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:3  |g year:2012  |g number:2  |g pages:94-112 
856 4 0 |u https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5243/jsswr.2012.7  |3 Volltext 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2012.7  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_JST 
912 |a GBV_ILN_11 
912 |a GBV_ILN_20 
912 |a GBV_ILN_22 
912 |a GBV_ILN_23 
912 |a GBV_ILN_24 
912 |a GBV_ILN_31 
912 |a GBV_ILN_39 
912 |a GBV_ILN_40 
912 |a GBV_ILN_60 
912 |a GBV_ILN_62 
912 |a GBV_ILN_63 
912 |a GBV_ILN_65 
912 |a GBV_ILN_69 
912 |a GBV_ILN_70 
912 |a GBV_ILN_73 
912 |a GBV_ILN_95 
912 |a GBV_ILN_100 
912 |a GBV_ILN_101 
912 |a GBV_ILN_110 
912 |a GBV_ILN_151 
912 |a GBV_ILN_161 
912 |a GBV_ILN_206 
912 |a GBV_ILN_213 
912 |a GBV_ILN_230 
912 |a GBV_ILN_285 
912 |a GBV_ILN_293 
912 |a GBV_ILN_374 
912 |a GBV_ILN_602 
912 |a GBV_ILN_702 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2001 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2003 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2005 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2006 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2007 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2008 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2009 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2010 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2011 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2014 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2015 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2018 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2020 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2021 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2026 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2027 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2044 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2050 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2056 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2057 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2061 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2086 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2106 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2107 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2190 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2232 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2949 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2950 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4012 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4035 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4037 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4046 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4125 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4126 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4242 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4249 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4251 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4305 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4306 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4307 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4313 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4322 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4323 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4324 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4325 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4326 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4335 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4338 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4346 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4367 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4393 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4700 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 3  |j 2012  |e 2  |h 94-112