261

d o i : 10 . 1 5 4 4 6 / rc p .v 24 n 2. 4 2 5 1 4

Structural Validation of the Scale

Basic Empathy
Modified Scale in Adolescents:
a Preliminary Study

CÉSARMERINO-SOTO
San Martín de Porres University, Lima, Peru
MIRIANGRIMALDO-MUCHOTRIGO
Peruvian University of Applied Sciences, Lima, Peru

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this magazine is licensed under a Creative license.
Commons "recognition, non-commercial and no derivative works" Colombia 2.5, which can be consulted
license at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co

How to cite this article: Merino-Soto, C. & Grimaldo-Muchotrigo, M. (2015). Structural validation of
Modified Basic Empathy Scale in Adolescents: A Preliminary Study. Journal
Colombian Journal of Psychology, 24(2), 261-270. doi: 10.15446/rcp.v24n2.42514.

Correspondence related to this article should be addressed to César Merino-Soto, email: sikayax@yahoo.
com.ar. Institute of Psychology Research, University of San Martín de Porres, Av. Tomás Marsano
242, Surquillo-Lima 34, Peru.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ARTICLE

RECEIVED: MARCH 11, 2014 – ACCEPTED: 3 APRIL 2, 2015

Colombian Journal of Psychology vol. 24 no. 2 July-December 2015 ISSN 0121-5469 printed | 2344-8644 online Bogotá Colombia - pp.261-270
262 César Merino-Soto & Mirian Grimaldo-Muchotrig

Summary
A preliminary study was conducted to verify the structure of a 9-item version of the Basic Empathy Scale.
(EBE), an instrument that assesses affective and cognitive empathy. The participants were 135 adolescents between 11 and
18 yearsM=14DE1.4) of regular education, in an urban region of Metropolitan Lima. A methodology was used
structural equations to confirm the structure, and the Schmid-Leiman transformation to evaluate the bi- model
-dimensional. The results indicate that an oblique two-factor model is satisfactory for the data, the reliability-
dad is greater than .70, and the interpretation of a single score as it was previously done is not justified. They are discussed
the differences in the interpretation of the models and the assessment of the factorial methodology.

empathy, Basic Empathy Scale, interpersonal, adolescents.

Structural Validation of the Basic Empathy Scale

Modified for Adolescents: A Preliminary Study
Abstract
A preliminary study was conducted to verify the structure of a 9-item version of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES), an
instrument that evaluates emotional and cognitive empathy. The participants were 135 adolescents between 11 and 18
years of ageM=14SD=1.4) in compulsory education in an urban region of metropolitan Lima. A structural equation
methodology for confirming the structure and the Schmid-Leiman transformation for evaluating the bi-dimensional
A crosswise 2-factor model was used. The results indicate that this model is satisfactory for the data, with reliability greater
than .70, and that the interpretation of a single score, as has been done before, is not justified. The differences in the
The interpretation of the models and the assessment of the factorial methodology are discussed.

Keywords:empathy, Basic Empathy Scale, interpersonal, adolescents.

Structural Validation of the Basic Empathy Scale

Modified Scale in Adolescents: A Preliminary Study
Summary
A preliminary study was conducted to verify the structure of a 9-item version of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES),
an instrument that assesses affective and cognitive empathy. The participants were 135 adolescents aged between 11 and 18 years
(M=14DE=1.4) of regular education, in an urban area of Metropolitan Lima. The methodology of equations was used.
structural to confirm the Schmid-Leiman structure and transformation to evaluate the two-dimensional model. The re-
Results indicate that an oblique two-factor model is satisfactory for the data, the reliability is above .70.
and the interpretation of a single punctuation mark as was done previously is not justified. The differences are discussed in
interpretation of the models and of the factorial method evaluation.

empathy, Basic Empathy Scale, interpersonal, adolescents.

DepartmentofPsychology FacultyofHumanSciences NationalUniversityofColombia

validityofthebasicempathyscale 263

Empathy is an emotion mo- aspects that make it difficult to validate intercultural

ral and is considered by some authors (Eisen- a self-reporting instrument.
berg, 2009; Hoffman, 2000) as a response A structurally parsimonious instrument
affective that makes understanding possible of the monioso is the Basic Empathy Scale (Ba-
condition or emotional state of another person such Empathy Scale, BES; Jolliffe & Farrington,
(Eisenberg, 2000). As such, it can lead to the 2006), oriented towards measuring the process
people to help others and avoid hurting them, cognitive and emotional in children and adolescents.
but especially happens when the dispo- For the present study, it has as antecedent
the subject's position is altruistic (Guevara, Cabre- the fundamental tooth research of Oliva et al
ra, & Barrera, 2007). That is, the concern al. (2011), conducted as a multicenter study
the subject's reality is centered on the well-being of in 20 higher education institutions
people. In this way, it is a facilitator. Cundario of Western Andalusia, Spain,
of prosocial behaviors (Eisenberg & with 2400 participating adolescents. The self-
Strayer, 1992). In that same line, it is proposed that the a psychological development model was validated
importance of empathy in moral development positive behavior of the teenager, and they made use of
of people (Eisenberg, 2000), as it includes several instruments. One of them was the BES
emotional responses and vicarious experiences, whose validation in Spanish resulted in a
or in other words, the ability to differentiate short version of 9 items. With elBESse you obtain-
the emotional states of others and to take give two scores corresponding to the aspects
a perspective regarding others (Garaigor- affective and cognitive aspects of empathy, in addition
dobil & García de Galdeano, 2006). of an overall score that is interpreted as the
Structurally, empathy involves general empathetic behavior expressed
both cognitive and emotional elements for the child. However, Oliva et al. (2011) do not
(Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; Ward, Keenan, & they provided the empirical justification to conclude
Hudson, 2000), which implies a process with that a total score can retain enough
two essential components: cognitive (the awareness common variance of all items; this problem-
emotional account (to feel vicariously with but it also happened to the authors of the BES(Jo-
the victim), which leads to discriminating two lliffe & Farrington, 2006), probably with the
constructs that can be empirically seen budget that there was a latent variable
cognitive empathy and affective empathy general of empathy. In summary, both instruct-
(Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; Ward et al., 2000). mentos (long and short versions) in its presentation
Regarding your evaluation, there are knowings- current action suggests a global interpretation
the measures of empathy for children and adolescents (based on a single score) and another on two face-
tests (e.g., Bryant, 1982) validated for the Spanish language (cognitive and emotional empathy). However,
(Aristu, Holgado, Carrasco, & del Barrio, 2008; the relevant empirical evidence does not inform how
Del Barrio, Aluja, & García, 2004), as well as completely the presence of a general factor and,
adaptations of adult versions (e.g., delÍn- therefore, this mode of interpretation can
interpersonal reactivity scale; Davis, 1980 be plausibly incorrect.
for these ages (Mestre, Frías, & Samper, 2004; Empathy is an aspect of human development.
Richaud, 2008). However, the modifications hand that favors behavior oriented towards
in the factorial configuration have been frequent- well-being, positive problem resolution and
yes, possibly as a result of culture, prosociality towards people (Álvarez, Ca-
sampling errors, the age coverage origination- rrasco, &Fustos, 2010; Garaigordobil & Magan-
of the instrument and multidimensionality, to, 2011; Sánchez-Queija, Oliva, & Parra, 2006)

Colombian Journal of Psychology vol. 24 no. 2 July-December 2015 ISSN 0121-5469 printed | 2344-8644 online Bogotá Colombia - pp.261-270
264 César Merino-Soto & Mirian Grimaldo-Muchotrigo

it may need to be characterized from child- Instrument

here to observe its appropriate or inappropriate of- The version used in the present study is the
development, both for professional practice and short form derived from the Basic Empathy Scale
for the research. Especially in applies- Original of 20 items (BES, Basic Empathy Scale):
massive actions to obtain a quick impression Jollife & Farrington, 2006). This version contains
ask but valid, your evaluation through the 9 items derived from the pilot study of Oliva et al.
self-report is useful for reducing application costs (2011) conducted in Spain, in which it is eliminated-
education and processing, especially if one has a items that were not psychometrically suitable
abbreviated version (with few items) sufficient- well, regarding the magnitude of the factorial loads-
valid mind. The objective of this study is factorial complexity, item-test correlations
start the validation of the modified version of the and conceptual coherence item-factor. The items are
BES, carried out by Oliva et al. (2011). Does not exist. they are distributed on two scales, one corresponding to
another validation study regarding this ver- Affective Empathy, composed of items 1, 2, 3
session, so it seems to be the first that pre- and 6; and another corresponding to Cognitive Empathy
she feels the replication of her results. Due to made up of items 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. The consis-
its parsimonious extent, this brief version internal tension reported by Oliva et al. (2011) for
it can be useful to be applied in epi studies- both scales were .73 and .63, respectively. Oliva
semiological or within an extensive battery of et al. (2011) report interpretation benchmarks
instruments. for the subscales and the total score. The scores
they are obtained by the simple sum of the items,
Method in which the increase in scores is interpreted
as greater intensity in empathetic behavior.
Participants The instrument is presented in theAppendix.
There were 135 adolescents, 67 males
49.6% Procedure
of regular secondary education, of a school After receiving the acceptance from the director
private in a completely urban area of from the school and the consent of the parents and
Metropolitan Lima, corresponding to major- adolescents, the instrument was administered in the
primarily at the high or middle socioeconomic level regular class schedule and in the same classrooms
high. The age range was between 11 and 18m=14, of the class. The application instructions of the ins-
DEThe institution was intentionally chosen. instruments were standardized with respect to the pre-
mind due to how accessible and the nature presentation of the activity, filling out responses and
preliminary study. On the other hand, it was chosen opportunity to receive help in case of doubts.
randomly a classroom from each level The students from the selected classrooms present-
of studies (in Peru, the study stage co- on the day of data collection were included
corresponding to adolescents presents five in the study. Students who were excluded were
levels, from 1st to 5th). The distribution in each classroom they were identified with attitudes of indisposition
The collected class was: 23, 24, 31, 27, and 30 for sustainability through observation strategies.
the degrees from 1st to 5th, respectively. Regarding
to sex, at each level it was distributed in a way Data Analysis
similar, as no statistical differences were found Regarding the statistical analyses, it
significantly,c2(gl:1)=0.09, p>.05. they tested several models: a model that suggested

departmentofpsychology FacultyofHumanSciences NationalUniversityofColombia

validityofthebasicempathyscale 265

a single latent dimension without subcomponents regardless of the number of items consist of
distinguishable (unidimensional), complex factors in the average inter-item correlation (Bri-
truly discriminatory among themselves (orthogonal factors- ggs & Cheek, 1986; Simms & Watson, 2007). The
factors with some degree of dependence construct validity was done through the
linear (oblique factors) and bi-factorial model, coefficientw (McDonald, 1999) for each fac-
in which a general factor is modeled alongside even regardless of the results of the
specific factors. This last model founds confirmatory factor analysis and from the re-
mention the rationale for building a score Results of the hierarchical factorial analysis (coefficient-
total and sub-scores, as in Oliva et al. (2011) hierarchical client,wh;Zinbarg,Yovel,Revelle, &
they indicate it in the construction of their benchmarks. They McDonald, 2006). These calculations were made with
used the EQS6.2 program (Bentler & Wu, 2012), the Omega program (Watkins, 2013).
and adjustment indices were chosen:c2robustc2;
Satorra & Bentler, 1994), absolute fit indices Results
mourning (RootMeanSquaredError Approximation: Regarding the evaluation of the models
RMSEA≤.05;Standardized Root Mean Square Re- (Table 1), the unidimensional model was the one that
residualSRMR≤.08) and comparative (Comparative showed the worst fit. The following models
Fit IndexCFI≥.95;Tucker-Lewis Index:TLI≥.95); they showed exceptionally good fit levels.
these indices were also based on the SB-c2. high, although the SRMR was not adequate for
The fitting function was maximum test- the orthogonal model. The results of the mode-
ability, considering that the deviations of the orthogonal ones were not better than the model
the normality of the items was not severe oblique; in this last one a correlation was detected
and would have little effect on the parameters. moderate action that influenced his better adjustment
polychoric correlations were chosen. The bi-factor model did not converge, given that
among the items to represent continuity a non-positive matrix was detected. At this point
latent among these (Holgado, Chacón, Barbero, it was preferred to proceed with the transformation of
& Vila, 2010; Morata-Ramírez & Holgado-Tello, Schmid-Leiman (SL; Schmid & Leiman, 1957),
2013). For internal consistency, calculations were made What is an exploratory approach to modeling a
the coefficient α (Cronbach, 1951) and its intervals second-order factor and first-order factors
of confidence with the Fisher method (Romano, den, within a framework of hierarchical relationships
Kromrey, & Hibbard, 2012; Romano, Kromrey, cases that also allow estimating the variance in
Owens, & Scott, 2011). An index was also used each factor (Wolf & Preising, 2005).

Table 1
Adjustment of the evaluated measurement models

SB-c2(gl) RMSEA (I.C. 90%) SRMR TLI CFI

.17
Unidimensional 140.902 (27) .14 .66 .74
(0.14, 0.26)

.037
Orthogonal 31.862 (27) .12 .98 .98
(0.0, 0.08)

.015
Oblique 26.789 (26) .06 .99 .99
.0, .07

Note: SB-c2490.122 (gl:36)

Colombian Journal of Psychology vol. 24 no. 2 July-December 2015 ISSN 0121-5469 printed | 2344-8644 online Bogotá Colombia - pp.261-270
266 César Merino-Soto & Mirian Grimaldo-Muchotrigo

All estimated parameters (correlation- (g) seems to be more representative only

interfactorial means, factor loadings, and variances of the factor, since the factor loadings of the
were statistically significant. Consider- items corresponding to the factorEC were ba-
randomizing the factor loadings of the Confirmatory model this is confirmed because in the loads
oblique Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (Table 2), these are second order factorials of the factors EA
exceedtheusualrecommendedlimit(≥.30;McDo-andEC,theloadofthefactorEAisveryhigh(.82).
nald, 1999); the factor EA(F2) contains similar items- retained variance, based on the sum of loads
largely discriminatory and greater than .70, except quadratics by the general factor (1.69, 40.47%)
item 6. In contrast, the factorEC(F1) has items is less than the corresponding for the factor
with variable discriminative power, but superior EA(1.83, 44.2%) but greater than the EC factor
a .50. In the results of the transformation SL, (0.62, 14.9%). No re-specifications were made.
the factor loadings of the specific factors are a posteriori because the final model (oblique) us-
minors, particularly for the factor (F2); after a sufficient adjustment, and because the changes
In contrast, the items of the factor E had a li- suggested by the modification index produced
making a decrease in its variance, maintaining car- there would be only small increases in the adjustment
substantial gas factorials. The general factor of the model.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and factorial results for the items
cfa Schmid–Leiman Transformation
Item M dE As Cu
F1 F2 R 2 G F1 F2 h2 G h2 F
h2total

E1 2.985 1.040 -0.249 -0.475 .718 .516 .559 -0.057 .408 .312 .170 .482

E2 2.896 1.090 -0.103 -0.530 .775 .600 .617 -0.024 .438 .381 .192 .573

E3 2.956 1.173 -0.274 -0.945 .772 .596 .609 -0.067 .446 .371 .203 .574

E6 4.074 0.892 -1.095 1.294 .496 .246 .412 .174 .231 .170 .084 .253

E4 3.756 0.881 -0.676 0.436 .668 .447 .349 .558 .062 .122 .315 .437

E5 2.881 1.168 0.148 -0.667 .574 .330 .227 .467 .007 .052 .218 .270

E7 3.800 0.925 -0.608 0.108 .753 .568 .346 .672 .023 .120 .452 .572

E8 4.163 0.772 -0.972 1.588 .748 .559 .361 .646 .042 .130 .419 .549

E9 4.178 0.842 -0.947 0.793 .669 .447 .191 .634 -0.072 .036 .407 .444

Correlation

F1 - - - - 1 - .422 - - - - -

F2 - - - - .34 1 - .820 - - - - -

α - - - - .76 .77 -

w - - - - - - - .83 .81 .76 - - -

wh - - - - - - - .45 .64 .24 - - -

Note item reliability. G: general factor. Gcommunalities in the general factor. communality
2 2 2
F
in the specific factors.2Totalltotal communalism (sum of2Gyh2FCFA: results of the oblique model.αalpha coefficient.womega coefficient.
whhierarchical omega coefficient.

DepartmentofPsychology FacultyofHumanSciences NationalUniversityofColombia

validityofthebasicempathyscale 267

The average inter-item correlation for the empirical and parsimonious proposal of Jolliffe
EA(rii=0.462) yEC(rii.396) is found in yFarrington (2006) seems appropriate. However,
the recommended range of inter-consistency Bargo, there is not enough evidence for this
between the items, also indicating that the parsimony leads to using a single score in
Scores seem to point to mode constructs- the interpretation of the construct in children and
radically specific (Clark & Watson, 1995). teenagers.
Internal consistency through the coefficient The difference in the magnitude of the esti-
it can be considered appropriate given the small reliability formations, between the coefficient
number of items at each score, at least for α ywit suggests that if one wants an estimate
descriptive group fines; their intervals of more accurate of the reliability, it must be taken into
confidence (95%) were (.67, .82) and (.69, .83) for tell the effect of the violation of the budget-
f1 yf2, respectively. The coefficientwit was due to the tau equivalence in the items, something that has
satisfactory for each factor taken in this way has been emphasized in other works (Yang & Green,
independent, but from the hierarchical analysis 2011; Zinbarg et al., 2006). The estimation of the
The trivial loads were transformed into reliability using factor information,
0 for its calculation), its magnitude was totally Indeed, a better one must be considered.
unacceptable for the general factor (less than .46) estimation of this parameter, considering the crí-
and paraf2 (EA). current issue with the coefficient α (Yang & Green, 2011).
In the discussion of these technical aspects, it must
Discussion to emphasize two things: first, as in
The results suggest that the best inter- another study on the adaptation of a measure of
interpretation of the construct of empathy, in the BES empathy (Aristu et al., 2008), the use of correlations
abbreviated by Oliva et al. (2011), corresponds polychronic actions can allow for estimations
two moderately related areas, with less biased regarding the ordinal nature
items between moderate and strong dis- capacity of the items of the BES. Second, that the method
criminal; this variation in discrimination It allowed us to recognize how it is distributed
depends on the found factor. This clearly contrasts retained variance among the first factors
lie with the intended use of the standards for first order and second order, and it is a procedure
the total score derived by Oliva et al. (2011) and highly recommended for explo- purposes
the information from Jolliffe and Farrington (2006). If ratorios (Wolf & Preising, 2005).
a measure of empathy that can be required Our data did not allow for mode-
to be interpreted with a single score, another instruction- to create a bi-factorial structure with the method
Mentoring for the same purpose would be more appropriate. confirmatory, but a replication study
The evidence found here was confirmed from could you verify the generalization of this result
various sources (the reliability based on the mo- tado. Along with this limitation of the present study-
factorial work and the common variance among the fac- God, more heterogeneity and size are required
stores) that aim to understand that the process sample for parameter estimation
cognitive and emotional aspects of empathy work potentially less biased. Likewise, the
with a certain independence, at least when this differences in age and sex at the level of scores
is assessed by a self-report measure. and of the items, and regarding the properties is-
Along with the confirmation of a pair structure- Structural issues must be explored, because
specifically orthogonal, conceptually it indicates they can produce variations in such aspects.
since the interpretation of empathy is supported The influence of such variables (age and sex) has
better from a multidimensional framework, and that has been demonstrated in the scientific literature (e.g.,

Colombian Journal of Psychology vol. 24 no. 2 July-December 2015 ISSN 0121-5469 printed | 2344-8644 online Bogotá Colombia - pp. 261-270
268 César Merino-Soto & Mirian Grimaldo-Muchotrigo

Álvarez et al., 2010; Garaigordobil & Magan- Clark, L.A. & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validation.
to, 2011; Retuerto, 2004; Sánchez-Queija et al., Dity: Basic issues in objective scale development.
2006), which suggests assessing these differences in Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319.
a larger and more heterogeneous sample. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
Finally, it could be recommended to explore structure of tests.Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. doi:
the structure of the BES Using all the items (ori- 10.1007/BF02310555
originally, 20 items), checking in this with- Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to
the replicability of the modified version individual differences in empathy.jsasCatalog of
deOliva et al. (2011) and perhaps derive another version Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
abbreviated alternative that shows equal or better Del Barrio, M.V., Aluja, A. & García, L. (2004). Bry-
psychometric properties. But they consider- ant’s empathy index for children and adolescents:
of all the discussed aspects, the interpretation Psychometric properties in the Spanish language.
multidimensional aspect of empathy in adolescents Psychological Reports, 95, 257-262. doi: 10.2466/
seems reasonable and empirically justifiable, PR0.95.5.257-262
and from a practical perspective, the results Eisenberg, N. & Strayer, J. (1992). Empathy and its
prove to be satisfactory for use as development.Bilbao: Desclée de Brouwer.
a potential tool for applications Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation and moral
sivas, in the description of empathetic behavior development.Annual Review of Psychology, 51,
of the teenager, as the main objective or as 665-697.doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665
secondary component of other behaviors. Eisenberg, N. (2009). Empathy-related responding:
Links with self-regulation, moral judgment, and
References moral behavior. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver
Álvarez, P., Carrasco, M. & Fustos, J. (2010). Relationship (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior
of empathy and gender in prosocial behavior and (pp. 129-148). Washington: APA Publications.
aggressive, in adolescents of different types of this Garaigordobil, M. & García de Galdeano, P. (2006).
educational bleaching. Ibero-American Journal Empathy in children aged 10 to 12. Psychothema,
of Psychology: Science and Technology, 3(2), 27-36. 8(2), 180-186.
Aristu, A., Holgado, F., Carrasco, M. & del Barrio, M. Garaigordobil, M. & Maganto, C. (2011). Empathy and
(2008). The structure of Bryant’s Empathy Index for conflict resolution during childhood and the
Children: A cross-validation study. Spanish Journal adolescence. LatinAmerican Journal of Psychology,
of Psychology, 11(2), 670-677. 43(2), 255-266.
Bentler, R. M. & Wu, E. J. C. (2012).EQS for windows Guevara, I., Cabrera, V. & Barrera, C. (2007). Factors
(Version 6.2) [Statistical Program for Windows]. contextual and moral emotions as predictors
Encino: Multivariate Software, Inc. of psychological adjustment in adolescence. Universitas
Briggs, S.R. & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor Psychologica, 6(2), 269-283.
analysis in the development and evaluation of Hoffman,M.L.(2000).Empathyandmoraldevelopment:
personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106-148. Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge:
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x University Press.
Bryant, B. (1982). An index of empathy for children Holgado, F.P., Chacón, S., Barbero, I. & Vila, E. (2010).
and adolescents. Child Development, 53, 413-425. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in explo-
doi: 10.2307/1128984 Laboratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal

departmentofpsychology FacultyofHumanSciences NationalUniversityofColombia

validityofthebasicempathyscale 269

variables.Quality and Quantity, 44, 153-166. doi: Sánchez-Queija, I., Oliva,A. & Parra,A. (2006). Empathy
10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y prosocialbehaviorduringadolescence.Journal
Jolliffe, D. & Farrington, D.P. (2006). Development and Social Psychology, 21(3), 259-271.
validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Satorra, A. & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to
Adolescence, 29, 589-611. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescen- test statistics and standard errors in covariance
ce.2005.08.010 Structure analysis. EnA. von Eye & C. C. Clogg
McDonald, R.P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Latent variables analysis: Applications for
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand
Master,V.,Frías,D. & Samper,P. (2004).The measure Oaks: Sage.
of empathy: analysis of Interpersonal Reactivity Schmid, J. & Leiman, J.N. (1957). The development of
Index.Psicothema, 16(2), 255-260. hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22,
Morata-Ramírez, M. & Holgado-Tello, F. (2013). Construct 53-61. doi: 10.1007/BF02289209
validity of Likert scales through confirmatory factor Simms, L. J. & Watson, D. (2007). The construct valida-
analysis: A simulation study comparing different tion approach to personality scale construction. En
methods of estimation based on Pearson and poly- R.Robins, C.Fraley & R. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook
Choric correlations. International Journal of Social of research methods in personality psychology (pp.
Science Studies, 1, 54-61. doi: 10.11114/ijsss.v1i1.27 240–258). New York: Guilford.
Oliva,A.,Antolín,L.,Pertegal, M.,Ríos, M.,Parra,A., Ward, T., Keenan, T. & Hudson, S. M. (2000). Unders-
Hernando, A. & Reina, M. (2011). Instruments standing cognitive, affective, and intimacy deficits
for the evaluation of mental health and development in sexual offenders: A developmental perspective.
positive adolescent and the assets that promote it. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(1), 41-62. doi:
Seville: Department of Health. 10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00025-1
Retuerto, A. (2004). Differences in empathy based on Watkins, M.W. (2013). Omega [Computer software].
of the variables gender and age. Notes of Psychology, Phoenix: Ed & Psych Associates.
22(3), 323-339. Wolf, H. G. & Preising, K. (2005). Exploring item
Richaud, M. (2008). Evaluation of empathy in and higher order factor structure with the Sch-
Argentinian child population. Journal of the Institute mid–Leiman solution: Syntax codes for spssand
of Psychology Research, 11, 101-115. sas.Behavior Research Methods, 37(1), 48-58. doi:
Romano, J.L., Kromrey, J.D. & Hibbard, S.T. (2012). 10.3758/BF03206397
A Monte Carlo study of eight confidence intervals Yang,Y. & Green, S. B. (2011). Coefficient alpha:A
methods for coefficient alpha. Educational and reliability coefficient for the 21st century? Journal
PsychologicalMeasurement, 70(3), 376-393. doi: of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 377-392.
10.1177/0013164409355690 doi: 10.1177/0734282911406668
Romano, J.L., Kromrey, J.D. Owens, C. M. & Scott, Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W. & McDonald, R.
H. M. (2011). Confidence interval methods for P.(2006).Estimatinggeneralizabilitytoalatent
coefficient alpha based on discrete, ordinal variable comuna a todos los indicadores de una escala:
Which one, if any, is the best? A comparison of estimators for ωh Applied
Journal of Experimental Education, 79(4), 382-403. Psychological Measurement, 30, 121-144. doi:
doi: 10.1080/00220973.2010.510859 10.1177/0146621605278814

Colombian Journal of Psychology vol. 24 no. 2 July-December 2015 ISSN 0121-5469 printed | 2344-8644 online Bogotá Colombia - pp.261-270
270 César Merino-Soto & Mirian Grimaldo-Muchotrig

Appendix

Basic Empathy Scale, nine-item version derived from the pilot study by Oliva et al. (2011)
Indicate whether the phrases listed below can define your way of being or not.
marking the chosen option with a circle.

Totally agree
Agreed
Neither agree nor in
disagreement
In disagreement
Totally in
disagreement

After being with a friend who is sad for some reason, I usually
1 2 3 4 5
feeling sad

The feelings of others easily affect me. 1 2 3 4 5

I feel sad when I see people crying 1 2 3 4 5

When someone is depressed, I tend to understand how they feel. 1 2 3 4 5

I almost always notice when my friends are scared. 1 2 3 4 5

It often makes me sad to see sad things on TV or in the movies. 1 2 3 4 5

I often can understand how others feel, even before

1 2 3 4 5
let them tell me

I can almost always tell when others are happy. 1 2 3 4 5

I usually notice quickly when a friend is angry. 1 2 3 4 5

departmentofpsychology FacultyofHumanSciences NationalUniversityofColombia