[Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE)].

IF 0.7 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Laura Lübke, Diana Krogmann, Carsten Spitzer
{"title":"[Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE)].","authors":"Laura Lübke, Diana Krogmann, Carsten Spitzer","doi":"10.1055/a-2366-9995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Empathy as a central element of social cognition plays a decisive role in various psychosocial areas and interpersonal dynamics, especially within the context of psychotherapy. Despite the controversy surrounding a standardized definition, empathy is generally regarded as a multidimensional concept that encompasses both cognitive and affective dimensions. This differentiation between cognitive and affective facets is addressed by a widely used and internationally well-established self-report measure of empathy, the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE). This study focuses on evaluating the psychometric properties of the German version of the QCAE. In a convenience sample (N=1300), the postulated confirmatory five-factor model showed an adequate fit to the underlying structure. The subscales of the QCAE exhibited satisfactory internal consistency and convergent validity with other instruments measuring empathy. Despite certain methodological limitations, our findings suggest that the German version of the QCAE is suitable as a reliable and valid instrument for measuring empathy. Further studies in population-representative samples and clinical populations are required before a clear recommendation regarding its utilization can be provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":47315,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2366-9995","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Empathy as a central element of social cognition plays a decisive role in various psychosocial areas and interpersonal dynamics, especially within the context of psychotherapy. Despite the controversy surrounding a standardized definition, empathy is generally regarded as a multidimensional concept that encompasses both cognitive and affective dimensions. This differentiation between cognitive and affective facets is addressed by a widely used and internationally well-established self-report measure of empathy, the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE). This study focuses on evaluating the psychometric properties of the German version of the QCAE. In a convenience sample (N=1300), the postulated confirmatory five-factor model showed an adequate fit to the underlying structure. The subscales of the QCAE exhibited satisfactory internal consistency and convergent validity with other instruments measuring empathy. Despite certain methodological limitations, our findings suggest that the German version of the QCAE is suitable as a reliable and valid instrument for measuring empathy. Further studies in population-representative samples and clinical populations are required before a clear recommendation regarding its utilization can be provided.

[认知与情感移情问卷(QCAE)德文版的心理测量评估]。
移情作为社会认知的一个核心要素,在各种社会心理领域和人际动态中,尤其是在心理治疗的背景下,起着决定性的作用。尽管对移情的标准化定义存在争议,但人们普遍认为移情是一个包含认知和情感两个维度的多维概念。认知和情感层面之间的这种区别,可以通过一种广泛使用且在国际上久负盛名的同理心自我报告测量方法--认知和情感同理心问卷(QCAE)来解决。本研究的重点是评估德文版 QCAE 的心理测量特性。在一个便利样本(样本数=1300)中,假设的确认性五因素模型显示出与基本结构的充分拟合。QCAE 的各分量表显示出令人满意的内部一致性以及与其他移情测量工具的收敛有效性。尽管存在一些方法上的局限性,但我们的研究结果表明,德文版 QCAE 是一种可靠有效的移情测量工具。我们还需要在具有人口代表性的样本和临床人群中开展进一步的研究,才能就如何使用该工具提出明确的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
11.10%
发文量
89
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信