Table 1
Analysis of Variance of IRI scores in the Three French Versions.
| SUB-SCALE | MEAN (SD) | FRIEDMAN TEST | POST-HOC | CEILING EFFECT (%) | FLOOR EFFECT (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G&L | GILET | BRAUN | G&L | GILET | BRAUN | G&L | GILET | BRAUN | |||
| PD | 14.40 (4.99) | 12.90 (5.36) | 13.50 (4.94) | χ² = 39.02, p < .001 | G&L > Gilet** | .003 | .003 | .003 | .006 | .009 | .009 |
| EC | 20.00 (4.63) | 20.50 (4.39) | 19.80 (4.54) | χ² = 14.45, p < .001 | ns | .024 | .021 | .021 | .006 | .003 | .003 |
| PT | 18.40 (4.83) | 18.90 (4.72) | 19.00 (4.60) | χ² = 13.90, p < .01 | ns | .015 | .015 | .027 | .003 | .003 | .003 |
| FS | 19.40 (5.63) | 19.20 (5.43) | 19.30 (5.52) | χ² = 4.31, p = .12 | ns | .044 | .029 | .035 | .003 | .003 | .006 |
[i] Note. G&L = IRI version by Guttman & Laporte, 2000; Gilet = IRI version by Gilet et al., 2013; Braun = IRI version by Braun et al., 2015. EC = Empathic Concern subscale; PD = Personal Distress subscale; PT = Perspective Taking subscale; FS = Fantasy subscale. Friedman test (a non-parametric version of one-way RM ANOVA) was applied to compare the mean distributions of the three versions. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test was applied for post-hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction method.
Table 2
Items’ Responses Skewness and Kurtosis for the three French Versions of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index.
| ITEM | G&L | GILET | BRAUN | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SKEWNESS | KURTOSIS | SKEWNESS | KURTOSIS | SKEWNESS | KURTOSIS | |
| IRI 1 | –0.84 | –0.21 | –0.70 | –0.52 | –0.95 | 0.19 |
| IRI 2 | –0.53 | –0.24 | –0.43 | –0.41 | –0.24 | –0.53 |
| IRI 3 | –0.65 | –0.46 | –0.84 | –0.10 | –0.82 | –0.15 |
| IRI 4 | –0.48 | –0.70 | –0.33 | –1.00 | –0.67 | –0.46 |
| IRI 5 | –0.58 | –0.46 | –0.80 | 0.04 | –0.65 | –0.36 |
| IRI 6 | –0.11 | –0.87 | –0.25 | –0.89 | –0.44 | –0.54 |
| IRI 7 | –0.91 | 0.38 | –0.76 | –0.14 | –0.47 | –0.63 |
| IRI 8 | –0.72 | 0.11 | –0.93 | 1.20 | –0.82 | 1.12 |
| IRI 9 | –0.67 | 0.42 | –0.90 | 0.98 | –0.87 | 1.13 |
| IRI 10 | –0.53 | –0.71 | –0.61 | –0.52 | –0.67 | –0.39 |
| IRI 11 | –0.76 | 0.58 | –0.92 | 0.71 | –0.97 | 1.12 |
| IRI 12 | –1.22 | 0.70 | –1.56 | 2.17 | –1.20 | 0.70 |
| IRI 13 | –0.62 | –0.02 | 0.19 | –0.64 | 0.28 | –0.58 |
| IRI 14 | –0.94 | 0.35 | –1.28 | 1.46 | –0.68 | –0.04 |
| IRI 15 | –0.32 | –0.67 | –0.52 | –0.51 | –0.5 | –0.50 |
| IRI 16 | –0.39 | –1.15 | –0.03 | –1.24 | –0.44 | –0.97 |
| IRI 17 | –0.21 | –1.06 | –0.38 | –0.93 | –0.38 | –0.93 |
| IRI 18 | –1.08 | 0.55 | –1.90 | 3.40 | –1.53 | 2.34 |
| IRI 19 | 0.52 | 0.12 | 0.35 | –0.42 | 0.49 | –0.06 |
| IRI 20 | –0.44 | –0.23 | –0.74 | 0.15 | –0.67 | 0.11 |
| IRI 21 | –0.53 | –0.21 | –0.62 | 0.09 | –0.56 | –0.31 |
| IRI 22 | –0.77 | –0.09 | –0.80 | 0.33 | –0.78 | 0.13 |
| IRI 23 | –0.74 | –0.24 | –0.87 | 0.25 | –0.81 | –0.10 |
| IRI 24 | 0.64 | –0.12 | 0.45 | –0.45 | 0.52 | –0.31 |
| IRI 25 | –0.02 | –1.08 | 0.03 | –0.91 | –0.21 | –0.76 |
| IRI 26 | –0.88 | –0.06 | –0.75 | –0.15 | –0.77 | –0.45 |
| IRI 27 | 0.42 | –0.47 | 1.01 | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.59 |
| IRI 28 | –0.35 | –0.52 | –0.44 | –0.34 | –0.61 | –0.07 |
| N items >|1| | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Abs. Mean | 0.53 | 0.40 | 0.41 | 0.97 | 0.52 | 0.83 |
| PD | 0.18 | –0.29 | –0.05 | –0.50 | –0.05 | –0.31 |
| EC | –0.58 | –0.18 | –0.57 | –0.07 | –0.72 | 0.65 |
| PT | –0.31 | –0.28 | –0.41 | –0.02 | –0.32 | –0.08 |
| FS | –0.54 | –0.15 | –0.63 | 0.04 | –0.48 | –0.42 |
[i] Note. G&L = IRI version by Guttman & Laporte, 2000; Gilet = IRI version by Gilet et al., 2013; Braun = IRI version by Braun et al., 2015. EC = Empathic Concern subscale; PD = Personal Distress subscale; PT = Perspective Taking subscale; FS = Fantasy subscale; Abs. Mean = Absolute Mean; Values > 1.00 or < –1.00 are highlighted in bold.
Table 3
Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha and McDonald’s Omega) of the Three French Versions.
| SUBSCALES | G&L | GILET | BRAUN |
|---|---|---|---|
| PD | α = .79, ω = .89 | α = .83, ω = .89 | α = .80, ω = .86 |
| EC | α = .79, ω = .84 | α = .75, ω = .82 | α = .79, ω = .83 |
| PT | α = .79, ω = .85 | α = .79, ω = .86 | α = .78, ω = .85 |
| FS | α = .83, ω = .88 | α = .81, ω = .87 | α = .81, ω = .87 |
[i] Note. G&L = IRI version by Guttman & Laporte, 2000; Gilet = IRI version by Gilet et al., 2013; Braun = IRI version by Braun et al., 2015. EC = Empathic Concern subscale; PD = Personal Distress subscales; PT = Perspective Taking subscale; FS = Fantasy subscale.
Table 4
Fit Indexes yielded by the 4-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Three French Versions.
| FIT INDEXES | G&L | GILET | BRAUN | RECOMMENDED CRITERIA OF GOOD FIT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-squared (χ2) | 643.20*** | 596.30*** | 589.87*** | significant p-value |
| Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | <0.08 |
| Comparative Fit Index (CFI) | 0.94 | 0.95 | 0.94 | ≥0.90 |
| Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.94 | ≥0.95 |
| Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR) | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | <0.08 |
| Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.94 | ≥0.95 |
[i] Note. G&L = IRI version by Guttman & Laporte, 2000; Gilet = IRI version by Gilet et al., 2013; Braun = IRI version by Braun et al., 2015. *** = p <. 001.
Table 5
Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA). Factor Loadings compared for the three French Versions of the IRI.
| ITEM | G&L | GILET | BRAUN | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PD | EC | PT | FS | PD | EC | PT | FS | PD | EC | PT | FS | |
| IRI 6 | .76 | .73 | .63 | |||||||||
| IRI 10 | .59 | .55 | .65 | |||||||||
| IRI 13 | .22 | .55 | .51 | |||||||||
| IRI 17 | .54 | .53 | .55 | |||||||||
| IRI 19 | .61 | .67 | .55 | |||||||||
| IRI 24 | .79 | .86 | .72 | |||||||||
| IRI 27 | .66 | .63 | .61 | |||||||||
| IRI 2 | .70 | .72 | .57 | |||||||||
| IRI 4 | .37 | .58 | .65 | |||||||||
| IRI 9 | .40 | .47 | .40 | |||||||||
| IRI 14 | .73 | .64 | .73 | |||||||||
| IRI 18 | .66 | .36 | .44 | |||||||||
| IRI 20 | .69 | .46 | .66 | |||||||||
| IRI 22 | .58 | .65 | .68 | |||||||||
| IRI 3 | .55 | .59 | .65 | |||||||||
| IRI 15 | .50 | .58 | .49 | |||||||||
| IRI 8 | .61 | .58 | .55 | |||||||||
| IRI 11 | .74 | .63 | .73 | |||||||||
| IRI 21 | .58 | .51 | .40 | |||||||||
| IRI 25 | .62 | .62 | .64 | |||||||||
| IRI 28 | .61 | .66 | .64 | |||||||||
| IRI 1 | .42 | .38 | .38 | |||||||||
| IRI 5 | .69 | .74 | .73 | |||||||||
| IRI 7 | .59 | .58 | .51 | |||||||||
| IRI 12 | .58 | .52 | .44 | |||||||||
| IRI 16 | .70 | .67 | .72 | |||||||||
| IRI 23 | .84 | .79 | .80 | |||||||||
| IRI 26 | .64 | .69 | .73 | |||||||||
[i] Note. G&L = IRI version by Guttman & Laporte, 2000; Gilet = IRI version by Gilet et al., 2013; Braun = IRI version by Braun et al., 2015. EC = Empathic Concern subscale; PD = Personal Distress subscales; PT = Perspective Taking subscale; FS = Fantasy subscale. Bold values indicate loadings < .40.
Table 6
Spearman Correlation Coefficients between the IRI Subscales and Other Scales.
| SCALES | EC | PD | PT | FS | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G&L | GILET | BRAUN | G&L | GILET | BRAUN | G&L | GILET | BRAUN | G&L | GILET | BRAUN | |
| STAI Trait | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.12 | 0.50*** | 0.46*** | 0.52*** | –0.14 | –0.08 | –0.08 | 0.22** | 0.21** | 0.20* |
| BDI | –0.06 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.30*** | 0.29*** | 0.34*** | –0.06 | 0.00 | –0.03 | 0.15 | 0.18 | 0.16 |
| EQ Total | 0.57*** | 0.57*** | 0.55*** | –0.03 | –0.08 | –0.02 | 0.41*** | 0.47*** | 0.48*** | 0.20* | 0.22** | 0.20* |
| EQ Cognitive Empathy | 0.32*** | 0.35*** | 0.34*** | –0.14 | –0.17 | –0.10 | 0.30*** | 0.33*** | 0.31*** | 0.18 | 0.17 | 0.17 |
| EQ Emotional Reactivity | 0.66*** | 0.64*** | 0.64*** | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.35*** | 0.43*** | 0.47*** | 0.27*** | 0.29*** | 0.27*** |
| EQ Social Skills | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.08 | –0.26*** | –0.27*** | –0.31*** | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 | –0.06 | –0.06 | –0.06 |
[i] Note. EC = Empathic Concern subscale; PD = Personal Distress subscale; PT = Perspective Taking subscale; FS = Fantasy subscale. G&L = IRI version by Guttman & Laporte, 2000; Gilet = IRI version by Gilet et al., 2013; Braun = IRI version by Braun et al., 2015. STAI-T = Spielberger’s Trait Anxiety Inventory; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; EQ = Empathy Quotient. * = p <. 05; ** = p <. 01; *** = p <. 001.
Figure 1
Item-by-Item Evaluation. Percentage of Translators (%) Considering as Non Acceptable each Item following the Established Criteria.
Note. The color gradient represents the percentage of translators considering an item as being not acceptable with respect to the given criteria (% of “NO” answers). Darker red indicates a higher number of translators considering the item as being bad. Darker blue indicates a higher number of translators considering the item as being good. Oral = oral form appropriateness (“Is this sentence something that you would say?”; Written = written form appropriateness (“Is this sentence something that you would write?”; Intensity = emotional intensity appropriateness (“Is the intensity of the sentence – the expressed action/emotion – equivalent to that of the original English version?”). Worst = % of translators judging the item as the worst when compared to the other French versions of the same item. Non Acceptable > 1 = Items that are considered on average as non acceptable at more than one criterion. G&L = IRI version by Guttman & Laporte, 2000; Gilet = IRI version by Gilet et al., 2013; Braun = IRI version by Braun et al., 2015.
Table 7
Problematic Items when Considering Parameters assessed in Study 1 and 2.
| ITEM | G&L | GILET | BRAUN | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SKEW | KRT | CFA | TRANSL | SKEW | KRT | CFA | TRANSL | SKEW | KRT | CFA | TRANSL | ||
| IRI 1 | X | X | |||||||||||
| IRI 2 | X | ||||||||||||
| IRI 3 | |||||||||||||
| IRI 4 | X | X | |||||||||||
| IRI 5 | X | X | |||||||||||
| IRI 6 | |||||||||||||
| IRI 7 | X | X | |||||||||||
| IRI 8 | X | X | |||||||||||
| IRI 9 | X | X | |||||||||||
| IRI 10 | X | X | |||||||||||
| IRI 11 | X | X | |||||||||||
| IRI 12 | X | X | X | X | |||||||||
| IRI 13 | X | ||||||||||||
| IRI 14 | X | X | |||||||||||
| IRI 15 | |||||||||||||
| IRI 16 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| IRI 17 | X | X | |||||||||||
| IRI 18 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
| IRI 19 | |||||||||||||
| IRI 20 | X | ||||||||||||
| IRI 21 | X | ||||||||||||
| IRI 22 | X | ||||||||||||
| IRI 23 | X | ||||||||||||
| IRI 24 | |||||||||||||
| IRI 25 | X | X | X | ||||||||||
| IRI 26 | X | ||||||||||||
| IRI 27 | |||||||||||||
| IRI 28 | |||||||||||||
| Sum | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 7 | |
| Total | 12 | 19 | 14 | ||||||||||
| Items problematic at >1 parameter: | |||||||||||||
| Item #25 | Items #12, #14, #16, #18 | Item #18 | |||||||||||
[i] Note. G&L = IRI version by Guttman & Laporte, 2000; Gilet = IRI version by Gilet et al., 2013; Braun = IRI version by Braun et al., 2015. Skew = skeweness; Krt = kurtosis; CFA = Confirmatory Factor Analysis (involving Davis’ 4-factor model). Transl = Translation evaluation provided by the 6 translators following the established criteria (see Figure 1). An item was considered as problematic when meeting at least one of the following conditions: a) skewness or kurtosis value > |1|; b) loadings yielded by the CFA ≤ .40; c) resulting problematic at 2 or more translation criteria in Study 2.