Journal of Isfahan Medical School

Journal of Isfahan Medical School

Exploring Psychometric Properties and Network Structure and Central Items of the Persian Version of the Empathic Experience Scale

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors
Samin Baharshanjani 1
Parviz Azadfallah 2
Hojjatollah Farahani 3
1 PhD Student in Psychology, Department pf Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
10.48305/jims.v44.i849.0025
Abstract
Background: Empathy is a fundamental concept in social cognition, consisting of two main components: vicarious experience and intuitive understanding of others’ emotions. The present study aimed to examine the psychometric properties and network structure of the Empathic Experience Scale in an Iranian sample.
Methods: This descriptive–analytical study was conducted in 2025 in Tehran on 260 adults (210 females and 50 males) selected via convenience sampling. The Persian version of the scale, along with the Basic Empathy Scale, aggression, and interpersonal problems questionnaires, was administered. Construct validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis, and criterion-related and discriminant validity were assessed through correlations with relevant measures. Reliability was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, test–retest, and composite reliability.
Findings: Confirmatory factor analysis indicated an acceptable fit for the two-factor model comprising vicarious experience and intuitive understanding. Significant correlations with criterion measures confirmed satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity. Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was 0.931, and composite reliability coefficients for the factors were 0.88 and 0.92, respectively. Additionally, the average variance extracted exceeded the acceptable threshold (0.5), supporting convergent validity. Network analysis revealed positive relationships among most items, a few stronger connections, and several conditionally independent items.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that the Persian version of the Empathic Experience Scale is a reliable and valid tool for assessing empathy in the Iranian population. This scale can be applied in various fields and disciplines where human relationships, interpersonal interactions, and emotional understanding are central, both in research and clinical practice.

Highlights

Samin Baharshanjani: Google Scholar

Parviz Azadfallah: Google Scholar, PubMed

Hojjatollah Farahani: Google Scholar, PubMed

Keywords
Affective Empathy
Cognitive Empathy
Empathy
Empathic Experience Scale
Subjects
1.     Sanahuges C, Curell H. The perception of empathy. CÍRCULO de Linguística Aplicada a la Comunicación. 2022; 89: 235.
2.     Zahavi D. Empathy, embodiment and interpersonal understanding: From Lipps to Schutz. Inquiry 2010; 53(3): 285-306.
3.     Innamorati M, Ebisch SJ, Gallese V, Saggino A. A bidimensional measure of empathy: Empathic Experience Scale. PloS One. 2019; 14(4): e0216164.
4.     Happé F, Cook JL, Bird G. The structure of social cognition: In (ter) dependence of sociocognitive processes. Annual review of psychology. 2017; 68: 243-67.
5.     Lockwood PL. The anatomy of empathy: Vicarious experience and disorders of social cognition. Behav Brain Res 2016; 311: 255-66.
6.     Thompson NM, Van Reekum CM, Chakrabarti B. Cognitive and affective empathy relate differentially to emotion regulation. Affect Sci 2022; 3(1): 118-34.
7.     Hodsoll S, Lavie N, Viding E. Emotional attentional capture in children with conduct problems: The role of callous-unemotional traits. Front Hum Neurosci 2014; 8: 570.
8.     Wilczek-Rużyczka E, Kupczyk M. Level of empathy and severity of psychopathic traits in medical, law and psychology students. Acta Neuropsychologica 2021; 19: 411-26.
9.     Van Dongen JD. The empathic brain of psychopaths: From social science to neuroscience in empathy. Front Psychol 2020; 11: 493832.
10.  Shamay-Tsoory SG. The neural bases for empathy. Neuroscientist 2011; 17(1): 18-24.
11.  Jafari MA, Nooroozi Z, Foolad Chang M. The study of factor structure, reliability and validity of basic empathy scale: Persian form [in Persian]. Journal of Educational Psychology Studies 2017; 14(25): 23-38.
12.  Zaki J, Ochsner KN. The neuroscience of empathy: progress, pitfalls and promise. Nat Neurosci 2012; 15(5): 675-80.
13.  Flavell JH. Cognitive development: Children's knowledge about the mind. Annu Rev Psychol 1999; 50(1): 21-45.
14.  Senman L. Cognitive Processes in Theory of Mind Tasks: Inhibition of Attention and Symbolic Representation in Young Children. National Library of Canada= Bibliothèque nationale du Canada, Ottawa; 2003.
15.  Hogan R. Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1969; 33(3): 307-16.
16.  Jolliffe D, Farrington DP. Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. J Adolesc 2006; 29(4): 589-611.
17.  Leibetseder M, Laireiter AR, Köller T. Structural analysis of the E-scale. Personality and Individual Differences 2007; 42(3): 547-61.
18.  Spreng* RN, McKinnon* MC, Mar RA, Levine B. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. J Pers Assess 2009; 91(1): 62-71.
19.  Mehrabian A. Manual for the balanced emotional empathy scale. Los Angeles, CA; 1996.
20.   Gerdes KE, Segal EA. A social work model of empathy. Advances in Social Work 2009; 10(2): 114-27.
21.   Reniers RLEP, Corcoran R, Drake R, Shryane NM, Völlm BA. The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. J Pers Assess 2011; 93(1): 84-95.
22.  Tavasolli GH. Sociology theories. Tehran: Samt Publications. 2001 [in Persian]
23.  Buss AH, Perry M. The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 199; 63(3): 452.
24.   Samani S. Study of reliability and validity of the Buss and Perry's aggression questionnaire [in Persian]. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology 2008.
25.  Barkham M, Hardy GE, Startup M. The IIP‐32: A short version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Br J Clin Psychol 1996; 35(1): 21-35.
26.  Fath N, Azadfallah P, Rasool-zadeh Tabatabaei SK, Rahimi C. Validity and reliability of the inventory of interpersonal problems (IIP-32) [in Persian]. J Clin Psychol 2013; 5(3): 69-80
27.  Farahani H. Network analysis in psychological research with application and interpretation of R software [in Persian]. Network. 2020; 19(1): 193-200.
28.  van Borkulo C, Boschloo L, Borsboom D, Penninx BW, Waldorp LJ, Schoevers RA. Association of symptom network structure with the course of depression. JAMA Psychiatry 2015; 72(12): 1219-26.
29.  Chen J, Chen Z. Extended Bayesian information criteria for model selection with large model spaces. Biometrika 2008; 95(3): 759-71.
30.  van Borkulo C, Boschloo L, Borsboom D, Penninx BW, Waldorp LJ, Schoevers RA. Association of symptom network structure with the course of depression. JAMA Psychiatry 2015; 72(12): 1219-26.
31.  Thorndike RL. Applied psychometrics. (No Title). 1982 Jan.
32.  Farahani H, Roshan Chesli R. Essentials for developing and validating psychological scales: Guide to best practices [in Persian]. Clin Psychol Personal 2020; 17(2): 197-212.
33.  Wheaton B, Muthen B, Alwin DF, Summers GF. Assessing reliability and stability in panel models. Sociological Methodology 1977;8: 84-136.
34.  Steiger JH. Point estimation, hypothesis testing, and interval estimation using the RMSEA: Some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Structural Equation Modeling 2000;7(2): 149-62.
35.  Singer T, Lamm C. The social neuroscience of empathy. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1156(1): 81-96.
36.  Zahavi D, Rochat P. Empathy≠ sharing: Perspectives from phenomenology and developmental psychology. Consciousness and Cognition. 2015; 36: 543-53.
37.  Kanske P, Böckler A, Singer T. Models, mechanisms and moderators dissociating empathy and theory of mind. Curr Top Behav Neurosci 2015; 30: 193-206.
38.  Kim YJ, Park EH, Jon DI, Jung MH, Hong N. Does emotional intelligence fluctuate within clinical depressive condition?. Psychiatry investigation 2017; 14(5): 532.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 44, Issue 849
1st Week, April
March and April 2026
Pages 25-40

  • Receive Date 10 January 2026
  • Accept Date 14 February 2026