Assessing the French Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI): Psychometric and Qualitative Properties Through the Three French Versions of the IRI Scale.

Giulia Gaggero, Angèle Brunellière, Maria Francesca Gigliotti, Wassila El Mardi, Sylvie Berthoz, Jean-Louis Nandrino, Karyn Doba, Delphine Grynberg
Author Information
  1. Giulia Gaggero: Department of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy. ORCID
  2. Angèle Brunellière: CNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France. ORCID
  3. Maria Francesca Gigliotti: CNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France. ORCID
  4. Wassila El Mardi: CNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France. ORCID
  5. Sylvie Berthoz: Univ. Bordeaux, INCIA CNRS UMR 5287, 33000 Bordeaux, France. ORCID
  6. Jean-Louis Nandrino: CNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France. ORCID
  7. Karyn Doba: CNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France. ORCID
  8. Delphine Grynberg: CNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France. ORCID

Abstract

The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is one of the most used self-report measures of empathy, comprising 4 factors assessing both cognitive and affective empathy. Nowadays, three different French adaptations of this instrument co-exist. This research compares the three French adaptations of the IRI scale using both quantitative and qualitative evaluations. In Study 1, a French-speaking sample ( = 339) completed all three French IRI versions at 2-month time intervals in a counterbalanced order. In Study 2, the item wording of the three versions was evaluated by six independent professional translators. Study 1 assessed the items' distribution, the scale's factorial structure, the subscales' internal consistency, and their correlations with alternative measures of empathy (the Empathy Quotient) and other clinically relevant indicators (anxiety, depression). These quantitative analyses highlighted that all three French adaptations can be used for research purposes. They all exhibit acceptable internal consistency, a factorial structure compliant with the 4-factor model originally proposed by Davis, as well as convergent and discriminant validity. However, by combining item quantitative analyses and translators' judgments, we revealed some problematic items in each version. Taken together, the findings suggest that the French IRI adaptations by Guttman & Laporte (2000) and Braun et al. (2015) should be slightly preferred. To improve the overall quality of each French IRI version, we provide some recommendations about how to adapt problematic items.

Keywords

References

  1. Alcohol Res. 2012;34(4):414-31 [PMID: 23584108]
  2. Encephale. 1986 Mar-Apr;12(2):77-9 [PMID: 3743520]
  3. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008 Mar;38(3):464-73 [PMID: 17990089]
  4. Saudi J Anaesth. 2017 May;11(Suppl 1):S80-S89 [PMID: 28616007]
  5. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2020 Apr;208(4):312-318 [PMID: 32221186]
  6. Scand J Psychol. 2002 Feb;43(1):49-59 [PMID: 11885760]
  7. Psicothema. 2024 Aug;36(3):267-276 [PMID: 39054821]
  8. Assessment. 2020 Mar;27(2):246-260 [PMID: 29847994]
  9. Nebr Symp Motiv. 1977;25:169-217 [PMID: 753989]
  10. Psychol Med. 2019 Mar;49(4):559-572 [PMID: 30178724]
  11. J Pers. 1987 Mar;55(1):19-39 [PMID: 3572705]
  12. Schizophr Bull. 2011 Jul;37(4):811-21 [PMID: 19959704]
  13. Can J Psychiatry. 2008 Jul;53(7):469-77 [PMID: 18674405]
  14. Psychiatry Res. 2010 Feb 28;175(3):277-9 [PMID: 20045198]
  15. Front Psychiatry. 2019 Mar 04;10:102 [PMID: 30886590]
  16. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004 Apr;34(2):163-75 [PMID: 15162935]
  17. PLoS One. 2018 Mar 21;13(3):e0194248 [PMID: 29561893]
  18. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Dec;46(12):1417-32 [PMID: 8263569]
  19. J Patient Saf. 2021 Dec 1;17(8):e1186-e1193 [PMID: 29140887]
  20. Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 2017 Apr;88(1):61-71 [PMID: 29630312]
  21. Clin Psychol Rev. 2022 Jun;94:102145 [PMID: 35349788]
  22. Psychol Rep. 2015 Dec;117(3):735-53 [PMID: 26595295]
  23. Psychol Med. 2004 Jul;34(5):911-9 [PMID: 15500311]
  24. Front Psychol. 2021 Nov 24;12:781346 [PMID: 34899531]
  25. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry. 1974;7(0):151-69 [PMID: 4412100]
  26. J Autism Dev Disord. 2019 Oct;49(10):3939-3955 [PMID: 31147901]
  27. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2011 Sep;35(9):1662-8 [PMID: 21599717]
  28. Front Public Health. 2018 Jun 11;6:149 [PMID: 29942800]
  29. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Nov;52(11):1037-46 [PMID: 10526997]
  30. Anesth Analg. 2018 May;126(5):1763-1768 [PMID: 29481436]
  31. Fam Process. 2000 Fall;39(3):345-58 [PMID: 11008652]
  32. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2023 Jul;31(4):505-519 [PMID: 37081796]
  33. Psych J. 2021 Oct;10(5):794-804 [PMID: 34494388]
  34. J Anxiety Disord. 2024 Jan;101:102795 [PMID: 38039916]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0FrenchIRIthreeadaptationsInterpersonalReactivityIndexempathyquantitativeStudyusedmeasuresresearch1versionsitemfactorialstructureinternalconsistencyEmpathyanalysesproblematicitemsversionPsychometriconeself-reportcomprising4factorsassessingcognitiveaffectiveNowadaysdifferentinstrumentco-existcomparesscaleusingqualitativeevaluationsFrench-speakingsample=339completed2-monthtimeintervalscounterbalancedorder2wordingevaluatedsixindependentprofessionaltranslatorsassesseditems'distributionscale'ssubscales'correlationsalternativeQuotientclinicallyrelevantindicatorsanxietydepressionhighlightedcanpurposesexhibitacceptablecompliant4-factormodeloriginallyproposedDaviswellconvergentdiscriminantvalidityHowevercombiningtranslators'judgmentsrevealedTakentogetherfindingssuggestGuttman&Laporte2000Braunetal2015slightlypreferredimproveoverallqualityproviderecommendationsadaptAssessing:QualitativePropertiesThreeVersionsScaleConfirmatoryFactorAnalysisvalidationLinguisticadaptationproperties

Similar Articles

Cited By