ArticleNursing & health sciences2021
Development of the Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index to evaluate nurses' empathy.
Article in Nursing & health sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scoping Literature Review of Digital Empathy Games in Healthcare Education and Training.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for reducing stress and burnout among psychiatric nurses: a narrative review.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- Development and psychometric evaluation of an integrative Manual Muscle Test for patients with post-stroke hemiplegia.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2025Observational
- Development of the Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index to evaluate nurses' empathy.Nursing & health sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We determined the validity and reliability of the Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index in a sample of Japanese nurses. Participants were registered nurses at national university hospitals and nursing researchers in Japan. A postal questionnaire was conducted. Construct validity was analyzed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and convergent validity demonstrated using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. The Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index has an 18-item, two-factor structure with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.87 and 0.73. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a goodness-of-fit index of 0.917, an adjusted goodness-of-fit of 0.894, a root mean square error of approximation of 0.60, and a comparative fit index of 0.911. Correlation analysis between the Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index and Interpersonal Reactivity Index indicated the factors were significantly correlated for empathic concern and perspective taking (r = 0.439-0.401). Test-retest assessment showed reliability coefficients for the first factor as r = 0.859 and the second factor as r = 0.709. The Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index demonstrated validity and reliability for Japanese nurses. The two factors evaluated perspective taking and unconditional positive regard.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.