ArticleBMC medical education2022
Validity and reliability of a Korean version of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure.
Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patients' knowledge influences practice via attitudes toward hyperuricaemia: a mediation analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Validity and reliability of the 2-item version compared with the 10-item version of the Japanese consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure: primary analysis of a cross-sectional survey.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Adaptation of the Consultation and Relational Empathy Measure to Turkish.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Measuring the quality of patient-provider relationships in serious illness: A scoping review.Palliative medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of face masks on empathy and communication in head and neck cancer patients: a case-control study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Quantitative measurement of empathy and analysis of its correlation to clinical factors in korean patients with chronic diseases.Clinical hypertension · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo validated tool is available to assess patients' perception of physician empathy in Korea. The objective of this study was to establish a Korean version of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure-originally developed in English and widely used internationally-and to examine its reliability and validity.
methodsThe CARE measure was translated into Korean and tested on 240 patients from one secondary care hospital and one tertiary care hospital in Korea. Internal consistency by Cronbach's alpha, exploratory analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to verify the 10 items of the Korean CARE measure.
resultsThe Korean CARE measure demonstrated high acceptability and face validity, excellent internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97) and moderate test-retest reliability (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.53; Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.51). Distribution of scores showed negative skewedness. Corrected item-total correlations ranged from 0.77-0.92, indicating homogeneity. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.949, and Bartlett's test of sphericity was good (χ2 = 3157.11, P < 0.001). Factor analysis yielded a single dimensional structure of physician empathy with all factor loadings exceeding 0.80 and showing excellent goodness of fit.
conclusionThis study supports the reliability and validity of the Korean CARE measure in a university hospital setting in Korea.
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.