ArticlePloS one2023
Multifaceted Empathy Test (MET): Validity evidence for the Brazilian population concerning the computer-based (face-to-face) and online versions.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe lack of empathy is associated with several psychological and behavioral disorders, and it is important to assess this construct broadly, through multi-methods.
objectiveTo conduct a psychometric analysis of the Brazilian version of the Multifaceted Empathy Test (MET), a computerized task that assesses emotional and cognitive empathy.
methodsThe samples were recruited from the community using the snowball method (phase 1: face-to-face; N = 142) and through social media (phase 2: online; N = 519). The participants completed the MET and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) to assess the convergent validity between the instruments. To assess validity with correlated constructs (resilient coping and stress), the Brief Resilient Coping Scale and Perceived Stress Scale were used. A task was also implemented in the face-to-face application to assess facial emotions. The retest was applied 25 days later to a portion of the sample (face-to-face: N = 31; online: N = 102).
resultsIt was observed adequate test-retest reliability for most items (ICC = 0.49-0.98), satisfactory infit and outfit indexes, discriminatory ability between sexes, weak convergent validity with empathy measures (r = 0.17-0.36), and correlate constructs (r = 0.12-0.46). MET presented good psychometric indicators, confirming its use in face-to-face/computer-based and online formats in clinical and research contexts. However, weaknesses were found regarding the cognitive subscale, demanding future studies to address larger samples to enable more robust conclusions concerning its adequacy. Further research on the instrument's internal structure can also contribute to its improvement.
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.