Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40182149›Full record

ArticlePsychologica Belgica2025

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

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychologica Belgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Teaching empathy in Balint groups.The Libyan journal of medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Giulia GaggeroDepartment of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5875-0563
Angèle BrunellièreCNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1913-5613
Maria Francesca GigliottiCNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2989-0724
Wassila El MardiCNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6056-2693
Sylvie BerthozUniv. Bordeaux, INCIA CNRS UMR 5287, 33000 Bordeaux, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6862-2362
Jean-Louis NandrinoCNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2339-9432
Karyn DobaCNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0103-6817
Delphine GrynbergCNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab - Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ. Lille, 59000, Lille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4588-4116

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 (

Indexed as

Confirmatory Factor AnalysisEmpathyFrench validationInterpersonal Reactivity IndexLinguistic adaptationPsychometric properties

Identifiers

PMID40182149
PMCPMC11967462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.