IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i24p12871-d696504.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of the Romanian Version of the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) among Undergraduate Medical Students

Author

Listed:
  • Sorin Ursoniu

    (Department of Functional Sciences, Discipline of Public Health, Center for Translational Research and Systems Medicine, “Victor Babeș” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timișoara, Romania)

  • Costela Lacrimioara Serban

    (Department of Functional Sciences, Discipline of Public Health, Center for Translational Research and Systems Medicine, “Victor Babeș” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timișoara, Romania)

  • Catalina Giurgi-Oncu

    (Department of Neuroscience, Discipline of Psychiatry, Center for Cognitive Research in Neuropsychiatric Pathology (NeuroPsy-Cog), “Victor Babeș” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timișoara, Romania)

  • Ioana Alexandra Rivis

    (Department of Neuroscience, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 020021 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Adina Bucur

    (Department of Functional Sciences, Discipline of Public Health, Center for Translational Research and Systems Medicine, “Victor Babeș” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timișoara, Romania)

  • Ana-Cristina Bredicean

    (Department of Neuroscience, Discipline of Psychiatry, Center for Cognitive Research in Neuropsychiatric Pathology (NeuroPsy-Cog), “Victor Babeș” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timișoara, Romania
    Psychiatry Compartment, “Dr. Victor Popescu” Emergency Military Clinical Hospital, 300080 Timișoara, Romania)

  • Ion Papava

    (Department of Neuroscience, Discipline of Psychiatry, Center for Cognitive Research in Neuropsychiatric Pathology (NeuroPsy-Cog), “Victor Babeș” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 300041 Timișoara, Romania)

Abstract

Medical professionals require adequate abilities to identify others’ emotions and express personal emotions. We aimed to determine the validity and reliability of an empathy measuring tool in medical students for this study. We employed Spreng’s Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) as a starting point for this validation. The process was performed in several steps, including an English-Romanian-English translation and a focus group meeting to establish each question’s degree of understandability and usability, with minor improvements of wording in each step. We checked internal and external consistency in a pilot group ( n = 67). For construct and convergent validity, we used a sample of 649 students. The overall internal and external reliability performed well, with Cronbach’s alpha = 0.727 and respective ICC = 0.776. The principal component analysis resulted in 3 components: prosocial helping behavior, inappropriate sensitivity, dismissive attitude. Component 1 includes positively worded questions, and components 2 and 3 include negatively worded questions. Women had significantly higher scores than men in convergent validity, but we did not highlight any differences for other demographic factors. The Romanian version of the TEQ is a reliable and valid tool to measure empathy among undergraduate medical students that may be further used in subsequent research.

Suggested Citation

  • Sorin Ursoniu & Costela Lacrimioara Serban & Catalina Giurgi-Oncu & Ioana Alexandra Rivis & Adina Bucur & Ana-Cristina Bredicean & Ion Papava, 2021. "Validation of the Romanian Version of the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) among Undergraduate Medical Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:12871-:d:696504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/12871/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/12871/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Justin A. Charles & Peder Ahnfeldt-Mollerup & Jens Søndergaard & Troels Kristensen, 2018. "Empathy Variation in General Practice: A Survey among General Practitioners in Denmark," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Ong, L. M. L. & de Haes, J. C. J. M. & Hoos, A. M. & Lammes, F. B., 1995. "Doctor-patient communication: A review of the literature," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 40(7), pages 903-918, April.
    3. Lukas Novak & Klara Malinakova & Petr Mikoska & Jitse P. van Dijk & Filip Dechterenko & Radek Ptacek & Peter Tavel, 2021. "Psychometric Analysis of the Czech Version of the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-16, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    2. Beach, Wayne A. & Easter, David W. & Good, Jeffrey S. & Pigeron, Elisa, 2005. "Disclosing and responding to cancer "fears" during oncology interviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 893-910, February.
    3. Blume, Andreas, 2018. "Failure of common knowledge of language in common-interest communication games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 132-155.
    4. Rhona Hogg & Janet Hanley & Pam Smith, 2018. "Learning lessons from the analysis of patient complaints relating to staff attitudes, behaviour and communication, using the concept of emotional labour," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5-6), pages 1004-1012, March.
    5. Solomon, Josie & Knapp, Peter & Raynor, D.K. & Atkin, Karl, 2013. "Worlds apart? An exploration of prescribing and medicine-taking decisions by patients, GPs and local policy makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 264-272.
    6. Roscigno, Cecelia I. & Savage, Teresa A. & Grant, Gerald & Philipsen, Gerry, 2013. "How healthcare provider talk with parents of children following severe traumatic brain injury is perceived in early acute care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 32-39.
    7. Liu, Xiaoxiao & Ben Liu, Qianqian, 2024. "Superior medical resources or geographic proximity? The joint effects of regional medical resource disparity, geographic distance, and cultural differences on online medical consultation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 350(C).
    8. Udo Schneider, 2002. "Beidseitige Informationsasymmetrien in der Arzt-Patient-Beziehung: Implikationen für die GKV," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 71(4), pages 447-458.
    9. Mélanie Sustersic & Aurélie Gauchet & Anaïs Kernou & Charlotte Gibert & Alison Foote & Céline Vermorel & Jean-Luc Bosson, 2018. "A scale assessing doctor-patient communication in a context of acute conditions based on a systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.
    10. Archontissa Maria Kanavaki & Courtney Jane Lightfoot & Jared Palmer & Thomas James Wilkinson & Alice Caroline Smith & Ceri Rhiannon Jones, 2021. "Kidney Care during COVID-19 in the UK: Perspectives of Healthcare Professionals on Impacts on Care Quality and Staff Well-Being," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, December.
    11. Sjaak Molenaar & Mirjam A.G. Sprangers & Fenna C.E. Postma-Schuit & Emiel J. Th. Rutgers & Josje Noorlander & Joop Hendriks & Hanneke C.J.M. De Haes, 2000. "Interpretive Review : Feasibility and Effects of Decision Aids," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(1), pages 112-127, January.
    12. Chandwani, Rajesh & Sharma, Dheeraj, 2015. "Managing Emotions: Emotional Labor or Emotional Enrichment," IIMA Working Papers WP2015-03-42, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    13. Gibson, Mark & Neil Jenkings, K. & Wilson, Rob & Purves, Ian, 2006. "Verbal prescribing in general practice consultations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(6), pages 1684-1698, September.
    14. Charlotte T. Lee & Susanne Phillips & Susan Tiso & Camille Fitzpatrick, 2019. "Exploring Interpersonal Relationships in a Nurse-Managed Clinic and Their Impact on Clinical Outcomes," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(3), pages 21582440198, July.
    15. Vrana, Scott R. & Vrana, Dylan T. & Penner, Louis A. & Eggly, Susan & Slatcher, Richard B. & Hagiwara, Nao, 2018. "Latent Semantic Analysis: A new measure of patient-physician communication," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 22-26.
    16. Timmermans, Stefan & Tietbohl, Caroline, 2018. "Fifty years of sociological leadership at Social Science and Medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 209-215.
    17. Jae-Hyun Kim & Eun-Cheol Park, 2019. "Can diabetes patients seeking a second hospital get better care? Results from nested case–control study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, January.
    18. Garroutte, Eva Marie & Sarkisian, Natalia & Goldberg, Jack & Buchwald, Dedra & Beals, Janette, 2008. "Perceptions of medical interactions between healthcare providers and American Indian older adults," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 546-556, August.
    19. Kluska, Denise, 2012. "Versorgung aus der Ferne: Die Arzt-Patient-Beziehung unter den Bedingungen der Telemedizin," Forschung Aktuell 10/2012, Institut Arbeit und Technik (IAT), Westfälische Hochschule, University of Applied Sciences.
    20. Hardman, Doug & Geraghty, Adam W.A. & Lown, Mark & Bishop, Felicity L., 2020. "Subjunctive medicine: Enacting efficacy in general practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 245(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:12871-:d:696504. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.