Original Article

Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Farsi Versions of Empathy and Systemizing Quotient: Short Forms

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the empathy quotient (EQ) and systemizing quotient (SQ) in a Farsi-speaking population.
Method: This study explores the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Farsi translations of the 22-item version of EQ and the 25-item version of SQ among 542 young university students.
Results: Applying a cross-validation approach, a 14-item two-factor model and a 15-item four-factor model for the Farsi translations of the short versions of EQ and SQ, respectively, were extracted from the exploratory dataset using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the validation dataset confirmed the factor structures identified by EFA. In addition, acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability were demonstrated for the Farsi translations of the 14-item two-factor EQ model and the 15-item four-factor SQ model.
Conclusion: The results suggested further evidence in favor of the multi-factorial constructs of the EQ and SQ and validity and reliability of the scales.

Baron-Cohen S. The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends Cogn Sci 2002; 6: 248-254.

Baron-Cohen S, Richler J, Bisarya D, Gurunathan N, Wheelwright S. The systemizing quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high–functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2003 28; 358: 361-374.

Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences. J Autism Dev Disord 2004; 34: 163-175.

Wakabayashi A. Individual differences in empathizing and systemizing in Japanese children: Psychometric properties of the children's versions of the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ). Japanese Psychological Research 2013; 55: 12-19.

Memari AH, Shayestehfar M, Gharibzadeh S, Barzegary Banadkooki E, Hafizi S, Moshayedi P. Empathizing and systemizing skills influence risky decision making in children. Learning and Individual Differences 2015; 40: 22-26.

Berthoz S, Wessa M, Kedia G, Wicker B, Grezes J. Cross-cultural validation of the empathy quotient in a French-speaking sample. Can J Psychiatry 2008; 53: 469-477.

Gouveia VV, Milfont TL, Gouveia RS, Neto JR, Galvao L. Brazilian-Portuguese empathy quotient: evidences of its construct validity and reliability. Span J Psychol 2012; 15: 777-782.

Lawrence EJ, Shaw P, Baker D, Baron-Cohen S, David AS. Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the Empathy Quotient. Psychol Med 2004; 34: 911-919.

Muncer SJ, Ling J. Psychometric analysis of the empathy quotient (EQ) scale. Personality and Individual Differences 2006; 40: 1111-1119.

Ling J, Burton TC, Salt JL, Muncer SJ. Psychometric analysis of the systemizing quotient (SQ) scale. Br J Psychol 2009; 100: 539-552.

Allison C, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright SJ, Stone MH, Muncer SJ. Psychometric analysis of the Empathy Quotient (EQ). Personality and Individual Differences 2011; 51: 829-835.

Guan R, Jin L, Qian M. Validation of the Empathy Quotient Short Form among Chinese healthcare professionals. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 2012; 40: 75-84.

Wakabayashi A, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Goldenfeld N, Delaney J, Fine D, et al. Development of short forms of the Empathy Quotient (EQ-Short) and the Systemizing Quotient (SQ-Short). Personality and Individual Differences 2006; 41: 929-940.

Allison C, Baron-Cohen S, Stone MH, Muncer SJ. Rasch Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Systemizing Quotient-Revised (SQ-R) Scale. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 2015; 18: E16.

Preti A, Vellante M, Baron-Cohen S, Zucca G, Petretto DR, Masala C. The Empathy Quotient: A cross-cultural comparison of the Italian version. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry 2011; 16: 50-70.

Valla JM, Ganzel BL, Yoder KJ, Chen GM, Lyman LT, Sidari AP, et al. More than maths and mindreading: sex differences in empathizing/systemizing covariance. Autism Res 2010; 3: 174-184.

Manning JT, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Fink B. Is digit ratio (2D:4D) related to systemizing and empathizing? Evidence from direct finger measurements reported in the BBC internet survey. Personality and Individual Differences 2010;48: 767-771.

Wakabayashi A, Baron-Cohen S, Uchiyama T, Yoshida Y, Kuroda M, Wheelwright S. Empathizing and systemizing in adults with and without autism spectrum conditions: cross-cultural stability. J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37: 1823-1832.

Conway JM, Huffcutt AI. A Review and Evaluation of Exploratory Factor Analysis Practices in Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods 2003; 6: 147-168.

Samson AC, Huber OW. Short German Versions of Empathizing and Systemizing Self-Assessment Scales. Swiss Journal of Psychology. 2010; 69: 239-244.

Finney SJ, DiStefano C. Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In: Hancock GR, Mueller RO, editors. Quantitative methods in education and the behavioral sciences: Issues, research, and teaching Structural equation modeling: A second course Charlotte, NC, US: IAP Information Age Publishing. 2013.

Lai MC, Lombardo MV, Chakrabarti B, Ecker C, Sadek SA, Wheelwright SJ, et al. Individual differences in brain structure underpin empathizing-systemizing cognitive styles in male adults. Neuroimage 2012; 61: 1347-1354.

Hafizi S, Memari AH, Pakrah M, Mohebi F, Saghazadeh A, Koenig HG. The Duke University Religion Index (Durel): Validation and Reliability of the Farsi Version1. Psychol Rep. 2013; 112: 151-159.

Li C-H. The performance of MLR, USLMV, and WLSMV estimation in structural regression models with ordinal variables. Michigan State University. 2014.

Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1999; 6: 1-55.

Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 2008; 6: 53-60.

Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research. 1992; 21: 230-258.

Hoenig JM, Heisey DM. The Abuse of Power. The American Statistician 2001; 55: 19-24.

Wright DB, Skagerberg EM. Measuring Empathizing and Systemizing with a Large US Sample. PloS one 2012; 7: e31661.

Voracek M, Dressler SG. Lack of correlation between digit ratio (2D:4D) and Baron-Cohen’s “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test, empathy, systemising, and autism-spectrum quotients in a general population sample. Personality and Individual Differences 2006; 41: 1481-191.

Dimitrijević A, Hanak N, Vukosavljević-Gvozden T, Opačić G. Psychometric properties of the Serbian version of the Empathy Quotient (S-EQ). Psihologija 2012; 45942: 257-276.

Files
IssueVol 13 No 4 (2018) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
Keywords
Empathy Quotient Factor Structure Farsi Psychometric Properties Systemizing Quotient
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Shafiei M, Lai M-C, Memari A-H, Mirfazeli F-S, Zarei S, Moshayedi P, Kordi R. Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Farsi Versions of Empathy and Systemizing Quotient: Short Forms. Iran J Psychiatry. 2018;13(4):254-263.