Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Differences of EQ structural models and CFA results

From: Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the empathy quotient among Chinese minority college students

EQ model Factors (item number) Cronbach’s α CFA results
F1 F2 F3 F4 χ2/df CFI TLI RMSEA
Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright [5] EM (40) 0.86 4.383 0.73 0.71 0.076
Lawrence et al. [18] CE (11) 0.87 ER (11) 0.69 SS (6) 0.57 4.577 0.84 0.83 0.078
Wakabayashi et al. [33] EM (22) 0.86 5.744 0.86 0.84 0.090
Muncer and Ling [34] CE (5) 0.78 ER (5) 0.55 SS (5) 0.56 4.138 0.90 0.88 0.073
Allison et al. [35] AG (13) 0.80 DI (13) 0.74 2.459 0.91 0.90 0.050
Guan et al. [24] EM (15) 0.86 4.690 0.94 0.93 0.079
Zhao et al. [17, 22, 25, 26] EM (15) 0.86 4.036 0.95 0.95 0.072
This study CE (10) 0.818 SC (8) 0.793 EE (6) 0.714 SS (5) 0.746 2.51 0.919 0.909 0.043
  1. CFI comparative fit index, TLI Tucker–Lewis Index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, EQ empathy quotient, EM empathy, CE cognitive empathy, ER emotional reactivity, SS social skills, AG agreement, DI disagreement, SC self-consciousness, EE emotional empathy