Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the active-emphatic listening scale

Validation and Comparison of Three Short Depression Screening Tools Among Chinese Community-Dwelling Older Adults

The current study validated and compared three short Geriatric Depression Scales (GDS), including the GDS-5, D'Ath GDS-4, and van Marwijk GDS-4, among 917 Chinese community-dwelling older adults. The GDS-5, D'Ath GDS-4, and van Marwijk GDS-4 presented satisfactory accuracy against the GDS-15 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.872 to 0.952), and the GDS-5 and D'Ath GDS-4 had better accuracy than the van Marwijk GDS-4. Satisfactory accuracy (AUC = 0.842 to 0.979) for the three scales was also observed across subgroups by age, sex, education, cognitive function, and multimorbidity. The GDS-5 but not D'Ath GDS-4 and van Marwijk GDS-4 retained a 2-point optimal cutoff for depressive symptoms across subgroups. The GDS-5 (average inter-item correlation coefficient [AIIC] = 0.233) and the D'Ath GDS-4 (AIIC = 0.171) but not van Marwijk GDS-4 (AIIC = 0.128) had acceptable internal consistency. Three scales had stable test-retest reliability within a 1- to 2-week interval (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.670 to 0.885). The GDS-5 is an accurate and reliable depression screening tool with an invariable optimal cutoff among Chinese community-dwelling older adults. The variable optimal cutoffs for the D'Ath GDS-4 and van Marwijk GDS-4 across subgroups may limit their applicability in this population. [Research in Gerontological Nursing, xx(x), xx-xx.].

Validation of reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the active-empathic listening scale

Background

Active-empathic listening (AEL) is the active and emotional involvement of a listener that can take place in at least three key stages of the listening process. Bodie has developed and validated a self-reported, 11-item, three-factor active-empathic listening scale (AELS) in English with good reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86) to assess AEL abilities. Nevertheless, a Chinese version of the AELS had not been established and validated yet.

Objective

The objective of the present study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the AELS.

Methods

After translating the scale into the Chinese version, 834 college students completed the test. After 4 weeks, 206 participants were tested again on the Chinese AELS to examine retest reliability. The critical ratio method and the item-total correlations were used for the item analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed to examine the construct validity. The internal consistency of the scale was analyzed with Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's Omega. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to examine the scale's retest reliability. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) was used to examine the convergent validity. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted.

Results

Each item of the Chinese AELS had a good discrimination, and the item-total correlation of each item ranged from 0.51 to 0.73. EFA extracted three factors with characteristic root values greater than 1, which could explain 70.72% of the total variance. CFA indicated an adequate fit of the three-factor model (χ2/df = 2.250, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.055, the comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.971, the Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = 0.959, and the goodness of fit index [GFI] = 0.959). The internal consistency reliability was acceptable (sensing: α = 0.79/ω = 0.78, processing: α = 0.83/ω = 0.83, responding: α = 0.79/ω = 0.79, and AELS: α = 0.87/ω = 0.87). Retest reliability of the scale at 4-week intervals by an ICC was 0.563. The Chinese AELS was significantly correlated with each dimension of IRI.

Conclusion

The reliability and validity of the Chinese AELS met the basic psychometrics requirements. Therefore, the scale can be potentially used to assess the active empathic listening abilities of people in China.

Development of the Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index to evaluate nurses' empathy

We determined the validity and reliability of the Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index in a sample of Japanese nurses. Participants were registered nurses at national university hospitals and nursing researchers in Japan. A postal questionnaire was conducted. Construct validity was analyzed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and convergent validity demonstrated using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. The Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index has an 18-item, two-factor structure with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.87 and 0.73. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a goodness-of-fit index of 0.917, an adjusted goodness-of-fit of 0.894, a root mean square error of approximation of 0.60, and a comparative fit index of 0.911. Correlation analysis between the Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index and Interpersonal Reactivity Index indicated the factors were significantly correlated for empathic concern and perspective taking (r = 0.439-0.401). Test-retest assessment showed reliability coefficients for the first factor as r = 0.859 and the second factor as r = 0.709. The Clinical Interpersonal Reactivity Index demonstrated validity and reliability for Japanese nurses. The two factors evaluated perspective taking and unconditional positive regard.