The most recent conceptualizations of empathy recognize affective empathy as distinct from cognitive empathy. Consequently, instruments that assess these 2 types of empathy have been developed. Among them, the Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy (QCAE) is a particularly promising, relatively new, self-report measure consisting of 31 items. To examine the cross-cultural adaptability of the QCAE, we investigated the psychometric properties of an Italian version in 2 samples and with 2 different formats of administration. Study 1 (n = 407) used archival data collected via paper and pencil; Study 2 (n = 285) used newly collected data, obtained with an online format. In these studies, in addition to the QCAE, 6 other instruments measuring empathy-related constructs (i.e., interpersonal competence, well-being, personality traits, emotion regulation, alexithymia, and emotion recognition) were administered, too. Data analysis focused on factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent validity. The findings of both studies provide support for the cross-cultural applicability of the QCAE, and reveal interesting associations between empathy and the other constructs under examination.
Compared to other Western countries, malingering research is still relatively scarce in the United Kingdom, partly because only a few brief and easy-to-use symptom validity tests (SVTs) have been validated for use with British test-takers. This online study examined the validity of the recently introduced Inventory of Problems -29 (IOP-29; Viglione, Giromini, & Landis, 2017) in the detection of feigned schizophrenia and random responding in 151 British volunteers. Each participant took three IOP-29 test administrations: (a) responding honestly; (b) pretending to suffer from schizophrenia; and (c) responding at random. Additionally, they also took the O-LIFE questionnaire of schizotypy under standard instructions (i.e., responding honestly). The chief feigning scale of the IOP-29 (FDS) showed excellent validity in discriminating honest responding from feigned schizophrenia (AUC = .99), and its classification accuracy was not significantly affected by the presence of schizotypal traits. Additionally, a recently introduced IOP-29 scale aimed at detecting random responding (RRS) also demonstrated very promising results.
Research on malingering detection has not yet taken full advantage of eye tracking technology. In particular, while several studies indicate that patients with schizophrenia behave notably differently from controls on specific oculomotor tasks, no study has yet investigated whether experimental participants instructed to feign could reproduce those behaviors, if coached to do so. Due to the automatic nature of eye movements, we anticipated that eye tracking analyses would help detect feigned schizophrenic problems. To test this hypothesis, we recorded the eye movements of 83 adult UK volunteers, and tested whether eye movements of healthy volunteers instructed to feign schizophrenia (n = 43) would differ from those of honest controls (n = 40), while engaging in smooth pursuit and pro- and anti-saccade tasks. Additionally, results from our investigation were also compared against previously published data observed in patients with schizophrenia performing similar oculomotor tasks. Data analysis showed that eye movements of experimental participants instructed to feign (a) only partially differed from those of controls and (b) did not closely resemble those from patients with schizophrenia reported in previously published papers. Taken together, these results suggest that examination of eye movements does have the potential to help detecting feigned schizophrenia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.