Published online Oct 19, 2021. doi: 10.5498/wjp.v11.i10.876
Peer-review started: February 16, 2021
First decision: May 13, 2021
Revised: May 15, 2021
Accepted: August 19, 2021
Article in press: August 19, 2021
Published online: October 19, 2021
Processing time: 240 Days and 11.8 Hours
Empathy has long been considered a multidimensional construct, encompassing cognitive, affective and behavioral domains. Deficits in empathic competences in early childhood contribute to psychopathology, and have been variably implicated in several clinical conditions, such as autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and conduct disorders.
To identify and describe empirically validated questionnaires assessing empathy in children and adolescents and to provide a summary of related theoretical perspectives on empathy definitional issues.
A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Three bibliographic databases were searched. A total of 47 studies were selected for final analysis and 16 distinct measures were identified and described.
Questionable to excellent levels of internal consistency were observed, while few studies assessed test–retest reliability. Although construct definitions only partially overlapped, affective and cognitive domains of empathy were the commonest internal factors that were often separately evaluated. New facets of the construct (i.e., somatic empathy and sympathy) and specific clinical populations (i.e., ASD) could be specifically addressed through more recent instruments.
The combination of different assessment methods is recommended in order to foresee further improvements in this field and try to overcome the problem of limited convergence with more objective measures.
Core tip: Measures of empathy in children and adolescents constitute useful clinical tools for evaluating impairments in empathic competences and social skills within neurodevelopmental disorders and psychiatric conditions. However, the choice of the instrument to use should clearly vary, depending on the setting and the object of study. The present review could be useful to clinicians and researchers to allow a direct comparison of the available measures and identify strengths and limitations of each one depending on different purposes.