Assessing the French Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI): Psychometric and Qualitative Properties Through the Three French Versions of the IRI Scale
Psychologica Belgica. 2025-01-01; 65(1): 69-86
DOI: 10.5334/pb.1328
Lire sur PubMed
Gaggero G(1)(2), Brunellière A(3)(4), Gigliotti MF(3), El Mardi W(3)(5), Berthoz S(6)(7), Nandrino JL(3), Doba K(3), Grynberg D(3)(8).
Author information:
(1)Department of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, University of Trento,
Rovereto, Italy.
(2)Cognitive and Educational Sciences (CES) Lab, Faculty of Education, Free
University of Bolzano-Bozen, Bressanone-Brixen, Italy.
(3)CNRS, UMR 9193- SCALab – Sciences Cognitives et Sciences Affectives, Univ.
Lille, 59000, Lille, France.
(4)Univ. Lille, Inria, CNRS, Centrale Lille, UMR 9189- CRIStAL, F-59000, Lille,
France.
(5)Laboratoire DysCo – Fonctionnement et Dysfonctionnement Cognitifs : Les âges
de la vie, Université Paris 8, Saint-Denis, France.
(6)Univ. Bordeaux, INCIA CNRS UMR 5287, 33000 Bordeaux, France.
(7)Department of Psychiatry, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris 75014 Paris, France.
(8)Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France.
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is one of the most used self-report
measures of empathy, comprising 4 factors assessing both cognitive and affective
empathy. Nowadays, three different French adaptations of this instrument
co-exist. This research compares the three French adaptations of the IRI scale
using both quantitative and qualitative evaluations. In Study 1, a
French-speaking sample (N = 339) completed all three French IRI versions at
2-month time intervals in a counterbalanced order. In Study 2, the item wording
of the three versions was evaluated by six independent professional translators.
Study 1 assessed the items’ distribution, the scale’s factorial structure, the
subscales’ internal consistency, and their correlations with alternative
measures of empathy (the Empathy Quotient) and other clinically relevant
indicators (anxiety, depression). These quantitative analyses highlighted that
all three French adaptations can be used for research purposes. They all exhibit
acceptable internal consistency, a factorial structure compliant with the
4-factor model originally proposed by Davis, as well as convergent and
discriminant validity. However, by combining item quantitative analyses and
translators’ judgments, we revealed some problematic items in each version.
Taken together, the findings suggest that the French IRI adaptations by Guttman
& Laporte (2000) and Braun et al. (2015) should be slightly preferred. To
improve the overall quality of each French IRI version, we provide some
recommendations about how to adapt problematic items.
Copyright: © 2025 The Author(s).
DOI: 10.5334/pb.1328
PMCID: PMC11967462
PMID: 40182149
Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no competing interests to
declare.