Multidimensional Clinical Empathy Scale

📜
Abstract

clinical empathy is widely recognized as a foundational element of effective healthcare, driving better patient compliance, improved clinical outcomes, and enhanced well-being for both patients and providers. Historically, the psychometric evaluation of this construct in medical settings has been limited by instruments that either focus exclusively on cognitive empathy—the intellectual ability to understand a patient's perspective—or are designed for the general public rather than clinical environments. The Multidimensional clinical empathy Scale (M-CES) was developed to bridge this critical gap by providing a comprehensive, domain-specific instrument that captures both the cognitive and affective dimensions of empathy in Healthcare professionals and trainees.

Developed through a rigorous, mixed-methods approach, the M-CES translates the abstract ideal of empathy into a quantifiable clinical competency. By grounding its theoretical framework in the lived experiences of patients, Students, and practitioners, the scale ensures high ecological validity. It measures several distinct but interrelated facets of empathetic engagement, ranging from the internal valuing of empathy to its outward behavioral expression.

For researchers and medical educators, the M-CES represents a significant advancement in psychometric assessment. It offers a reliable and structurally sound method to track empathy development, evaluate the efficacy of communication skills training, and investigate the complex relationship between provider empathy and patient health outcomes. By capturing the full spectrum of empathetic interaction, the M-CES facilitates a more nuanced understanding of how human connection operates within modern healthcare systems.

🏷
Keywords
clinical empathy
psychometrics
medical education
affective empathy
cognitive empathy
Healthcare Communication

📊 Psychometric Scorecard

Items Count
26
Structure
Multidimensional
Cronbach's α
0.94
Fit Index (CFI)
0.963

Authors

👤 Laurence Tan

👤 Chou Chuen Yu
✉ [email protected]

👤 Robin Choo

👤 Mai Khanh Le

👤 Reuben Ng

👤 Tanya Tierney

👤 Evelyn Lim

👤 Daphne Lim

👤 Sok Ying Liaw

👤 Gurpreet Hansra

👤 Yun Ying Ho

👤 Colin Ngeow

👤 Siew Chin Chia

👤 James Alvin Low

Purpose

The primary purpose of the M-CES is to provide a holistic, multidimensional measurement of clinical empathy that encompasses both cognitive understanding and emotional resonance. In the field of medical education, there has been a long-standing debate about the role of affective empathy, with older paradigms suggesting that emotional detachment is necessary for clinical objectivity. However, contemporary research demonstrates that genuine emotional connection does not compromise professionalism and is, in fact, vital for optimal patient care.

This scale matters profoundly for researchers and clinicians because it transforms empathy from an abstract virtue into a measurable, trainable competency. Existing tools like the Jefferson Scale of Empathy predominantly capture the cognitive domain, leaving the emotional components of the patient-provider interaction unmeasured. By filling this gap, the M-CES allows medical educators to accurately assess baseline empathy in trainees, monitor potential empathy erosion during rigorous clinical rotations, and evaluate the effectiveness of targeted curricular interventions designed to foster genuine patient connection.

Construct

The psychological construct of clinical empathy measured by the M-CES is conceptualized as a dynamic, multidimensional process involving cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Rather than viewing empathy merely as the intellectual exercise of perspective-taking, this framework posits that true clinical empathy requires a genuine emotional connection that is subsequently translated into observable, communicative behaviors.

Theoretical development of the scale identified several core dimensions: the intrinsic value a practitioner places on empathy, the cognitive ability to adopt a patient's perspective, the affective experience of genuine concern, and the outward manifestation of empathetic behaviors. Interestingly, the psychometric evaluation revealed that the affective experience of concern and the behavioral expression of empathy are deeply intertwined in practice, functioning as a unified domain. This comprehensive conceptualization aligns with modern neurobiological and psychological models of empathy, which argue that cognitive understanding and emotional sharing operate in tandem to facilitate prosocial behavior in clinical settings.

Validity

Validity for the M-CES was established through a rigorous, multi-stage methodological design. Initial content validity was secured by grounding the item generation in qualitative data derived directly from focus groups containing patients, Students, and Healthcare professionals. This bottom-up approach ensures that the scale reflects real-world clinical interactions rather than purely theoretical assumptions. Expert review further refined the instrument, resulting in a strong Content Validity Index of 0.90, indicating excellent agreement among experts regarding the relevance and clarity of the items.

Structural validity was robustly demonstrated through sequential factor analytic techniques. The researchers deliberately excluded negatively worded items during the validation process, a sophisticated psychometric decision that prevents method variance and reduces cognitive load for respondents. By ensuring that the latent structure of the scale accurately mapped onto the theoretical dimensions of clinical empathy, the validation process confirmed that the M-CES is a highly construct-valid tool for assessing this complex trait in medical populations.

Reliability

The M-CES demonstrates excellent reliability, indicating that it consistently measures the construct of clinical empathy across its items. Psychometric analysis of the final 26-item scale yielded a Cronbach's alpha of approximately 0.94, which falls well within the 'excellent' range for internal consistency in psychological testing. This high value suggests that the items are functioning cohesively to capture the overarching construct.

Furthermore, the scale's average inter-item correlation was calculated at roughly 0.37. This is a critical metric in scale development, as it falls perfectly within the optimal range (typically 0.15 to 0.50). It demonstrates that while the items are sufficiently related to measure the same underlying concept, they are not so highly correlated as to be redundant. This balance ensures that the scale captures the broad, multidimensional nature of clinical empathy without wasting respondent time on repetitive questions.

Factor Analysis

The internal structure of the M-CES was evaluated using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The exploratory phase utilized a Promax rotation, an oblique rotation method that appropriately assumes the underlying dimensions of empathy are correlated rather than entirely independent. This analysis guided the reduction of the initial item pool, highlighting how certain theoretical domains naturally grouped together in practice.

Subsequent confirmatory factor analysis on a large, independent sample validated a four-factor model. The fit indices provided strong evidence for this structure, with a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) exceeding 0.96 and an acceptable Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Notably, the analysis revealed that items originally designed to measure 'Genuine Concern' and 'Empathetic Behaviours' loaded onto a single combined factor. This psychometric finding offers fascinating theoretical insight, suggesting that Healthcare professionals do not cognitively separate their internal feelings of concern from the outward behaviors they use to express them.

Subscales

Subscale Items Description
Empathetic Connections Measures the practitioner's ability to establish a meaningful, relational bond with the patient.
Valuing Empathy Assesses the intrinsic importance and priority the healthcare professional places on being empathetic in clinical practice.
Perspective Taking Evaluates the cognitive capacity to understand and adopt the patient's point of view and internal experience.
Genuine Concern and Empathetic Behaviours Captures both the affective feeling of care for the patient and the outward communication skills and actions used to convey that care.

Instrument

Test Type Self-report questionnaire
Format 26 items, Likert-type scale
Scoring The final score is calculated by summing the responses to all 26 items and dividing by 26 to yield a mean score ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate higher levels of clinical empathy. There are no reverse-scored items.
Language English
Population Healthcare professionals, Nurses, Students
Age Group Adults
Administration Self-administered online survey

Scoring & Interpretation Guidelines

Scoring Instructions The total score is derived by averaging all 26 items. To reduce cognitive load and measurement distortion, all items are positively worded; therefore, no reverse scoring is required.
Normative Reference Values Mean = 4.17 (95% CI: 4.14-4.20)

Sample

The scale was developed and validated across multiple phases. The exploratory factor analysis phase utilized a sample of 143 Healthcare professionals and Students. The final confirmatory factor analysis phase analyzed responses from a large cohort of 977 participants, comprising 36.3% Healthcare professionals (doctors and Nurses) and 62.5% healthcare Students (medical and nursing Students) recruited from acute hospitals, community hospitals, and academic institutions via snowball sampling.

📄
Cite This Paper

Laurence Tan, Chou Chuen Yu, Robin Choo, Mai Khanh Le, Reuben Ng, Tanya Tierney, Evelyn Lim, Daphne Lim, Sok Ying Liaw, Gurpreet Hansra, Yun Ying Ho, Colin Ngeow, Siew Chin Chia, James Alvin Low (2025). Multidimensional clinical empathy Scale. SAGE open medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/20503121251365011

📄 Download Full-Text PDF

📚
References
68 references
  1. Ekman, E., Krasner, M. (2017). Empathy in medicine: Neuroscience, education and challenges. Medical Teacher, 39(2), 164-173. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2016.1248925
  2. Jani, B., Blane, D., Mercer, S. (2012). The Role of Empathy in Therapy and the Physician-Patient Relationship. Forschende Komplementärmedizin / Research in Complementary Medicine, 19(5), 252-257. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1159/000342998
  3. Mercer, S., Fitzpatrick, B., Guthrie, B., Fenwick, E., Grieve, E., Lawson, K., … et al. (2016). The CARE Plus study – a whole-system intervention to improve quality of life of primary care patients with multimorbidity in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation: exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial and cost-utility analysis. BMC Medicine, 14(1) 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0634-2
  4. Howick, J., Moscrop, A., Mebius, A., Fanshawe, T., Lewith, G., Bishop, F., … et al. (2018). Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 111(7), 240-252. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076818769477
  5. Soltner, C., Giquello, J., Monrigal-Martin, C., Beydon, L. (2011). Continuous care and empathic anaesthesiologist attitude in the preoperative period: impact on patient anxiety and satisfaction. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 106(5), 680-686. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer034
  6. Riess, H. (2015). The Impact of clinical empathy on Patients and Clinicians: Understanding Empathy's Side Effects. AJOB Neuroscience, 6(3), 51-53. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2015.1052591
  7. Shanafelt, T., West, C., Zhao, X., Novotny, P., Kolars, J., Habermann, T., … et al. (2005). Relationship between increased personal well-being and enhanced empathy among. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20(7), 559-564. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-005-0102-8
  8. Hojat, M., Maio, V., Pohl, C., Gonnella, J. (2023). clinical empathy: definition, measurement, correlates, group differences, erosion, enhancement, and healthcare outcomes. Discover Health Systems, 2(1) 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s44250-023-00020-2
  9. Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. (2015). Eleven Years of Data on the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Medical Student Version (JSE-S): Proxy Norm Data and Tentative Cutoff Scores. Medical Principles and Practice, 24(4), 344-350. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1159/000381954
  10. Fragkos, K., Sotiropoulos, I., Frangos, C. (2019). Empathy assessment in healthcare Students is highly heterogeneous: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2012-2016). World Journal of Meta-Analysis, 7(1), 1-17. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v7.i1.1
  11. Hardy C. A phenomenological approach to clinical empathy: rethinking empathy within its intersubjective and affective contexts. Dissertation, University of South Florida, 2017.
  12. Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. (2017). What Matters More About the Interpersonal Reactivity Index and the Jefferson Scale of Empathy? Their Underlying Constructs or Their Relationships With Pertinent Measures of Clinical Competence and Patient Outcomes?. Academic Medicine, 92(6), 743-745. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001424
  13. Batt-Rawden, S., Chisolm, M., Anton, B., Flickinger, T. (2013). Teaching Empathy to Medical Students. Academic Medicine, 88(8), 1171-1177. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318299f3e3
  14. Stepien, K., Baernstein, A. (2006). Educating for empathy. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(5), 524-530. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00443.x
  15. Tan, L., Le, M., Yu, C., Liaw, S., Tierney, T., Ho, Y., … et al. (2021). Defining clinical empathy: a grounded theory approach from the perspective of healthcare workers and patients in a multicultural setting. BMJ Open, 11(9), e045224. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045224
  16. Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications, 2004.
  17. Williams, B., Onsman, A., Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Five-Step Guide for Novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8, 1-13. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93
  18. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315827506
  19. Hinkin TR. Scale development principles and practices. In: Swanson RA, Holton EF (eds) Research in organizations: foundations and methods of inquiry. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2005, pp.161–179.
  20. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0184-8
  21. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-019-00344-x
  22. Guilera T, Batalla I, Soler-González J. Empathy and specialty preference in medical Students. Follow-up study and feedback. Educ Med 2018; 19: 153–161.
  23. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
  24. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
  25. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.066
  26. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
  27. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148
  28. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003149347
  29. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_2
  30. Rennie Kimberly M. (1997), “Exploratory and Confirmatory Rotation Strategies in Exploratory Factor Analysis,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX (January).
  31. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025697
  32. Sarmento RP Costa V. Confirmatory factor analysis—a case study. arXiv:1905.05598 (preprint) https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.05598 (2019 cited 27 June 2025).
  33. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0403_8
  34. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu058
  35. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118763520.ch11
  36. Zhang C, Conrad F. Speeding in web surveys: the tendency to answer very fast and its association with straightlining. Surv Res Methods 2014; 8(2): 127–135.
  37. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
  38. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348957
  39. Brown JD. The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate. JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 2002, 6(1): 17–19.
  40. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.1.116
  41. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.585179
  42. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181eae5ec
  43. Mirani SH, Shaikh NA, Tahir A, et al. Assessment of clinical empathy among medical Students using the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-Student version. Cureus 2019; 11(2): e4160.
  44. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2021.1985416
  45. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.21276/apjhs.2016.3.4.43
  46. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfx010
  47. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/07342829221141934
  48. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21749
  49. Lance CE, Vandenberg RJ (eds) Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences. Taylor & Francis, 2009.
  50. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00268
  51. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-021-10033-4
  52. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21415
  53. van Dijke J, Duyndam J, van Nistelrooij I, et al. ‘Genuine and fundamentally human’: a qualitative study into Dutch humanist chaplains’ conceptualizations of empathy. J Health Care Chaplain 2023; 30(2): 89–106.
  54. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.11.001
  55. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S156441
  56. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3934/medsci.2023026
  57. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1665.2002.00490.x
  58. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12980
  59. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03312-y
  60. Galbally P, Christodoulidi F. Personalised learning pedagogies and the impact on student progression and retention: the case of counselling training within a university setting. Teach High Educ 2023; 29: 1–20.
  61. Dodson L, DiBiasio D, Quinn P, et al. How role-playing builds empathy and concern for social justice. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ASEE annual conference & exposition, 24–28 June 2017. Columbus, Ohio: American Society for Engineering Education.
  62. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889712000117
  63. Rakel D. The compassionate connection: the healing power of empathy and mindful listening. WW Norton & Company, 2018.
  64. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.06.003
  65. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X652193
  66. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S384247
  67. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84
  68. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1163/156853710X531203

Multidimensional Clinical Empathy Scale Items

✉ Items are not yet available

The scale author has been contacted to obtain permission to share the items. This section will be updated once the items are provided.

Cite this article

Mohammed looti (2026). Multidimensional Clinical Empathy Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/multidimensional-clinical-empathy-scale/

Mohammed looti. "Multidimensional Clinical Empathy Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 12 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/multidimensional-clinical-empathy-scale/.

Mohammed looti. "Multidimensional Clinical Empathy Scale." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/multidimensional-clinical-empathy-scale/.

Mohammed looti (2026) 'Multidimensional Clinical Empathy Scale', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/multidimensional-clinical-empathy-scale/.

[1] Mohammed looti, "Multidimensional Clinical Empathy Scale," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.

Mohammed looti. Multidimensional Clinical Empathy Scale. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.

Related terms:

  1. Multidimensional Pain Inventory – Dutch Language Version / West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory
  2. Rape Empathy Scale (RES)
  3. Jefferson Scale of Empathy Health Profession Students’ version (JSPE-HPS)
  4. Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE)
  5. Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE)
  6. Empathy for Children Scale
  7. Empathy for Children Scale
  8. The Clinical Anger Scale (CAS)
  9. Domain Specific Clinical-Centrality Quality of Life Scale (DSC-C)
  10. Clinical Anxiety Scale for People with Intellectual Disabilities
× Figure
PDF
Scroll to Top