Limits...
Measuring empathizing and systemizing with a large US sample.

Wright DB, Skagerberg EM - PLoS ONE (2012)

Bottom Line: These re-worded items were answered more rapidly than the original items, and for the SQ produced a more reliable scale.Females had on average higher empathizing scores and males had on average higher systemizing scores.If a female-male pair was chosen at random, the female would have the higher empathizing score about two-thirds of the time, and the males would have the higher systemizing score about two-thirds of the time.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, United States of America. dwright@fiu.edu

ABSTRACT
A large number of people completed one of two versions of the empathizing quotient (EQ) and systemizing quotient (SQ). One version had the negatively phrased items all re-worded. These re-worded items were answered more rapidly than the original items, and for the SQ produced a more reliable scale. Subjects gave self-assessments of empathizing and systemizing, and these were moderately correlated, r ≈ .6, with their respective quotients. Females had on average higher empathizing scores and males had on average higher systemizing scores. If a female-male pair was chosen at random, the female would have the higher empathizing score about two-thirds of the time, and the males would have the higher systemizing score about two-thirds of the time.

Show MeSH
The Cronbach α values for the non-critical items for EQ and SQ (which were the same items) and for the critical items for the EQ and SQ (where the original versions were negatively phrased and the changed versions were positively phrased).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3285168&req=5

pone-0031661-g004: The Cronbach α values for the non-critical items for EQ and SQ (which were the same items) and for the critical items for the EQ and SQ (where the original versions were negatively phrased and the changed versions were positively phrased).

Mentions: Next we examined how well the critical items fit together using the unstandardized Cronbach's α on the five critical items for EQ and the 28 critical items for SQ. The α values and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the cronbach.alpha function [24]. Statistical tests of the differences between the α values were done using the procedure described in Feldt and Kim [25]. Figure 4 shows the values for the original unchanged items, for which we expect no differences, and for the critical changed items. Because there are a large number of non-critical items, their confidence intervals are small. The difference for the non-critical items of the SQ was statistically significant, despite the items being the same. This is likely to be caused by a residual effect of these subjects having had to process the more difficult critical items. This might also account for why the response times were slightly slower for these items.


Measuring empathizing and systemizing with a large US sample.

Wright DB, Skagerberg EM - PLoS ONE (2012)

The Cronbach α values for the non-critical items for EQ and SQ (which were the same items) and for the critical items for the EQ and SQ (where the original versions were negatively phrased and the changed versions were positively phrased).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3285168&req=5

pone-0031661-g004: The Cronbach α values for the non-critical items for EQ and SQ (which were the same items) and for the critical items for the EQ and SQ (where the original versions were negatively phrased and the changed versions were positively phrased).
Mentions: Next we examined how well the critical items fit together using the unstandardized Cronbach's α on the five critical items for EQ and the 28 critical items for SQ. The α values and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the cronbach.alpha function [24]. Statistical tests of the differences between the α values were done using the procedure described in Feldt and Kim [25]. Figure 4 shows the values for the original unchanged items, for which we expect no differences, and for the critical changed items. Because there are a large number of non-critical items, their confidence intervals are small. The difference for the non-critical items of the SQ was statistically significant, despite the items being the same. This is likely to be caused by a residual effect of these subjects having had to process the more difficult critical items. This might also account for why the response times were slightly slower for these items.

Bottom Line: These re-worded items were answered more rapidly than the original items, and for the SQ produced a more reliable scale.Females had on average higher empathizing scores and males had on average higher systemizing scores.If a female-male pair was chosen at random, the female would have the higher empathizing score about two-thirds of the time, and the males would have the higher systemizing score about two-thirds of the time.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, United States of America. dwright@fiu.edu

ABSTRACT
A large number of people completed one of two versions of the empathizing quotient (EQ) and systemizing quotient (SQ). One version had the negatively phrased items all re-worded. These re-worded items were answered more rapidly than the original items, and for the SQ produced a more reliable scale. Subjects gave self-assessments of empathizing and systemizing, and these were moderately correlated, r ≈ .6, with their respective quotients. Females had on average higher empathizing scores and males had on average higher systemizing scores. If a female-male pair was chosen at random, the female would have the higher empathizing score about two-thirds of the time, and the males would have the higher systemizing score about two-thirds of the time.

Show MeSH