Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the empathy quotient among Chinese minority college students

Table 5 Differences of EQ structural models and CFA results

EQ model	Factors (item number) Cronbach’s α				CFA results
EQ model	F1	F2	F3	F4	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright [5]	EM (40) 0.86	–	–	–	4.383	0.73	0.71	0.076
Lawrence et al. [18]	CE (11) 0.87	ER (11) 0.69	SS (6) 0.57	–	4.577	0.84	0.83	0.078
Wakabayashi et al. [33]	EM (22) 0.86	–	–	–	5.744	0.86	0.84	0.090
Muncer and Ling [34]	CE (5) 0.78	ER (5) 0.55	SS (5) 0.56	–	4.138	0.90	0.88	0.073
Allison et al. [35]	AG (13) 0.80	DI (13) 0.74	–	–	2.459	0.91	0.90	0.050
Guan et al. [24]	EM (15) 0.86	–	–	–	4.690	0.94	0.93	0.079
Zhao et al. [17, 22, 25, 26]	EM (15) 0.86	–	–	–	4.036	0.95	0.95	0.072
This study	CE (10) 0.818	SC (8) 0.793	EE (6) 0.714	SS (5) 0.746	2.51	0.919	0.909	0.043

CFI comparative fit index, TLI Tucker–Lewis Index, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, EQ empathy quotient, EM empathy, CE cognitive empathy, ER emotional reactivity, SS social skills, AG agreement, DI disagreement, SC self-consciousness, EE emotional empathy

ISSN: 1744-859X