# Assessing the French Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI): Psychometric and Qualitative Properties Through the Three French Versions of the IRI Scale

## TL;DR

This study compares three French versions of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) to assess their reliability and quality for measuring empathy.

## Contribution

The study provides a comprehensive evaluation of three French IRI adaptations using both quantitative and qualitative methods.

## Key findings

- All three French IRI versions show acceptable internal consistency and factorial structure.
- Each version contains problematic items identified through quantitative and qualitative analyses.
- The IRI adaptations by Guttman & Laporte (2000) and Braun et al. (2015) are slightly preferred.

## Abstract

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.