Next Article in Journal
The Relationship between Family Functioning, Emotional Intelligence, Loneliness, Social Support, and Depressive Symptoms among Undergraduate Students
Previous Article in Journal
Gender Role Mindset and Beliefs about Own Personal Goals as a Guide for Young People’s Behaviors towards the Romantic Partner
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Levels of Empathy in Students and Professors with Patients in a Faculty of Dentistry

by
Víctor P. Díaz-Narváez
1,*,
Joyce Huberman-Casas
1,
Jorge Andrés Nakouzi-Momares
1,
Chris Alarcón-Ureta
1,
Patricio Alberto Jaramillo-Cavieres
1,
Maricarmen Espinoza-Retamal
1,
Blanca Patricia Klahn-Acuña
1,
Leonardo Epuyao-González
1,
Gabriela Leiton Carvajal
1,
Mariela Padilla
2,
Lindsay W. Vilca
3,
Alejandro Reyes-Reyes
4 and
Fernando Reyes-Reyes
5
1
Research Department, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago 8370133, Chile
2
Department of Education, School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA
3
Department of Education, South American Center for Education and Research in Public Health, Universidad Norbert Wiener, Lima 15108, Peru
4
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Communications, Universidad Santo Tomás, Concepción 8320000, Chile
5
Department of Psychology, Institute of Socio-Emotional Well-Being, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad del Desarrollo, Concepción 4070001, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 817; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090817
Submission received: 18 April 2024 / Revised: 27 August 2024 / Accepted: 5 September 2024 / Published: 14 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Social Psychology)

Abstract

:
Background: Empathy is an attribute that plays an essential role in the dentist–patient therapeutic relationship, clinical care, and treatment adherence, along with providing other benefits. The main objective of this research was to establish the validity, reliability, and invariance of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy and then characterize the empathy levels of students and teachers at a dental school. Materials and Methods: An observational and cross-sectional study analyzed a sample of undergraduate students and professors from the Universidad Andrés Bello Faculty of Dentistry (Chile) (n = 1727 and n = 267, respectively). The Empathy Scale for Health Professionals (HP) and the same scale for students (HPS) were applied. Results: The Jefferson Empathy Scale presents adequate psychometric properties. The empathy measure has adequate reliability and construct validity, confirming a fit of the three-factor empathy model to the data. The measurement is invariant within the university campus, the sex of the student, and between teacher and student. Teachers present greater empathy than students except in the Perspective Adoption dimension. Conclusions: The Jefferson Empathy Scale is reliable, valid, and invariant among Chilean dental students and professors. Students do not differ from their professors in the cognitive component of empathy, but they present a lower score in the affective component and global empathy. It is inferred that students can develop the affective component of empathy in their interactions with their professors, increasing their overall empathy. Understanding and fostering empathy in dental students and professors can significantly improve patient care and treatment adherence and increase patient and dentist satisfaction.

1. Introduction

Empathy in healthcare students and professionals towards patients manifests through an intersubjective relationship during dental care [1,2,3,4]. This relationship should also be present between students and professors at any university training future dental practitioners [5,6]. This solidified relationship positively impacts dental patient care, leading to the following: improved communication, responsibility for treatment, reduced fear towards dental students and professors, especially in pediatric patients, and decreased stress and anxiety, among other benefits [7,8,9].
Several instruments measure general empathy and its cognitive and affective components in the general population [10]. However, one of the most widely used instruments to measure empathy in health science students is the Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JES) [8], which has been used and validated preferentially in medical students [11], with less studied versions for health students (HPS) and professionals (HP) [12,13]. These scales apply to all healthcare professionals and measure the empathy levels of professional dentists (including professors) and dental students toward patients.
In Latin America, a hindrance to empathic education is the lack of information on the psychometric properties of measurement instruments. This leads to a biased interpretation of empathy dimensions behavior, which does not reflect the empathic reality of a student or of all students in an educational institution. Accurately estimating empathy is crucial for developing appropriate intervention policies to increase empathy levels through well-founded teaching–learning processes based on observed empathic reality [14]. Studying patient empathy using the JSE instrument (or any of its adaptations to different health science disciplines) implies that observed data must undergo psychometric analyses, including measurement invariance analysis, before proceeding with any other procedure [15,16].
The HP and HPS instruments reveal two empathy components: cognitive and emotional [13,17]. The cognitive component has two dimensions: Perspective Taking (PA) and “Walking in the Patient’s Shoes” (WIPS), while the emotional component consists of one dimension: Compassionate Care [18]. Cutoff points to evaluate empathy and its dimensions in Latin American dental students have been described [15]. These dimensions interact [14,19]; thus, empathy is an integrative attribute of these three dimensions, and individual study of each dimension is only for specifying the development level of each component, appreciating strengths or weaknesses. Consequently, if one dimension “fails” or shows diminished functionality, empathy ceases to be functional or significantly decreases. In extreme cases, empathic functionality failure can lead to psychopathological conditions [20].
The formation of human empathy is complex. This process can be characterized by human species evolution (phylogeny) and surrounding environmental influences from birth to maturity (ontogeny) [21,22]. The development of the neurological system’s structure and function is a phylogenetic process, while complementary development occurs in ontogeny [21,22]. Generally, the limbic system contains the neural basis of emotional functioning, and the prefrontal cortex relates to cognitive functioning [23]. The limbic system’s development can extend until late adolescence (approximately 18 years), influenced by exogenous aspects like family structure, stability, and early childhood socialization of maternal emotions [24]. In contrast, the prefrontal system’s development can extend into early adulthood (25 to 30 years), related to executive functions [25]. Thus, future dental students enter university with a relatively developed emotional structure and limited room for emotional component development. In contrast, some room exists for the learning process of executive functions [5,8,13,16,17,18,21]. Therefore, universities must use these spaces to develop and build empathic training for their students [19].
Studies in various Latin American countries have shown variability in the distribution of empathy levels concerning empathic decline and distribution among groups (between genders, schools, or faculties of the same discipline and between countries). Regarding empathic decline, Hojat et al. [8] proposed a process of declining empathy levels in medical students beginning in their third year. Possible causes include stress [26], ethical erosion [27], loss of physical contact with the patient [28], depression [29], teaching–learning style [30], discontinuity in the teaching–learning process of ethical norms [31], resilience [32], burnout [33], career choice [34], professor’s attitude towards the student [35], and academic and professional climate [36].
Empathic decline has been studied using cross-sectional and longitudinal designs in various disciplines and careers [37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. The empathic decline process proposed by Hojat et al. [8] is a particular scientific fact, not a general process [45]. A multicenter cross-sectional study with Latin American dental students showed variability in the behavior of mean distribution between academic courses in dental faculties examined in this study. Such variability does not allow for a unique understanding of empathy decline. More complex studies are needed to understand empathy formation in dental students and health sciences students in general [46]. This phenomenon is also observed in nursing [47] and medical students [14,48]. Variability is also studied between genders, with studies generally establishing that women are more empathetic than men [49]. However, contradictory results exist in samples of Latin American dental students, with equal empathy means and differences in favor of one gender or the other [50].
In Latin America, universities often conduct training activities in multiple cities. A university with different campuses should have the same curriculum, teaching–learning style, and level of additional training for professors. If these premises are met, the outcome of student training in basic, preclinical, and clinical areas should be similar, reflected in a lack of statistical differences. If there are any, they should be few. This phenomenon is called “empathic equalization” [51]. One study related to empathic equalization in Chilean dental students found differences by site (Santiago and Concepción) in the cognitive component of empathy and by gender in both components, cognitive and affective [52].
Some authors coined the term “empathic diagnosis” [53], a set of characteristics describing the empathic situation in an academic unit. This term reflects the reality of empathic behavior in an academic unit, allowing necessary inferences to determine actions to improve or strengthen empathy in students and professors.
We propose to find out what levels of empathy dental students present compared to their professors and if the measure of empathy made by the Jefferson scale is valid, reliable, and invariant when used in a sample of dental students and professors. The aims of the study are (1) to characterize the levels of empathy and its dimensions in students and teachers of the different branches of a dental school and to compare the levels of empathy observed between students and teachers, and (2) to determine the validity, reliability, and invariance of the empathy measurement model, as a prior objective to support the comparisons.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Design

Observational and Cross-Sectional [54].

2.2. Participants

The examined population is composed of all professors (N = 313) and students (N = 2176) of the Faculty of Dentistry of the Andrés Bello University (Chile). This faculty has three campuses: Santiago, which has 1027 students and 145 professors; Concepción, with 350 students and 68 teachers; and Viña del Mar, with 799 students and 100 teachers. Students complete a twelve-semester program to graduate as dental surgeons at each campus. All students have the same educational model and study program with homogeneous objectives, and the teaching–learning process is based on the same pedagogical strategy. Convenience sampling is used to select a sample of 1727 dentistry students, distributed as follows: Santiago campus = 795 (n1); Concepción campus = 265 (n2); and Viña del Mar campus = 667 (n3). The total number of students sampled by the faculty represents 79.37% of the total population. The distribution by sex was male = 559 (n) (32.37%) and female = 1168 (n) (67.63%). Age was distributed in the sample with a mean = 22.09 and a standard deviation = 2.86. The obtained sample of professors was 267, distributed as follows: Santiago campus = 128 (n1); Concepción campus = 48 (n2); and Viña del Mar campus = 91 (n3). The total number of the sample professors from the faculty represents 85.30% of the total population. The distribution by sex was male = 116 (n) (43.45%) and female = 151 (n) (56.55%). Age was distributed in the sample with a mean = 37.47 and a standard deviation = 7.80.

2.3. Instruments

Instruments include the Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) version for health students (JSE-HPS) and version for professionals (JSE-HP) [12,13]. Both instruments are composed of 20 items (10 with positive items and 10 with negative items), and the responses to these questions are structured on a Likert scale with values from 1 (expresses total disagreement) to 7 (expresses total agreement). The HPS and HP scales have three latent dimensions that were described in the introduction: CC (items 1, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19), PA (items 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 20), and WIPS (items 3 and 6). The total possible score is 140 points. This instrument does not diagnose alterations related to empathy, as it is designed to be applied to patients with no mental health problems. The psychometric studies carried out with this instrument show adequate stability and reliability [15].

2.4. Procedures

The HP and HPS underwent an adaptation process through a translation and back-translation process (English–Spanish–English). Once this process was completed, the instrument in Spanish was submitted for peer review (five relevant academics from the dentistry surgeon profession, psychologists, and experts in higher education) to establish evidence of cultural and content validity. Subsequently, only the HPS was submitted to a pilot test, with thirty students of both sexes and from different courses, to check the comprehension of the questions. Based on the experience of using the instrument with teachers, it was considered that a pilot study was not necessary.
Data were collected between September and December 2022 at the professors’ regular monthly faculty clinical meetings and in the classroom during regular student theory class sessions scheduled as part of the semester curriculum. In both groups, the instrument was administered in a single session of approximately 20 min in pencil and paper format. The evaluators were professors specially designated by the Department of Studies of the School of Dentistry and by the Directors of each campus because of their experience in applying research instruments. These professors were empowered to use the instrument, answer the participants’ questions, verify that the instrument was entirely responded to before it was handed out, and that the participating students and professors duly signed the informed consent form before answering the empathy scale. The informed consent form was presented to all participants at the beginning of the session, explaining the purpose of the study, the exposure to minimal risk, and the safeguarding of confidentiality. Participants were given sufficient time to read the document and ask questions before signing it. The instrument was administered under license from the Asano-Gonnella Center for Research in Medical Education and Health Care at Thomas Jefferson University. ID: 10905.
All subjects gave informed consent for inclusion before participating in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2013), and the protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Universidad Andrés Bello (Approval Certificate: 020/2022, 4 July 2022).

2.5. Statistics Analysis

Descriptive analysis. Primary empathy data and its dimensions in students and professors were submitted to normality and homoscedasticity tests using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene tests. Also, statistical means and standard deviation were estimated from the variables of interest.
Fit of the model. The robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) [55] estimation method was used in the Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA) due to the items showing more than five answer categories [56]. The fit criteria used to evaluate the fit of the model were RMSEA (<0.08), SRMR (<0.08), CFI (>0.95), and TLI (>0.95) [57,58]. The scale’s internal consistency was evaluated through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient [59] and omega coefficient [60]. A value greater than 0.70 is considered to be a value that allows us to verify that the data have internal consistency [61].
The factorial invariance of the scale according to the sex and city of the participants was evaluated through a sequence of hierarchical invariance models: configural invariance, metric invariance, scalar invariance, and strict invariance. The chi-square (Δχ2) was used to compare differences in the sequence of models, where no significant values (p > 0.05) suggests invariance between groups. In addition, differences in RMSEA (ΔRMSEA) were considered, where differences lower than p < 0.015 show the invariance of the model [62].
Comparisons of the empathy levels (and their dimensions) (dependent variables) were made between campus factors and between sexes (independent variables) through bifactorial variance analysis (ANOVA), including the estimation of the interaction between the examined factors [63]. A course or academic year was considered covariable to eliminate its effect on comparing dependent variables. Subsequently, Tukey’s mean multiple comparison test [64] was applied to distinguish the hierarchical relationship between the means. The effect size (ἠ2: eta square) of the ANOVA F test, where it is considered 0.01; 0.06; and 0.014 as low, medium, and high, respectively [65], and the power of the test (1 − β) ≥ 0.80. Finally, comparisons between independent samples were made through Student’s t-test, considering whether variances of the groups were equal or not equal [63], and the effect size was obtained through Cohen’s d test [65]. Statistical programs used were R 3.3.0+; RStudio 2023.03.01; IBM SPSS 25.0 and G*Power 3.2.9.7. The level of significance used was α < 0.05 and β < 0.20.

3. Results

3.1. Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA)

Table 1 shows that the model of three related factors presents adequate fit indexes of the total group of university students (RMSEA = 0.038; CFI = 0.934; TLI = 0.924). In addition, it is observed that the model shows adequate fit indexes in each university campus: Santiago (RMSEA = 0.035; CFI = 0.935; TLI = 0.926), Concepción (RMSEA = 0.050; CFI = 0.908; TLI = 0.901), and Viña del Mar (RMSEA = 0.033; CFI = 0.954; TLI = 0.948). In Figure 1, most of the items show moderate factor loads with the factor they belong to. Moreover, factors show significant relationships between them.
Regarding the group of professors, the study found that the model of three related factors presents suitable fit indexes for the total sample (χ2 = 267.07; df = 166; p < 0.001 CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.051 [IC90% 0.039–0.062]; SRMR = 0.052). Figure 2 shows that these results are similar to those of students.

3.2. Measurement Invariance

In Table 1, it can be seen that the factorial structure of the scale has shown evidence of being strictly invariant related to the university campus that students attend. Adequate indicators have been observed in the sequence of proposed invariance models: metric invariance (ΔRMSEA = 0.002), scalar invariance (ΔRMSEA = 0.005), and strict invariance (ΔRMSEA = 0.025). Checking for invariance between two or more interest groups provides evidence that the measures are equivalent in the different groups. This allows students to compare different university sites according to their empathy scores.
In Table 2, it can be seen that the factorial structure of the scale has shown evidence of being strictly invariant according to the sex of participants in the sequence of proposed invariance models: metric invariance (ΔRMSEA = 0.000), scalar invariance (ΔRMSEA = 0.001) and strict (ΔRMSEA = 0.009). It is observed that the scale’s factor structure is strictly invariant when set according to the student’s sex at each university campus (ΔRMSEA < 0.018 in all cases).
Regarding professors, it can be seen in Table 3 that the factorial structure of the scale has shown evidence of being strictly invariant according to the sex of participants in the sequence of proposed invariance models: metric invariance (ΔRMSEA = 0.000), scalar invariance (ΔRMSEA = 0.001), and strict invariance (ΔRMSEA = 0.003).

3.3. Reliability Analysis

In this study, it was found that all dimensions of the scale present suitable reliability indexes in the total sample of university students: PA (α = 0.73; ω = 0.72), CC (α = 0.72; ω = 0.73), and WIPS (α = 0.62; ω = 0.62). Similarly, the scale showed suitable reliability indexes at Santiago branches (PA [α = 0.66; ω = 0.67], CC [α = 0.68; ω = 0.69], and WIPS [α = 0.65; ω = 0.65]), Concepción (PA [α = 0.77; ω = 0.76], CC [α = 0.74; ω = 0.75], and WIPS [α = 0.72; ω = 0.72]) and Viña del Mar (PA [α = 0.78; ω = 0.77], CC [α = 0.75; ω = 0.75], and WIPS [α = 0.56; ω = 0.56]). In addition, it shows suitable internal consistency indexes in the men’s sample (PA [α = 0.78; ω = 0.78], CC [α = 0.75; ω = 0.76], and WIPS [α = 0.59; ω = 0.62]), and women’s sample (PA [α = 0.70; ω = 0.70], CC [α = 0.70; ω = 0.70], and WIPS [α = 0.62; ω = 0.62]).
Regarding professors, it was found that all dimensions of the scale present suitable reliability indexes in the total sample: PA (α = 0.83; ω = 0.83), CC (α = 0.72; ω = 0.73), and WIPS (α = 0.73; ω = 0.73). Similarly, this happens in the men’s sample (PA [α = 0.72; ω = 0.71], CC [α = 0.71; ω = 0.71], and WIPS [α = 0.70; ω = 0.71]) and women’s (PA [α = 0.88; ω = 0.88], CC [α = 0.72; ω = 0.73], and WIPS [α = 0.74; ω = 0.74]).

3.4. Estimation of Empathy Levels in Students

Table 4 presents the results of estimating the means and standard deviation of the empathy variable and its dimensions by sex in the students.
Table 5 presents the analysis of the variance for comparison of the means of empathy (and its dimensions) of sex, the interaction between campus and sex, and the covariable effect on students and professors.
In the students, the covariable was found to be significant in E, CC, and WIPS, but not in PA. Regarding the campuses, significant differences were found in the CC and WIPS dimensions but not in other dimensions. Significant differences were found in the sex factor in E and all its dimensions. Finally, the relationship between campus and sex factors was significant in the CC dimension. Tukey’s test only showed significance (p < 0.05) between the campuses in the PA dimension. It was observed that the mean of Santiago (60.45) are the same as in Concepción (61.3); in turn, the mean of Viña del Mar (62.33) are also the same as in Concepción (61.3), but the mean of Viña del Mar (62.33) is higher than in Santiago (60.45) with statistical differences. Regarding the effect size, small values were observed for its corresponding statistics in the studied factors within each dimension, including those that showed statistical differences. In the case of the power, some factors that had a suitable power were found (>0.80). In contrast, others were low or very low (<0.80). In professors, it was observed that there were no differences between campuses regarding empathy and its dimensions between campuses. Nevertheless, significant differences between sexes in E, PA, and WIPS were observed. Regarding the effect size, small values were observed for its corresponding statistics in the studied factors within each dimension, including those that showed statistical differences. In the case of the power, most of the factors were found to have an unsuitable power (<0.80), though a few were suitable (>0.80). The Tukey test showed no significance (p > 0.05) in any of the comparisons made in the present study.

3.5. Estimation of Empathy Levels in Professors

Table 6 presents the results of estimating the means and standard deviation of the empathy variable and its dimensions by campus and sex of professors.

3.6. Comparison of Empathy Levels between Students and Professors

Table 7 shows the results of the comparisons between professors and students about empathy and its dimensions, considering all faculty as a unit. Statistical differences in E, CC, and WIPS were found. In all cases, the value of empathy is higher in professors. Cohen’s d-test shows that differences tend to be small because all of them are under the range [0.5–0.8] [65].

4. Discussion

A review of the literature shows that, in relation to empathy, many studies estimate the levels of empathy and its dimensions, without first testing compliance with the underlying three-dimensional model [14]. This situation may be a methodologic bias. Many authors express the need to evaluate the construct validity, even though the model has been tested in populations similar to those studied [66]. By verifying that the empathy model of three dimensions is valid, we have evidence of construct validity of the empathy measure in the population studied. It has been highlighted that empathy may be influenced by exogenic factors [5] and could have the capacity to change the architecture of one dimension based on the structure of the items that constitute it. Therefore, it is difficult to probe the existence of an agreement between the model and the empirical data on which a determined construct needs to be studied. Verifying the model invariance in several groups guarantees that the number and structure of dimensions are equivalent between groups. This is the only required condition to ensure that the empathy levels and their dimensions can be compared between different groups [67,68]. Research on empathy should then consider this procedure as a demanding methodologic routine.
In this work, the model of the three latent dimensions of empathy was confirmed in students and professors who belong to the same faculty. In addition, the model’s invariance was verified in all the analyzed groups and the data show reliability in general terms and in each studied group.
Overall, studies that try to measure empathy first focus on estimating the descriptive measures of this variable. However, the existence of cut-off points can classify the significance of the observed value as new from a qualitative point of view. In Latin America, such points have been obtained, allowing references concerning the “quality” of the value obtained. A hierarchical cluster analysis with standardized data was used to establish cut-off points in dental students from the Caribbean, Central America, and part of South America. This analysis made it possible to establish three categories of empathy (“high”, “medium”, and “low”) and to construct a norm based on percentiles [69]. In agreement with these cut-off points, E, CC, and PA values observed in this work (Table 4) can be classified as “high” and are around the percentiles 25, 50, and 50, respectively; nevertheless, WIPS value was classified as “medium” around the percentile 25. In general, these results show a higher level of empathy in the emotional dimension, CC, and in one of the cognitive dimensions, PA, compared to the cognitive dimension, WIPS. This dimension is related to the ability to enter a person’s mind and understand their thoughts and feelings, which would be less developed in the sample of students examined. As previously stated, empathy is a three-dimensional system that interacts to originate the empathy attribute. There is a close relationship among dimensions. For instance, some difficulty understanding the patient’s mind may constitute a limitation of efficiently acknowledging one’s thinking [14,19]. This limitation cannot be perceived as the only one; thus, it makes the correct functioning of empathy difficult as a system and may end up affecting the student–patient relationship to some extent, but not critically, because this is not a deficiency but a failure that may be overcome. WIPS as a cognitive dimension can be learned [47]. Therefore, the university can address this issue, including the necessary actions to increase the WIPS levels in its students [70,71,72] during the teaching–learning process. We believe various strategies can be used to improve this aspect in trainee dentists, such as actor-supported simulations of clinical situations with patients, in which trainees have to respond to patients’ emotional and cognitive demands—instances in which real-time feedback can be provided to model expected behavior. Similarly, educational technologies, such as virtual and augmented reality, can create clinical situations, allowing the learner to better understand patients’ thoughts and feelings. The different strategies should maintain continuity throughout the student’s training, allowing for development.
The course factor was used as a covariable for the different comparisons, so it was possible to cancel the variability effect of the empathy levels between courses. For instance, processes such as empathic decline or a sustained increase in empathy and its dimensions throughout the courses [8,27,42,73]. The results of the comparisons between campuses and sexes and the interaction between campus and sex (C*S) allow us to observe that the concept of equalization is fulfilled. This statement is based on whether the statistical significances observed are small or nonexistent (eta squared ≤ 0.027). Additionally, the values for the test power surpass a value of 0.80 in some cases. When it does, it is to effectively infer, in the students’ population, the differences observed (when they exist) between the means of the compared groups are small or non-existent. Nevertheless, it is necessary to highlight that female students had higher values than men in empathy and all its dimensions. The process of accomplishing equalization is complex and depends on many variables that can converge on empathy in the different geographic regions where the campuses from the same university are found. However, the differences in empathy levels between campuses could be explained because the convergence of variables influencing empathy in a geographical region need not be the same for all these regions (considering that between the most distant university campuses, there is a distance of 600 km), and if it were, we should not expect them to behave to the same degree/extent in all areas [74]. The comparison of the equalization studies at universities is difficult because there are no works on such regarding dentistry students in Latin America, with one single exception [52]. The “pure state of equality” (equal levels of empathy across campuses) is difficult to achieve due to the intrinsic variability of the students being assessed. But this difficulty does not prevent empathy as an attribute from being incorporated in a planned manner into the curriculum of a given degree course on all campuses where that degree course is taught. The planning, content and length of the courses, as well as the different university campuses, are the same for all students on the different campuses.
The absence of interactions between campus and sex (C*S) shows that both variables are independent. Thus, the results of comparisons of the empathy levels between sexes are not biased because of the existing interaction.
Studies of empathy in teachers do not provide cut-off points for assessing empathy levels. This is because studies of empathy in dentistry professors and other specialties in Latin America are few [5], and the estimation of this type of cut–off point requires a critical mass of data from different zones of a determined region, and these data must have been obtained with the same methodologic criterion. Therefore, it is difficult to classify the observed results in this work without an existing benchmark. Under these circumstances, the observed values of empathy might be considered high (or higher) in terms of the observed levels in students. This fact, and the absence of differences in empathy levels between campuses, is a positive fact that could build solid empirical ground to continue developing a teaching–learning process for students. Many factors make every teaching–learning process in dentistry formation successful [75,76]. One of them is training and mastery of the subject of professors, along with academic content and skill, didactics, and power of the curriculum [77]. Additionally, there is the applied methodology in any area (basic, preclinic, and clinic) and the teaching of techniques or activities that can be carried out through different strategies; the foundation of the clinical activities; availability at the clinic; professor–student relationship; learning assessment; and the role of the professor in the student’s comprehensive training [78]. The teaching of empathy cannot be structured as the teaching–learning of specific contents related to tangible objects where empiric laws and accurate theories are governed (precise relatively) and must be taught considering the subjective character of the object of study, specifically, the intersubjective relationship between two people [45]. The example a professor sets when teaching, such as regards responsibility, teamwork, ethical commitment, and humane treatment, among others, is a powerful academic tool. This example can be one of the cornerstones of the student’s empathic formation strategy [5,79].
At all campuses, women, in relation to men, presented higher levels of empathy and also higher levels in each of the dimensions of empathy. The observed differences between sexes have been controversial. Some studies state that women are more empathic than men [80], but some studies have not found any differences between the sexes [81]. Latin American authors have found that the distribution of empathy between the sexes varies. After analyzing 18 dental schools, it was observed that in some of them, women were more empathetic than men; in others, there were no differences; and in some, it was observed that men were more empathetic [50]. One consideration for the explanation of this variability can be observed in some studies that have been able to note that men, as well as women, may have different neuronal structures, but the same potential to develop and express empathy, “even though their neuronal pathways and how they express empathy socially can be different” [5,82,83,84]. From these findings, it is possible to agree with some authors that “there is not a consistent pattern to conclude that one genre is more empathic than the other” [5,85]; these ideas are also valid for the observed results in comparisons made between both sexes in students.
Finally, the consistent finding shows that the professors had higher levels of E, CC, and WIPS relative to students, except for in the PA dimension. However, PA and WIPS are dimensions that belong to the cognitive component and may be learning objects for students. Independently, whether the empathy levels found in professors are higher by themselves, the importance of this finding lies in that these differences increase the possibility that professors can massively be an essential part of the structuring and applying of a teaching–learning strategy of empathy.
Although this is not the objective of this work, it is relevant to state that “necessary actions” must be considered, and lead to the construction of a formative strategy for the teaching–learning of this dimension, interacting with other dimensions of empathy. Additionally, it is necessary to highlight that this strategy must be complex given the characteristics of its attributes. This strategy must be applied throughout the formative process, considering that this application is adopting different ways to adapt to the various stages of the formative process in the following so-called areas: “basic, preclinic, and clinic”.
The present study can contribute to developing Empathy Training Programs that seek to improve the dimensions of empathy where students are weaker, better preparing them to interact empathically with patients. Information on empathy levels can be used to develop selection criteria and ongoing training for clinical staff, ensuring they possess high empathic competencies and improving treatment satisfaction and outcomes. The empathy description of an educational community can be used to promote a culture of empathy in the clinical setting.

Study Limitations

This study could be improved by incorporating other sociodemographic variables in addition to gender, socioeconomic level, age, or other variables associated with the variability of empathy in students and professors. The selected sample represents a private university in Chile. Therefore, the results may not reflect what occurs in state universities, limiting the generalizability of the results. No procedure was implemented to control for social desirability, which could alter the measure’s validity. Finally, being a cross-sectional study, the measurement of empathy at a single point in time may be affected by the particular and transitory current situation of the participants or of the university campus at that moment, which could be remedied with a longitudinal study.

5. Conclusions

The Jefferson Empathy Scale presents adequate psychometric properties. The empathy measure has adequate reliability and construct validity, confirming a fit of the three-factor empathy model to the data. The measurement is invariant within the university campus, the sex of the student, and between teacher and student. Students’ empathy levels and the CC and PA dimensions can be considered higher. However, the level for WIPS was classified as low. Therefore, it can be regarded that students may have limitations in establishing an empathic relationship with the patient, possibly due to the lack of WIPS. Empathy and its dimensions can be considered higher in teachers than in students. There are no significant differences in the levels of empathy and its dimensions between university campuses, but there are differences between sexes. Women show greater empathy in the sample of both students and professors. The levels of empathy and its dimensions are generally higher in the professors than in the students of the institution studied, except in the PA dimension. The differences can be considered significant, and it is possible to conclude that this finding is an essential condition for the success of future empathic interventions.
The finding that faculty exhibits higher levels of empathy than students, especially in the affective component, suggests that empathy can be developed through professional experience and education. This implies that dental schools should incorporate structured cognitive and affective empathy training into their curricula. Workshops or role-playing scenarios could be employed, and possibilities for collaboration with disciplines such as psychology and communication could be opened. Understanding and fostering empathy in dental students and faculty could significantly improve patient care, treatment adherence, and patient satisfaction and increase patient confidence. Emphasis on empathy can improve the overall quality of dental education and better prepare students for the complexities of patient interactions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.P.D.-N., J.H.-C. and A.R.-R.; methodology, V.P.D.-N., J.H.-C., L.W.V. and A.R.-R.; software, L.W.V.; validation, L.W.V. and A.R.-R.; formal analysis, L.W.V., A.R.-R. and F.R.-R.; investigation, V.P.D.-N., C.A.-U., M.E.-R. and G.L.C.; resources, V.P.D.-N. and J.A.N.-M.; data curation, L.W.V. and A.R.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, V.P.D.-N., J.H.-C., L.W.V. and A.R.-R.; writing—review and editing, J.A.N.-M., C.A.-U., P.A.J.-C. and M.P.; visualization, M.E.-R., B.P.K.-A. and L.E.-G.; supervision, V.P.D.-N., J.H.-C. and J.A.N.-M.; project administration, V.P.D.-N. and J.H.-C.; funding acquisition, V.P.D.-N. and J.H.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Andres Bello University (Approval Certificate: 020/2022, date of approval: 4 July 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Esagian, G.; Esagian-Pouftsis, S.; Kaprinis, S.G. Empathy in psychiatry and psychotherapy. Psychiatry 2019, 30, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kelly, M.; Svrcek, C.; King, N.; Scherpbier, A.; Dornan, T. Embodying empathy: A phenomenological study of physician touch. Med. Educ. 2020, 54, 400–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Loue, S. Teaching and Practicing Humanism and Empathy through Embodied Engagement. Medicina 2022, 58, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ameh, P.O.; Uti, O.G.; Daramola, O.O. Study motivations, specialty preferences, and empathy of dentistry students in a Nigerian university. Pan. Afr. Med. J. 2022, 41, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Carvajal, M.; López, S.; Sarabia-Alvarez, P.; Fontealba, J.; Padilla, M.; Sumi, J.; Díaz-Narváez, V.P. Empathy Levels of Dentistry Faculty and Students: A Survey Study at an Academic Dentistry Institution in Chile. J. Dent. Educ. 2019, 83, 1134–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Narang, R.; Mittal, L.; Saha, S.; Aggarwal, V.P.; Sood, P.; Mehra, S. Empathy among dentistry students: A systematic review of the literature. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2019, 37, 316–326. [Google Scholar]
  7. Michael, K.; Dror, M.G.; Karnieli-Miller, O. Students’ patient-centered-care attitudes: The contribution of self-efficacy, communication, and empathy. Patient Educ Couns. 2019, 102, 2031–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hojat, M.; Shannon, S.C.; DeSantis, J.; Speicher, M.R.; Bragan, L.; Calabrese, L. Does Empathy Decline in the Clinical Phase of Medical Education? A Nationwide, Multi-Institutional, Cross-Sectional Study of Students at DO-Granting Medical Schools. Acad. Med. 2020, 95, 911–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moore, R. Trusting the Dentist-Expecting a Leap of Faith vs. a Well-Defined Strategy for Anxious Patients. Dent. J. 2022, 10, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. de Lima, F.F.; Osório, F.D.L. Empathy: Assessment instruments and psychometric quality—A systematic literature review with a meta-analysis of the past ten years. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 781346. [Google Scholar]
  11. García-Estañ, J.; Flores-Funes, D.; Capdevila-Gaudens, P.; García-Abajo, M.; García-Barbero, M. Project DABE: Empathy among Spanish Medical Students. Educ. Médica 2022, 23, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Obeidat, S.R.; Alsa’di, A.G.; Taani, D.S. Factors influencing dentistry care access in Jordanian adults. BMC Oral Health 2014, 14, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ryu, H.R.; Bang, K.S. A Validation Study of the Korean Version of the Jefferson Empathy Scale for Health Professionals for Korean Nurses. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. 2016, 46, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ulloque, M.J.; Varela, T.; Villalba, S.; Fantini, A.; Quinteros, S.; Díaz-Narváez, V. Empathy in medical students of Córdoba, Argentina. Arch. Argent. Pediat. 2019, 117, 81–86. [Google Scholar]
  15. Díaz, V.P.; Reyes, A.; Calzadilla, A.; Torres, A.; González, E.; Bilbao, J.L.; González, F.; Estrada, N.; Fortich, N.; Sepúlveda, W. Psychometry and estimation of cutoff points of Jefferson Scale of empathy in dentistry students. J. Dent. Educ. 2021, 85, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Reyes-Reyes, A.; Calzadilla-Núñez, A.; Torres-Martínez, P.; Díaz-Calzadilla, P.; Pastén-Hidalgo, W.; Bracho-Milic, F.; Díaz-Narváez, V. Psychometry: Cutting-Off Points and Standardization of the Jefferson Empathy Scale Adapted for Students of Kinesiology. SAGE Open 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Decety, J.; Meidenbauer, K.L.; Cowell, J.M. The development of cognitive empathy and concern in preschool children: A behavioral neuroscience investigation. Dev. Sci. 2018, 21, e12570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Eres, R.; Decety, J.; Louis, W.R.; Molenberghs, P. Individual differences in local gray matter density are associated with affective and cognitive empathy differences. Neuroimage 2015, 117, 305–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Glas, G. Conceptual issues in neuroscientific research on empathy. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2019, 65, 101358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cappelle, T.; Neumann, C.S.; Cook, A.M.; Kim, E.; Harenski, C.L.; Edwards, B.G.; Clarke, G.J.; Decety, J.; Kiehl, K.A. Traumatic Brain Injury and Psychopathic Traits in Justice-Involved Adult Women. J. Pers. Disord. 2023, 37, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gonzalez-Liencres, C.; Shamay-Tsoory, S.G.; Brüne, M. Towards a neuroscience of empathy: Ontogeny, phylogeny, brain mechanisms, context and psychopathology. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2013, 37, 1537–1548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Decety, J. The neuroevolution of empathy. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2011, 1231, 1235–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Arán, V.; López, M.B.; Richaud, M.C. Neuropsychological Approach to the Empathy Construct: Cognitive and Neuroanatomical Aspects. Cuad. Neuropsicol. 2012, 6, 63–83. [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen, X.; McCormick, E.M.; Ravindran, N.; McElwain, N.L.; Telzer, E.H. Maternal emotion socialization in early childhood predicts adolescents’ amygdala-vmPFC functional connectivity to emotion faces. Dev. Psychol. 2020, 56, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gómez-Pérez, E.; Ostrosky-Solís, F.; Próspero-García, O. The Development of Attention, Memory and the Inhibitory Processes: The Chronological Relation with the Maturation of Brain Structure and Functioning. Rev. Neurol. 2003, 37, 561–567. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ludwig, A.B.; Burton, W.; Weingarten, J.; Milan, F.; Myers, D.; Fligler, B. Depression and stress amongst undergraduate medical students. BMC Med. Educ. 2015, 15, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Stratta, E.C.; Riding, D.M.; Baker, P. Ethical erosion in newly qualified doctors: Perceptions of empathy decline. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2016, 7, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hendry, J. Promoting compassionate care in radiography—What might be suitable pedagogy? A discussion paper. Radiography 2019, 25, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Geng, Y.; Fei, W.; Tang, Z.; Wang, S.; Yu, J.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, T. Parental care and depressive symptoms among Chinese medical students: Roles of empathy and gender. BMC Med. Educ. 2022, 22, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rosenzweig, J.; Blaizot, A.; Cougot, N.; Pegon-Machat, E.; Hamel, O.; Apelian, N.; Bedos, C.; Munoz-Sartre, M.T.; Vergnes, J.N. Effect of a Person-Centered Course on the Empathic Ability of Dentistry Students. J. Dent. Educ. 2016, 80, 1337–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Englander, R.; Carraccio, C. A Lack of Continuity in Education, Training, and Practice Violates the “Do No Harm” Principle. Acad. Med. 2018, 93, S12–S16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. de Vries, J.M.A.; Timmins, F. Teaching psychology to nursing students-a discussion of the potential contribution of psychology towards building resilience to lapses in compassionate caring. Nurse Educ. Pract. 2017, 26, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. MacAulay, R.; Morash, J.; Kenwell, L.S.; Kimberly, H. Burnout in oral health students: A scoping review. J. Dent. Educ. 2023, 87, 471–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Li, D.; Xu, H.; Kang, M.; Ma, S. Empathy in Chinese eight-year medical program students: Differences by school year, educational stage, and future career preference. BMC Med. Educ. 2018, 18, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ge, Y.; Li, W.; Chen, F.; Kayani, S.; Qin, G. The Theories of the Development of Students: A Factor to Shape Professor Empathy From the Perspective of Motivation. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 736656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Roswell, R.O.; Cogburn, C.D.; Tocco, J.; Martinez, J.; Bangerange, C.; Bailenson, J.N.; Wright, M.; Mieres, J.H.; Amith, L. Cultivating Empathy through Virtual Reality: Advancing Conversations About Racism, Inequity, and Climate in Medicine. Acad. Med. 2020, 95, 1882–1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Triffaux, J.M.; Tisseron, S.; Nasello, J.A. Decline of empathy among medical students: Dehumanization or useful coping process? Encephale 2019, 45, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Assing Hvidt, E.; Søndergaard, J.; Hvidt, N.C.; Wehberg, A.; Büssing, A.; Andersen, C.M. Development in Danish medical students’ empathy: Study protocol of a cross-sectional and longitudinal mixed-methods study. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ozair, A.; Singh, K.K.; Kumar, P. Decline of Empathy During Medical Education. Acad. Med. 2021, 96, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Givron, H.; Desseilles, M. Decline of Empathy after the First Internship: Towards a More Functional Empathy? Sante Ment. Que. 2020, 45, 183–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Xu, Y.; Xiong, S.; Zhu, L.; Xie, J.; Su, Z.; Ding, X.; Hu, Y. Changes in empathy of nurses from 2009 to 2018: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Nurs. Ethics 2021, 28, 776–790. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, C.X.Y.; Pavlova, A.; Fernando, A.T.; Conseline, N.S. Beyond empathy decline: Do the barriers to compassion change across medical training? Adv. Health Sci. Educ. Theory Pract. 2022, 27, 521–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Díaz-Narváez, V.P.; Amezaga-Avitia, A.C.; Sarabia-Alvarez, P.A.; Lagos-Elgueta, M.; Saavedra-Madrid, M.; Silva-Reyes, P.; Padilla, M.; Rodríguez-Hopp, M.P. Chilean Dentistry students, levels of empathy and empathic erosion: Necessary evaluation before a planned intervention: Levels of empathy, evaluation and intervention. Saudi Dent. J. 2018, 30, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Iqbal, M.Z.; AlBuraikan, A.R.; AlQarni, A.A.; Abdulaziz, H.; Mohammad, A.; Mohammad, M. Measuring empathy in medical students: A cross-sectional study. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2022, 72, 1101–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Díaz, V.; Calzadilla, A.; López, H. An approach to the concept of Scientific Fact. Cinta Moebio 2005, 22, 100–111. [Google Scholar]
  46. Díaz-Narváez, V.; Miranda-Carreño, F.; Galaz-Guajardo, S.; Sepúlveda-Narvarro, W.; Zúñiga-Mogollones, M.; Calzadilla-Núñez, A.; Torres-Martínez, P.; Reyes-Reyes, A. Variability of empathy among dentistry students. Implications not yet understood in Latin America. Rev. Fac. Med. 2022, 70, e91207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lastre-Amell, G.; Orostegui, M.A.; Gaviria-García, G.; Calzadilla-Núñez, A.; Torres-Martínez, P.; Díaz-Narváez, V.P. Empathy, components of empathy, empathy decline and gender in nursing students. A cross-sectional study. Rev. Mex. Enferm. Cardiol. 2020, 28, 44–51. [Google Scholar]
  48. Barrera-Gil, D.; Estrada-Méndez, N.; Arévalo, Y.; Calzadilla-Núñez, A.; Díaz-Narváez, V.P. Empathy in medical students in the Republic of El Salvador: Cross-sectional study. J. Health Qual. Res. 2018, 33, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Zhao, Q.; Zhou, L.; Ren, Q.; Lu, Z.; Sun, X.; Neumann, D.L.; Dai, Q.; Hu, L. Culture-sex interaction in self-report empathy: The theory and meta-analyses. Psych. J. 2023, 12, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Díaz-Narváez, V.; Coronado, A.; Bilbao, J.; González, F.; Padilla, M.; Howard, M.; Silva, M.G.; Bullen, M.; Gutierrez, F.; Varela, T.; et al. Empathy Gender in Dentistry Students in Latin America: An Exploratory and Cross-Sectional Study. Health 2015, 7, 1527–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lopes, F.L.; Medeiros, C.M. Equalization of academic tests via Item Response Theory. Psico-USF Bragança Paul. 2013, 18, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Díaz-Narváez, V.P.; Calzadilla-Núñez, A. Empathy Equalization in Students from Two Different Campus in a Chilean Faculty of Dentistry. Rev. Med. Rosario 2019, 85, 20–26. [Google Scholar]
  53. Díaz-Narváez, V.; Herazo-Beltrán, Y.; Calzadilla-Núñez, A.; Osorio-Cerda, L.; Gauna-Quiñonez, A.E. Diagnosis of the empathic situation in students of physioteraphy: A cross-sectional study. Salud Uninorte 2018, 34, 664–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Reyes-Reyes, F.; Reyes-Reyes, A.; Díaz-Narváez, V.P. About classification systems of research designs in psychology: Significance and scope. Interciencia 2019, 44, 303–309. [Google Scholar]
  55. Yuan, K.H.; Bentler, P.M. Three likelihoodbased methods for mean and Covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociol. Methodol. 2000, 30, 165–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rhemtulla, M.; Brosseau-Liard, P.; Savalei, V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol. Methods 2012, 17, 354–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; 534p. [Google Scholar]
  58. Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling: Fourth Edition, 4th ed.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2015; 394p. [Google Scholar]
  59. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. McDonald, R.P. Test Theory: A Unified Treatmenti; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 1999; 498p. [Google Scholar]
  61. Viladrich, C.; Angulo-Brunet, A.; Doval, E. A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. An. Psicol. 2017, 33, 755–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chen, F.F. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct. Equ. Model. 2007, 14, 464–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Díaz-Narváez, V.P. Methodology of Scientific Research and Biostatistics for Professionals and Students of Health Sciences; Editorial UEES: San Salvador, El Salvador, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  64. Dagnino, J. Multiple comparisons. Rev. Chil. Anest. 2014, 43, 311–312. [Google Scholar]
  65. Cárdenas, M.; Arancibia, H. Statistical Power and Effect Size Calculating in G*Power: Complementary Analysis of Statistical Significance Testing and its Application in Psychology. Salud Sociedad. 2014, 5, 210–224. [Google Scholar]
  66. Di Lillo, M.; Cicchetti, A.; Lo Scalzo, A.; Taroni, F.; Hojat, M. The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: Preliminary psychometrics and group comparisons in Italian physicians. Acad. Med. 2009, 84, 1198–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Cid Gutiérrez, S.; Urrutia, M. Empathy development in university students in Economy fields. Cuad. Investig. Educ. 2022, 13, 59–78. [Google Scholar]
  68. Tóth-Király, I.; Neff, K.D. Is Self-Compassion Universal? Support for the Measurement Invariance of the Self-Compassion Scale Across Populations. Assessment 2021, 28, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Díaz, V.P.; Pedrero, V.; Reyes, A.; Padilla, M.; González-Martínez, F.; Huberman, J.; Calzadilla-Núñez, A.; Silva-Vetri, M.G.; Villalba, S.B.; Ulloque, M.J.; et al. The Jefferson Scale of Empathy: Measurement properties, underlying components, norms, and cutoff points in dentistry students in Latin America. A multicentric study. Interciencia 2021, 46, 169–176. [Google Scholar]
  70. Martí, J.J.; Martí-Vilar, M.; Almerich, G. University Social Responsibility: Influence of values and empathy on self-attribution of socially responsible behaviors. Rev. Latinoam. Psicol. 2014, 46, 160–168. [Google Scholar]
  71. Hernández, R.M. Empathy: A necessity in higher education. Educ. Médica 2019, 20 (Suppl. S1), 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ibarra, L.M.; Fonseca, C.D.; Santiago, R. University social responsibility. Mission and social impacts. Sinéctica 2020, 54, e1008. [Google Scholar]
  73. Díaz-Narváez, V.P.; Erazo Coronado, A.M.; Bilbao, J.L.; González, F.; Padilla, M.; Calzadilla-Núñez, A.; Silva-Vetri, M.G.; Arboleda, J.; Bullen, M.; Utsman, R.; et al. Reconsidering the ‘Decline’ of Dentistry Student Empathy within the Course in Latin America. Acta Med. Port. 2017, 30, 775–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Samarasekera, D.D.; Lee, S.S.; Yeo, S.P.; Ponnamperuma, G. Development of student empathy during medical education: Changes and the influence of context and training. Korean J. Med. Educ. 2022, 34, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Oderinu, O.H.; Adegbulugbe, I.C.; Orenuga, O.O.; Butali, A. Comparison of students’ perception of problem-based learning and traditional teaching method in a Nigerian dentistry school. Eur. J. Dent. Educ. 2020, 24, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Akbar, Z.; Khan, R.A.; Khan, H.F.; Yasmeem, R. Development and validation of an instrument to measure the Micro-Learning Environment of Students (MLEM). BMC Med. Educ. 2023, 23, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Alcota, M.; Salinas, J.C.; Cornejo-Ovalle, M.; Ruiz de Gauna, P.; González, F.E. Factors influencing professionalism during dentistry training at the University of Chile: Perception of students and patients. BMC Med. Educ. 2023, 23, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gómez, C. Development and validation of a questionnaire to evaluate clinical odontological teaching in FES Iztacala UNAM. Rev. Odont. Mex. 2008, 12, 120–125. [Google Scholar]
  79. Raja, S.; Shah, R.; Hamad, J.; Van Kanegan, M.; Kupershmidt, A.; Kruthoff, M. Patients’ Perceptions of Dehumanization of Patients in Dentistry School Settings: Implications for Clinic Management and Curriculum Planning. J. Dent. Educ. 2015, 79, 1201–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Naguib, G.H.; Sindi, A.M.; Attar, M.H.; Alshouibi, E.N.; Hamed, M.T. A Cross-Sectional Study of Empathy Among Dentistry Students at King Abdulaziz University. J. Dent. Educ. 2020, 84, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Detsomboonrat, P.; Theppanich, S.; Banyen, S.; Hongviphat, S.; Lapauthaya, K.; Khamnil, Y.; Somboonsavatdee, S.; Nay, S. Empathy level towards patients among thai dentistry students: A cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2023, 23, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Harenski, C.L.; Antonenko, O.; Shane, M.S.; Kiehl, K.A. Gender differences in neural mechanisms underlying moral sensitivity. Soc. Cogn. Affect Neurosci. 2008, 3, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mestre, M.V.; Samper, P.; Frías, M.D.; Tur, A.M. Are women more empathetic than men? A longitudinal study in adolescence. Span. J. Psychol. 2009, 12, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Michalska, K.J.; Kinzler, K.D.; Decety, J. Age-related sex differences in explicit measures of empathy do not predict brain responses across childhood and adolescence. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2013, 3, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Huberman, J.; Rodríguez, M.P.; González, S.; Díaz-Narváez, V.P. Levels of Empathic Orientation Dental Students of the Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago (Chile). Rev. Clin. Periodoncia Implantol. Rehabil. Oral 2014, 7, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the empathy scale in university students.
Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the empathy scale in university students.
Behavsci 14 00817 g001
Figure 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Empathy Scale in Professors.
Figure 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Empathy Scale in Professors.
Behavsci 14 00817 g002
Table 1. Invariance indexes according to the university campus of the students.
Table 1. Invariance indexes according to the university campus of the students.
Invariance Modelsχ2dfpSRMRTLICFIRMSEA [CI 90%]Δχ2ΔdfpΔRMSEA
Total sample495.34166<0.0010.0350.9240.9340.038 [0.034–0.041]
Santiago312.35166<0.0010.0350.9260.9350.035 [0.029–0.041]
Concepción264.19166<0.0010.0600.9010.9080.050 [0.039–0.061]
Viña del Mar258.13166<0.0010.0400.9480.9540.033 [0.025–0.040]
Configural831.36498<0.0010.0410.9290.9380.037 [0.032–0.041]
Metric927.41532<0.0010.0520.9200.9260.039 [0.035–0.043]92.50340.0000.002
Scalar1116.99566<0.0010.0570.8960.8970.045 [0.041–0.048]206.87340.0000.005
Strict2019.12606<0.0010.1000.7490.7330.069 [0.066–0.073]769.88400.0000.025
Note: χ2 = Chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CI = Confidence interval; Δχ2 = Differences in Chi square; Δdf = Differences in degrees of freedom; ΔRMSEA = Change in Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
Table 2. Invariance indexes according to the sex of the students and the sex by university campus.
Table 2. Invariance indexes according to the sex of the students and the sex by university campus.
Invariance Modelsχ2dfpSRMRTLICFIRMSEA [CI 90%]Δχ2ΔdfpΔRMSEA
Configural680.09332<0.0010.0390.9190.9300.039 [0.034–0.043]
Metric713.17349<0.0010.0430.9190.9260.039 [0.034–0.043]33.20170.0100.000
Scalar773.23366<0.0010.0440.9150.9180.040 [0.036–0.043]65.76170.0000.001
Strict1048.43386<0.0010.0660.8690.8670.049 [0.046–0.053]292.85200.0000.009
Santiago
Configural483.98332<0.0010.0430.9240.9340.036 [0.028–0.042]
Metric513.17349<0.0010.0500.9210.9270.036 [0.029–0.043]28.29170.0410.001
Scalar573.39366<0.0010.0520.9050.9090.040 [0.033–0.046]66.75170.0000.003
Strict873.33386<0.0010.1020.7990.7960.058 [0.053–0.063]2032.49200.0000.018
Concepción
Configural524.91332<0.0010.0770.8150.8380.068 [0.056–0.780]
Metric556.41349<0.0010.0890.8080.8240.069 [0.058–0.079]30.56170.0220.001
Scalar575.06366<0.0010.0910.8160.8230.067 [0.057–0.078]18.40170.363−0.001
Strict567.93386<0.0010.0960.8380.8360.063 [0.052–0.074]12.99200.877−0.004
Viña del mar
Configural467.76332<0.0010.0490.9260.9350.038 [0.030–0.046]
Metric478.67349<0.0010.0520.9330.9380.037 [0.028–0.045]10.83170.864−0.002
Scalar497.60366<0.0010.0520.9350.9380.036 [0.028–0.044]18.01170.388−0.001
Strict501.45386<0.0010.0560.9410.9410.034 [0.025–0.042]17.88200.595−0.002
Note: χ2 = Chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Ap-proximation; CI = Confidence interval; Δχ2 = Differences in Chi square; Δdf = Differences in degrees of freedom; ΔRMSEA = Change in Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
Table 3. Invariance indexes based on the professor’s sex.
Table 3. Invariance indexes based on the professor’s sex.
Invariance Modelsχ2dfpSRMRTLICFIRMSEA [CI 90%]Δχ2ΔdfpΔRMSEA
Configural525.03332<0.0010.0730.8420.8620.068 [0.056–0.078]
Metric547.25349<0.0010.0830.8430.8560.067 [0.056–0.078]23.14170.1440.000
Scalar583.47366<0.0010.0870.8370.8430.069 [0.058–0.079]36.88170.0030.001
Strict613.91386<0.0010.1000.8220.8190.072 [0.061–0.082]31.32200.0510.003
Note: χ2 = Chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; TLI = Tucker–Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; Δχ2 = Differences in Chi square; Δdf = Differences in degrees of freedom; ΔRMSEA = Change in Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.
Table 4. Results of estimating means and standard deviations of empathy and its dimensions by campus and sex.
Table 4. Results of estimating means and standard deviations of empathy and its dimensions by campus and sex.
CampusSexM (CC)SD (CC)M
(PA)
SD
(PA)
M (WIPS)SD (WIPS)M
(E)
SD
(E)
n
SantiagoMale42.037.37559.667.0688.122.618109.8113.073261
Female43.856.97460.837.5258.472.768113.1512.816534
Total43.267.15460.457.3958.352.723112.0612.987795
ConcepciónMale39.2210.70460.368.3647.663.201107.2414.995105
Female44.116.83161.916.7238.493.026114.5112.325160
Total42.178.88761.307.4418.163.118111.6313.884265
Viña del MarMale39.839.71961.028.1157.973.121108.8215.482193
Female42.979.15362.867.7428.813.495114.6414.837474
Total42.069.42062.337.8908.573.410112.9615.245667
TotalMale40.748.98660.267.7047.982.913108.9814.317559
Female43.537.92161.807.5648.613.118113.9413.6181168
Total42.638.37961.307.6418.413.067112.3414.0361727
Note: CC: Compassionate Care; PA: Perspective Adoption; WIPS: “Walking in the Patient’s Shoes”; E: empathy; M: media; SD: standard deviation: n: the sample size.
Table 5. Results of the variance analysis between campuses, between sexes, and estimation of the interaction between campus and sex of students and professors.
Table 5. Results of the variance analysis between campuses, between sexes, and estimation of the interaction between campus and sex of students and professors.
Variation SourcesStudentsProfessors
F Testpη21 − βF Testpη21 − β
E.
Course (Cov)19.2110.00050.0110.992
Campus0.5790.5610.0010.1470.3050.7380.0020.098
Sex48.0860.00050.0271.0012.5920.00050.0460.942
Campus by Sex2.2540.1050.0030.4600.8190.4420.0060.189
CC
Course (Cov)2.5140.00050.0130.998
Campus4.3630.0130.0050.7560.5160.5970.0040.135
Sex48.0770.00050.0271.0011.0500.0010.0410.912
Campus by Sex3.3880.0340.0040.6391.6020.2040.0120.337
PA
Course (Cov)2.9730.0850.0020.407
Campus8.5080.00050.0100.9670.1010.9040.0010.065
Sex12.5960.00050.0070.9444.8820.0280.0180.595
Campus by Sex0.2570.7740.00050.0910.0770.9260.0010.062
WIPS
Course (Cov)6.1220.0130.0040.696
Campus1.0860.3380.0010.2420.3010.7400.0020.098
Sex14.9050.00050.0090.9719.9800.0020.0370.882
Campus by Sex1.1520.3160.0010.2540.6690.5130.0050.162
Note: CC. Compassionate Care; PA. Perspective Adoption; WIPS: “Walking in the Patient’s Shoes”; E: empathy; Cov: Covariate; η2: Partial Eta Squared; 1 − β: Observed Power.
Table 6. Estimating mean and standard deviation of empathy and its dimensions in examined professors.
Table 6. Estimating mean and standard deviation of empathy and its dimensions in examined professors.
CampusSexM (CC)SD
(CC)
M
(PA)
SD
(PA)
M (WIPS)SD (WIPS)M
(E)
SD
(E)
n
SantiagoMale44.537.32160.326.70510.982.899115.8312.43953
Female45.647.73362.118.67411.752.531119.4915.45375
Total45.187.55661.377.93911.432.705117.9814.345128
ConcepciónMale42.896.78160.426.59410.372.872113.6812.76319
Female47.417.29763.147.30812.101.970122.6611.18129
Total45.627.37162.067.09011.422.491119.1012.51148
Viña del MarMale43.917.96260.326.10711.182.192115.4112.73244
Female48.266.81962.729.13111.962.734122.9416.46447
Total46.157.66961.567.86711.582.504119.3015.17691
TotalMale44.037.44860.346.40910.962.639115.3212.515116
Female46.797.42462.508.53411.882.490121.1715.069151
Total45.597.54661.567.74411.482.592118.6314.291267
Note: CC: Compassionate Care; PA: Perspective Adoption; WIPS: “Walking in the Patient’s Shoes”; E: empathy; M: media; SD: standard deviation; n: the sample size.
Table 7. Results of comparing empathy levels and its dimensions between students and teachers considering their faculty as a unit.
Table 7. Results of comparing empathy levels and its dimensions between students and teachers considering their faculty as a unit.
VariablesVariances of GroupsFptpd
EmpathyEqual variances1.380.244−6.720.00050.44
CCEqual variances4.0870.043−5.390.00050.37
PAEqual variances0.9840.321−0.4640.6430.03
WIPSUnequal variances14.440.0005−17.440.00050.39
Note: CC. Compassionate Care; PA. Perspective Adoption; WIPS: “Walking in the Patient’s Shoes”; Levene F test; t: t-Student test, Cohen’s d.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Díaz-Narváez, V.P.; Huberman-Casas, J.; Nakouzi-Momares, J.A.; Alarcón-Ureta, C.; Jaramillo-Cavieres, P.A.; Espinoza-Retamal, M.; Klahn-Acuña, B.P.; Epuyao-González, L.; Leiton Carvajal, G.; Padilla, M.; et al. Levels of Empathy in Students and Professors with Patients in a Faculty of Dentistry. Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090817

AMA Style

Díaz-Narváez VP, Huberman-Casas J, Nakouzi-Momares JA, Alarcón-Ureta C, Jaramillo-Cavieres PA, Espinoza-Retamal M, Klahn-Acuña BP, Epuyao-González L, Leiton Carvajal G, Padilla M, et al. Levels of Empathy in Students and Professors with Patients in a Faculty of Dentistry. Behavioral Sciences. 2024; 14(9):817. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090817

Chicago/Turabian Style

Díaz-Narváez, Víctor P., Joyce Huberman-Casas, Jorge Andrés Nakouzi-Momares, Chris Alarcón-Ureta, Patricio Alberto Jaramillo-Cavieres, Maricarmen Espinoza-Retamal, Blanca Patricia Klahn-Acuña, Leonardo Epuyao-González, Gabriela Leiton Carvajal, Mariela Padilla, and et al. 2024. "Levels of Empathy in Students and Professors with Patients in a Faculty of Dentistry" Behavioral Sciences 14, no. 9: 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090817

APA Style

Díaz-Narváez, V. P., Huberman-Casas, J., Nakouzi-Momares, J. A., Alarcón-Ureta, C., Jaramillo-Cavieres, P. A., Espinoza-Retamal, M., Klahn-Acuña, B. P., Epuyao-González, L., Leiton Carvajal, G., Padilla, M., Vilca, L. W., Reyes-Reyes, A., & Reyes-Reyes, F. (2024). Levels of Empathy in Students and Professors with Patients in a Faculty of Dentistry. Behavioral Sciences, 14(9), 817. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14090817

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop