Show simple item record

Interpersonal reactivity index adaptation among expectant seroconcordant couples with HIV in Zambézia Province, Mozambique

dc.contributor.authorSack, Daniel E.
dc.contributor.authorFrisby, Michael B.
dc.contributor.authorDiemer, Matthew A.
dc.contributor.authorDe Schacht, Caroline
dc.contributor.authorGraves, Erin
dc.contributor.authorKipp, Aaron M.
dc.contributor.authorEmílio, Almiro
dc.contributor.authorMatino, Ariano
dc.contributor.authorBarreto, Ezequiel
dc.contributor.authorVan Rompaey, Sara
dc.contributor.authorWallston, Kenneth A.
dc.contributor.authorAudet, Carolyn M.
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-10T18:47:56Z
dc.date.available2022-08-10T18:47:56Z
dc.date.issued2020-08-28
dc.identifier.citationBMC Psychology. 2020 Aug 28;8(1):90
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00442-0
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/173988en
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background The ability to understand another’s emotions and act appropriately, empathy, is an important mediator of relationship function and health intervention fidelity. We adapted the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) – an empathy scale – among seroconcordant expectant couples with HIV in the Homens para Saúde Mais (HoPS+) trial – a cluster randomized controlled trial assessing couple-based versus individual treatment on viral suppression – in Zambézia Province, Mozambique. Methods Using baseline data from 1332 HoPS+ trial participants (666 couples), an exploratory factor analysis assessed culturally relevant questions from the IRI. Because empathy is interdependent among couples, we validated the results of the exploratory factor analysis using a dyadic confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with dyadic measurement invariance testing. Finally, we assessed the relationship between scores on our final scale and basic demographic characteristics (sex, age, education, and depression) using t-tests. Results We found two subscales: 1) a seven-item cognitive empathy subscale (Cronbach’s alpha 0.78) and 2) a six-item affective empathy subscale (Cronbach’s alpha 0.73). The dyadic CFA found acceptable model fit and metric invariance across partners (Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.914, Tucker Lewis Index = 0.904, Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation = 0.056, ΔCFI = 0.011). We observed higher cognitive (p: 0.012) and affective (p: 0.049) empathy among males and higher cognitive (p: 0.031) and affective (p: 0.030) empathy among younger participants. More educated participants had higher affective empathy (p: 0.017) and depressed participants had higher cognitive empathy (p: < 0.001). This two-subscale, 13-item version of the IRI measures cognitive and affective empathy in HoPS+ trial participants and adults while accounting for the interdependent nature of empathy within partner dyads. Conclusions This scale will allow us to assess the interplay between empathy and other psychometric constructs (stigma, social support, etc.) in the HoPS+ trial and how each relates to retention in HIV, adherence to treatment, and prevention of maternal to child HIV transmission. Furthermore, this scale can be adapted for other sub-Saharan African populations, which will allow researchers to better assess HIV-related intervention efficacy. Trial registration This study is within the context of the HoPS+ trial, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as number NCT03149237 . Registered May 11, 2017.
dc.titleInterpersonal reactivity index adaptation among expectant seroconcordant couples with HIV in Zambézia Province, Mozambique
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/173988/1/40359_2020_Article_442.pdf
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.7302/5719
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)
dc.date.updated2022-08-10T18:47:55Z
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe its collections in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in them. We encourage you to Contact Us anonymously if you encounter harmful or problematic language in catalog records or finding aids. More information about our policies and practices is available at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.