Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
THERAPY STUDENTS”
2013-2017
Project Work by
GOKUL .S
Guided by
Vice Principal
CHENNAI
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. Gokul .S bearing the Register No :781316016 has satisfactory
completed his project work On “To find the level of Empathy in final year Occupational
therapy students” which is partial fulfillment of Bachelor’s Degree in Occupational Therapy
2013-2017, at KMCH College of Occupational Therapy, affiliated to The Tamil Nadu Dr
.M.G.R. Medical University ,Chennai.
Date of Submission :
The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the support and help
of many people, not all of whom can be acknowledged here but to whom I will, nonetheless, be
forever grateful.
First and foremost, I thank my beloved parents, Mr.Srinivasan.K and Mrs.Latha.S for
their unconditional love, sincere prayers, unstinted support and care without which I would not
have accomplished anything.
I thank my God for always watching upon me with grace to fulfill this endeavor.
I also extend my gratitude to Mrs. Sugi MOT for her timely suggestion and for helping
me in statistical analysis unmindful of her schedule.
With due respect, I thank my Class in-Charge Mrs. Lynda George, BOT for being
supportive throughout the project.
1 ABSTRACT
2 INTRODUCTION
4 RELATED LITERATURE
5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
6 METHODOLOGY
7 DATE ANALYSIS
8 DISCUSSION
9 CONCLUSION
10 REFERENCES
11 APPENDIX
ABSTRACT
Aim:
Methods:
Results:
All the participants have had high level empathy. Comparing male and female, females
were having high level empathy than males.
Conclusion:
The study conclude that final year occupational therapy students have a good level of
empathy.
INTRODUCTION:
Empathy is the ability to listen, understand another’s needs and circumstances and
express that understanding. (WHO)
The cognitive domain of empathy involves the ability to understand another person’s
inner experiences and feelings and a capability to view the outside world from the other
person’s perspective. Such a cognitive component is also amenable to training and, thus,
medical intuitions can play a positive role in the development of student’s understanding about
empathy. The emotional domain involves the capacity to enter into or join the experiences and
feelings of another person. The emotional relationships that elicit emotional response are
conceptually more relevant to sympathy than to empathy.
Empathy has been described as a multi-dimensional construct, comprising two main
domains: an affective capacity to be sensitive to and concerned for another person and a
cognitive capacity to understand and appreciate the other person’s perspective. In a clinical
context, it has been suggested that the cognitive component also includes the ability to
communicate that understanding. Empathy is considered to be normally distributed amongst the
general population, whilst studies both of the general population and of medical students
suggest that females are more empathetic than males. Difficulties in measurement may be
partly responsible for this mixed picture. Systematic reviews of research on empathy in
medicine have highlighted problems relating to the variety and number of measures used the
failure to present evidence supporting their reliability and validity and the failure to indicate
whether the affective or cognitive aspects of empathy are being addressed.
• AIM:
To find the Level of Empathy in Final Year Occupational Therapy Students.
• OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate the level of empathy using Jefferson scale of Empathy-HPS version
(Health professional students version) in final year Occupational Therapy Students.
RELATED LITERATURE
Through functional MRI studies Derntl et al. (2010) identified gender differences
within three components of empathy (emotion recognition, perspective taking, and affective
responsiveness). In the context of patient care, Olson (1995) defined empathy as ‘the skill of
understanding what a patient is saying and feeling, and communicating this understanding
verbally to a patient’s. Expanding upon Olson’s conceptualization, we adapted the definition of
empathy as a predominantly cognitive attribute that involves an understanding of patients’
experiences combined with a capacity to communicate this understanding and an intention to
provide help to the patient (Fields et al., 2004; Hojat et al., 2001, 2002).
A number of authors (e.g., Alligood 1992; Hojat 2009; Nerdrum 1997) have
suggested that empathy in healthcare providers can be developed through basic and
graduate professional education and/or supported through continuing education efforts for
practitioners. Accordingly, many educators incorporated the development of empathic skills
as the basis of therapeutic communication into health professional curricula to help students
and practitioners progress towards a higher degree of empathy (e.g., Davis, 1983; Harlak et
al., 2008; Svensen & Bergland, 2007).
There have been studies of practitioners and students across the professions for
other elements related to professionalism (Veloski & Hojat, 2006). For example,
attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration among physicians and nurses as well
as other members of the healthcare team have been studied extensively worldwide
(Fields et al., 2004; Hojat et al., 2003b; Hojat & Gonnella,2011; Hong, Wright, Gagliardi,
Brown, & Dobrow, 2009; Linqvist, Duncan, Shepstone, Watts & Pearce, 2005).
Comparisons across cultures have also been conducted (Hojat et al., 2003b). Although
teamwork is vital to safety and effectiveness, assessment of interprofessional teamwork in
most healthcare settings, especially the critical care areas such as the operating room,
emergency room, and intensive care units in the hospital, has been extremely difficult to
accomplish due to the complex nature of patient care and personal characteristics of each
participating profession (Healey, Undre, Sevdalis, Koutantji & Vincent, 2006).
Studies by health professionals suggest that empathic engagement in patient care can
lead to better patient compliance (DiMatteo et al., 1993); More accurate prognosis (Dubnicki,
1977), and increased patient satisfaction (Zachariae et al., 2003). In a clinical outcome study, it
was found that nurses’ empathic engagement in patient care was predictive of reduced anxiety,
depression, and hostility in cancer patients (LaMonica, Wolf, Madea & Oberst1987).
Consistent with these findings, Sullivan (1990) reported that empathic nurse–patient
communication resulted in decreased levels of stress among patients and also served as a
buffer against potential psychological and health-related problems among nurses. Recently, a
significant link was found between physician empathy and optimal physiologic outcomes in
diabetic patients (Hojat et al., 2011).
There is extensive research documenting benefits of empathy to both patients and their
health care professionals (Wilson, Prescott & Becket, 2012). In patients, cognitive benefits such
as reduction in depression, anxiety and stress levels have been observed (Fields et al. 2011), as
well as improved adherence to treatment regimens and better patient satisfaction (Wilson et al.
2012).Amongst healthcare professionals, higher levels of empathy have been reported to be
closely related to improved clinical competence ratings, accurate diagnosis, better performance
on history taking and higher ratings of job satisfaction (Farrelly, 2012; Tavakol, Dennick &
Tavakol, 2012; Tel, Mollaoglu, Polatkan & Gunaltay, 2011).
Importantly, high empathy levels have also been associated with a decrease in likelihood
of litigation against health professionals (Fjortoft, Van Winkle & Hojat 2011). In recent years,
technological advancement has introduced equipment that can be operated without interaction
between the practitioner and patient. Therefore, an empathetic relationship is important in
bridging the gap between patients and practitioners (Wilson et al. 2012, Gonullu & Oztuna
2012).
Research has shown that empathy an acquired skill, rather than purely an innate ability -
can be facilitated through teaching; therefore it is not surprising that empathy forms part of the
patient- centered approach that is taught in the undergraduate curricula of many healthcare
professions (Spiro 1992; Williams et al 2014).
Globally, much research on empathy has focused on medical and nursing students
(Nunes, Williams, Sa & Stevenson, 2011). Empathy is an important aspect in non-medical
health professions and recommendations have been made to include training of the skill in
allied health sciences curricula (Hojat et al. 2009). However, little empirical research has
focused on empathy levels in allied health students (Hojat et al. 2009). Research development
has been slow because of confusions in defining and conceptualizing empathy; as well as a
lack of agreement on an instrument that is both reliable and valid to measure empathy (Hojat
et al. 2009). These same challenges have been observed within the African and South African
context (Vallabh 2011; Dehning et al. 2012).
Scant research on empathy has been done within the South African context, with only
one study having been conducted in undergraduate medical students in South Africa, which
used the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (Vallabh 2011). This lack of empathy research
in South Africa suggests the need for further research to be conducted amongst allied Health
Sciences students. Differences in cultures, ethnicity, gender and sex stereotyping, choice of
profession, religious beliefs and norms all contribute to how empathic engagement unfolds in
different settings (Vallabh 2008; Gonullu & Oztuna 2012). Therefore, it is important to study
levels of empathy in a South African context because of its own unique social strata that
influence how one shows empathy towards others. The current study attempts to start
bridging the gap in current literature by focusing specifically on researching empathy levels
in audiology and speech therapy students at a South African university (Boyle et al. 2010).
Factors which influence levels of Empathy:
It is possible that cultural traditions and norms may impact empathy levels. For
example, high levels of empathy were observed in Japanese medical students; and this was
attributed to Japan’s collectivist society influence, science orientation and the inclusion of
humanities courses in their medical curriculum (Wilson et al. 2012).
Thus, although research is limited, there has been a common observation of a decline in
empathy levels with clinical training amongst allied health students, medical and nursing
students. Possible reasons for eroding levels of empathy include patient factors, the
encouragement of detachment and a lack of appropriate modeling of empathic skills from
teaching clinicians (Hojat et al. 2009).
Measurement of empathy:
The above measures lack face and content validities for administration to health
profession students (Hojat, 2007). La Monica(1981) developed the Empathy Construct
Rating Scale which measures respondents feelings toward another person, but it cannot
be administered to health professions students as a self-report empathy measure, as it requires
reporting by an observer which is time consuming and costly.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Nancy Fjortoft, Lon J. Van Winkle, and Mohammadreza Hojat, conducted a study
on “Measuring empathy in pharmacy students”. This study conducted to find out the level
of empathy in pharmacy students using the Jefferson scale of empathy- health profession
student’s version (JSE-HPS). This study concluded that the construct validity and reliability of
the JSE-HPS for measuring empathy in pharmacy students.
Sylvia K. Fields, Pamela Mahan, Paula Tillman, Jefffrey Harris, Kaye Maxwell
and Mohammadreza Hojat conducted a study on Measuring empathy in healthcare
profession students using the Jefferson scale of physician empathy: Health provider-
student version: this study conducted to explore the descriptive and correlation study for
psychometric analyses of the adapted empathy scale. And it was part of a longitudinal
investigation to examine changes in empathy during and at the end of student’s professional
education. This study concluded that the results were supports the measurement properties of
the JSE-HPS version are encouraging.
Daniel Chen, MD, Robert Lew, PhD, Warren Hershman, MD, MPH, and Jay
Orlander, MD, MPH, conducted a study on “A cross-sectional measurement of medical
student empathy”. This study conducted to find out the level of empathy in medical students.
This study concluded that empathy score of student’s preclinical years were higher than in the
clinical years. Efforts are needed to determine whether differences in score among the classes
are cohort effects or represent changes occurring in the course of medical education.
Hulya Yucel, Gonul Acar conducted a study on levels of empathy among
undergraduate physiotherapy students: A cross-sectional study at two universities in
Istanbul. This study conducted to determine differences of levels of empathy among
undergraduates in each year of their four-year programs of physiotherapy. This study shows
that empathy score in both universities increased to a significant degree after school entrance
and decreased in the final year. Levels of empathy did not change according to gender,
specialty interest, or home-region. This study concluded that the points to the need for
physiotherapy curricula that would enhance empathy and give students practice in exhibiting
valuable attribute.
Lis McKenna, Malcolm Boyle, Ted Brown, Brett Williams, Andrew Molloy,
Belinda Lewis, Liz Molloy (2012) conducted a study on levels of empathy in undergraduate
nursing students. This study conducted to explore empathy levels and regard for specific
medical conditions in undergraduate nursing students. This study concluded that the Nursing
students demonstrated acceptable empathy levels. Attitudes towards patients who abuse
substances highlight an area that needs both further exploration and addressing. Attitudes
towards mental health diagnoses were particularly favorable given that these often attract
stigma and negative attitudes.
Christine Rogers, Zenzo Chakara Romy Cohen Kelsey Fourie, Danielle
Gounder, Nyasha Makaruse conducted a study on Levels of empathy in speech therapy
and audiology undergraduate students. This study conducted to exploring empathy levels
among Health Sciences students; however, little research has been conducted with students on
the African continent. The current study sought to establish the levels of empathy of all
Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology students enrolled at the University of Cape Town.
The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy-Health Profession Student version (JSE-HPS) was
used to assess levels of empathy among students across all years of study. Results were
analyzed in terms of year of study, gender and degree program. Students entered both
Programs with a positive attitude towards empathy, and this was sustained throughout their
training, although gender differences existed with male students expressing less orientation
towards empathy. Implications are discussed in the light of a South African context.
METHODOLOGY:
SELECTION CRITERIA
INCLUSION CRITERIA:
EXCLUSION CRITERIA:
The Jefferson scale of Empathy (JSE) to measure empathy in physicians and other
health professionals.
Versions:
PROCEDURE:
Participants surpassing all inclusion criteria will be selected for the study.Written
consent has to obtain from the participants. Survey method was adopted for the study. Data’s
are obtained from the subjects using the Jefferson Scale of Empathy (HPS-Version)
(JSE-HP-S). Results will be subjected to statistical analysis.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Both descriptive and non parametric (inferential) statistics were performed using The
Statistical Package for Social Science Version 20.0(SPSS® Inc., Chicago, IL., USA) was used for
data storage, tabulation and the generation of inferential statistics. Frequencies, percentages,
mean, standard deviations, median were also calculated. The data generated by the JSE-HPS is
ordinal therefore, the non parametric Mann-Whitney U- Test, Krusal- Wallis test were used to
measure the difference between gender and age groups. The results were considered statistically
significant if the p- value is 0.05.
NUMBER OF STANDERED
VARIABLES PERCENTAGE MEAN
SAMPLES DEVIATION
TOTAL SCORE
OF 50 100% 106.46 10.86
JSE-HPS
TOTAL SCORE
OF MALES 16 32% 101.63 12.258
JSE-HPS
TOTAL SCORE
OF FEMALES 34 68% 108.74 9.510
JSE-HPS
JSE-HPS (Jefferson Scale of Empathy – Health Profession Students Version)
GRAPH.1
110
108
106
TOTAL
104
MALE
FEMALE
102
100
98
JSEHPS
Comparison of male and female empathy, females have high level empathy than male.
TABLE II:(Comparisons of different age groups of males & females)
NUMBER OF STANDERED
VARIABLES PERCENTAGE MEAN
SAMPLES DEVIATION
MF20 3 6% 118.67 6.658
MF21 24 48% 105.37 11.583
MF22 16 32% 105.38 9.294
MF23 7 14% 107.43 11.674
M – Males; F – Female;
GRAPH.2
120
115
110 MF20
MF21
MF22
105
MF23
100
95
JSEHPS
Comparison of different age groups of males & females, Age group of male and female belong
to the age group of 20 have high level empathy than other age groups.
TABLE III:(Comparison of different age groups of males)
NUMBER OF STANDERED
VARIABLES PERCENTAGE MEAN
SAMPLES DEVIATION
M21 5 31.25% 101.60 15.805
M22 8 50% 101 10.784
M23 3 18.75% 103.33 14.640
M – Males;
GRAPH.3
104
103.5
103
102.5
102 M21
M22
101.5
M23
101
100.5
100
99.5
JSEHPS
Comparison of different age groups of males, Males of the age group of 23 have high level
empathy comparing than other age groups.
TABLE IV: (Comparison of different age groups of females)
NUMBER OF STANDERED
VARIABLES PERCENTAGE MEAN
SAMPLES DEVIATION
F20 3 8.82% 118.67 6.658
F21 19 55.88% 106.37 10.531
F22 8 23.53% 109.75 5.007
F23 4 11.76% 110.50 10.017
F – Females;
GRAPH.4
120
118
116
114
112 F20
110 F21
F22
108
F23
106
104
102
100
JSEHPS
Comparison of different age groups of females, Females of the age group of 20 have high level
empathy than other age groups.
TABLE V:
MANN-WHITNEY U TEST
GRAPH V:
There is no significant difference (p =0.095) in the empathy level of males and females.
TABLE VI:
Comparing between different age groups of males and females
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
VARIABLES N MEAN STD. MINIMUM MAXIMUM
DEVIATION
MFJSEHPS 50 106.4600 10.86881 75.00 123.00
MFAGEGROUP 50 21.6000 .80812 20.00 23.00
MJSEHPS 16 101.6250 12.25765 75.00 119.00
MAGEGROUP 16 21.8750 .71880 21.00 23.00
FJSEHPS 34 108.7353 9.51015 86.00 123.00
FAGEGROUP 34 21.3824 .81704 20.00 23.00
TABLE VII:
Kruskal-Wallis Test
There is no significant difference between age groups and their empathy score.
GRAPH VI:
Y-Values
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60 Y-Values
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
X- N; Y-JSEHP Score.
Graph VI shows all the participants have had the score above 70, so all the participants are
having high level empathy.
TABLE VIII:
JSEHPS-FREQUENCY TABLE
Cumulative
VALUE Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent
75 1 2.0 2.0 2.0
85 1 2.0 2.0 4.0
86 2 4.0 4.0 8.0
90 1 2.0 2.0 10.0
93 3 6.0 6.0 16.0
95 1 2.0 2.0 18.0
97 1 2.0 2.0 20.0
99 2 4.0 4.0 24.0
101 2 4.0 4.0 28.0
103 3 6.0 6.0 34.0
104 1 2.0 2.0 36.0
105 1 2.0 2.0 38.0
107 3 6.0 6.0 44.0
108 4 8.0 8.0 52.0
110 1 2.0 2.0 54.0
111 9 18.0 18.0 72.0
112 2 4.0 4.0 76.0
114 3 6.0 6.0 82.0
116 1 2.0 2.0 84.0
118 1 2.0 2.0 86.0
119 1 2.0 2.0 88.0
120 2 4.0 4.0 92.0
122 1 2.0 2.0 94.0
123 3 6.0 6.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
Table VIII and Graph VII shows that 123 is the highest score of this study carried by
3(6%) individuals and lowest score of 75 carried by only one(2%) individual majority of
individuals{9(18%)} scored 111. Only one individual get’s 50-55% of JSEHPS Score, 4
individuals gets 61-65% of JSEHPS Score, 5 individual’s gets 66-70% of JSEHPS Score, 9
individuals gets 71-75% of JSEHPS Score, 19 individuals gets 76-80% of JSEHPS
Score, 6 individuals gets 81-85% of JSEHPS Score and 6 individuals gets 86-90% of
JSEHPS Score.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to find the level of Empathy in final year occupational
therapy students.
This study is the first to assess the level of empathy among undergraduate occupational
therapy students in India.
The survey was conducted on final year occupational therapy student, both genders
were included for this study and this study was done in KMCH collage of occupational therapy.
A total number of 50 samples were selected according to the inclusion criteria. The Jefferson
Scale of Empathy Health Professional Students -Version (JSE-HP-S) was used to measure the
level of empathy on final year undergraduate occupational therapy students.
JSEHPS consist of 20 items as self reported questionnaires Participants rate their level
of agreement with each statement on a 7-point Likert scale (Strongly disagree = 1, strongly
agree = 7). Ten of the 20 questions are negatively worded in order. This aims to decrease the
confounding effect of acquiescence responding. These questions were then reversed for
analysis. Results range from a minimum of 20 through to a maximum of 140. The higher the
score is, the higher the participant’s level of empathy.
First explain the purpose of the study to all the participants describing the definition and
as well as the procedure. The self reported paper based questionnaires were administered to
them for mark their response to measure the level of Empathy. The response caries with score
of 7 (strongly disagree to strongly agree).
A total of 50 undergraduate Occupational therapy students from the final year students
participated in this study (100% response rate). The majority of students was females (68%)
and was under the age of 21 years (55.88%). Total numbers of males were 16(32%) with the
age groups of 21-23 years {Age group of 21 years =5(31.25%), age group of 22 years = 8(50%)
and age group of 23 years =3(16.75%)}. Total numbers of females were 34(68%) and were
under the age group of 20-23 years {Age group of 20 years =3(8.82%), age group of 21
years=19(55.88%), age group of 22 years =8(23.53%) and age group of 23 years =4(11.76%)}.
Our finding results show that the overall participants in this study reported a good level
of empathy (Mean=106.46, SD= 10.86). However, this score is somewhat lower than other
studies involving with other healthcare professions. For instance, Fields et al.(2004) reported a
mean empathy of 117.2 among nurses and Hojat et al.(2003) reported a mean empathy of 124.0
among pediatricians.
From in this study findings were demonstrating females have higher level of empathy
than the males. But there were no statistically significant difference between the variables of
their age groups and their scores. Due to the un even grouping non parametric statistics like
Mann- Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis Test were used to assess the difference between
gender and age groups. Results were considered statistically significant if the p- value is less
than 0.05.
Comparison of mean value of the age groups of both male and females different age
group, male and female belongs to the age group of 20 has the high level empathy.(Mean=
118.67, SD=6.658)
Comparison of mean value of males different age groups, males belongs to age group of
23 has high level empathy. (Mean=103.33, SD=14.640).
Comparison of mean value of females different age groups, females belongs to age
group of 20 has high level empathy. (Mean=118.67, SD=6.658).
But there is no statistically significant difference between their age groups and gender.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study is to find out level of empathy in final year
occupational therapy students. The results of this study conclude that the
occupational therapy students have a good level empathy. Comparison of male
and females, females have high level empathy than male. But there is no
statistically significant difference found between different gender and age group.
These results are important as they shows the undergraduate occupational
therapy course as it currently stands, does not impact on occupational therapy
students’ empathy. Furthermore, if educators are to promote empathy. Further
investigations needed for this area as a longitudinal manner.
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
LIMITATIONS:
Small sample size.
Study was done only in one institution.
Only one scale was used.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Large sample size can be used.
Study can be conducted in more than one institution.
Study can be conducted to measure how empathy varies each year throughout the four
years of typical occupational therapy program as a longitudinal study.
Two or more standardized scales can be used.
REFERENCES
Nancy Firtoft, Lon J.Van Winkle, and Mohammadreza Hojat. Measuring Empathy in
Pharmacy Students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 2011; 75 (6) Article
109.
Christine Rogers, Zenzo Chakara, Romy Cohen et al. levels of empathy in speech therapy
and audiology undergraduate students training at the University of Cape Town 2015.
Lisa McKenna, Malcolm Boyle, Brett Williams et al. Levels of empathy in undergraduate
nursing students. International journal of nursing practice 2012; 18: 246-251.
Peter Hartley, Michael McCall, Paula McMullen et al. Paramedic Empathy Levels: Results
from Seven Australian Universities. International Journal of Emergency Services, 1(2),
111-121.
Christina Ouzouni, Konstantinos Nakakis. An Exploratory study of students nurses’
empathy volume 6, issue 3 (July – September 2012).
Yucel H, Acar G. Levels of empathy among undergraduate physiotherapy students: A cross
sectional study at two universities in Istanbul. Pak J Med Sci. 2016;32(1): 85-90.
Daniel Chen, Robert Lew, Warren Hershman et al. A cross sectional Measurement of
Medical Student Empathy. Society of general Internal Medicine 22(10);1434-8.
Sylvia K. Fields, Pamela Mahan, Paula Tillman et al. Measuring empathy in healthcare
profession students using the Jefferson Scale Of Physician Empathy: Health provider –
student version. Journal of interprofessional care, 2011, 25:287-293.
Hojat M, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, et al. The Jefferson Scale of Empathy: Development and
preliminary psychometric data. Educ Psychol Meas. 2001;61: 349-65.
Hojat M,Gonnella JS, Nasca TJ, mangione S, Vergare M, Magee M. The Jefferson Scale of
Physician Empathy: further psychometric data and difference by gender and specialty at
item level. Acad Med.2002; 77 (suppl); 58-60.
Aring, C. D. (1958). "Sympathy and empathy." J Am Med Assoc 167(4): 448-52.
Boyle, M., B. Williams, et al. (2010). "Levels of empathy in undergraduate health Science
students." Int J Med Educ 1 (1).
Hojat, M. (2007). Empathy in patient care: Antecedents, development, measurement,
and outcomes. Philadelphia, PA: Springer.
Hojat, M., Gonnella, J., Nasca, T.J., Mangione, S., Vergare, M., & Magee, M.
(2002) Physician empathy: Definition, components, measurement, and relationship to
gender and specialty. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 1563-1569.
e-REFERENCES
1. www.google.com
2. www.bing.com
3. www.sci-hub.ac
4. www.pubmed.com
5. www.googlescholar.com
APPENDIX-I
CONSENT FORM
The researcher has explained me about the procedure to fill empathy scale
and the question related to the research to my satisfaction.
PARTICIPENT’S SIGNATURE:
SIGNATURE OF WITNESS:
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCHER:
DATE:
PLACE:
APPENDIX-II
NAME:
AGE:
COLLEGE / DEPT:
Instructions:
Please indicate the extent of your agreement / disagreement with
each of the following statements about patient care below, by marking
the appropriate circle to the right of each statement.
Please use the following 7-point scale (a higher Number on the scale
indicates more agreement):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
Healthcare providers' understanding of their patients'
1. feelings and the feelings of their patients' families does not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
influence treatment outcomes
M-Male; F-Female.
MASTER CHART
S.NO NAME AGE GENDER JSEHPS
26. KOWSALYA.M 22 F 120
27. KRISHNA.N.S 21 M 75
28. LINDA ANNE JACOB 22 F 103
29. LIYANA AMEEN.K.V 23 F 101
30. MAYURI.R 21 F 86
31. MOHAMMED RISWAN.H 21 M 99
32. NELLAIAPPAN.V 22 M 99
33. PARASAKTHI.A 21 F 108
34. POORNA PRIYA.N 21 F 107
35. POURNAMI.P.V 21 F 111
36. PRAISY.E 21 F 108
37. PREETHI.A 21 F 111
38. RESHMI JENNIFER.R.S 21 F 105
39. SARANYA.S 21 F 118
40. SHERIN SURENDRAN 22 F 112
41. SHILPA ELIZABETH JACOB 22 F 110
42. SOFIYA.R 21 F 111
43. SWEET LINDA.P 21 F 120
44. TAMILARASI.P 21 F 116
45. VIDHYA.N 20 F 111
46. VINEETH TUMMALAPALLI 22 M 114
47. VINITHA.M 21 F 93
48. YAMIJALA VENKATA SAMEER KUMAR 22 M 111
49. PRIYANKA.G 22 F 111
50. GOPALAKRISHNAN.P 23 M 101
M-Male; F-Female.
APPENDIX-IV
TABLE I:
NUMBER OF STANDERED
VARIABLES PERCENTAGE MEAN
SAMPLES DEVIATION
TOTAL
SCORE OF 50 100% 106.46 10.86
JSE-HPS
TOTAL
SCORE OF
16 32% 101.63 12.258
MALES
JSE-HPS
TOTAL
SCORE OF
34 68% 108.74 9.510
FEMALES
JSE-HPS
JSE-HPS (Jefferson Scale of Empathy – Health Profession Students Version)
TABLE II:
NUMBER OF STANDERED
VARIABLES PERCENTAGE MEAN
SAMPLES DEVIATION
MF20 3 6% 118.67 6.658
MF21 24 48% 105.37 11.583
MF22 16 32% 105.38 9.294
MF23 7 14% 107.43 11.674
M – Males; F – Female;
TABLE III:
NUMBER OF STANDERED
VARIABLES PERCENTAGE MEAN
SAMPLES DEVIATION
M21 5 31.25% 101.60 15.805
M22 8 50% 101 10.784
M23 3 18.75% 103.33 14.640
M – Males;
TABLE IV:
NUMBER OF STANDERED
VARIABLES PERCENTAGE MEAN
SAMPLES DEVIATION
F20 3 8.82% 118.67 6.658
F21 19 55.88% 106.37 10.531
F22 8 23.53% 109.75 5.007
F23 4 11.76% 110.50 10.017
F – Females;